A Spoonful of Kool-Aid?
Spoons believes that the best long-term strategy for the conservative wing of the GOP is to throw Bush to the wolves in November and hope to do better in ‘08. My view is that if Bush loses this year for any reason, his loss will be widely interpreted as a broad repudiation of conservatism in general, not as a narrow repudiation of the “compassionate” semi-conservatism espoused by this administration. Should we do better in ‘08? I think so. Can we do better in ‘08? Depending on demographic shifts and unpredictable world events, maybe, and maybe not. Either way, we have a much better shot at improving our lot in ‘08 if we have a true conservative riding the coattails of an outgoing President, rather than challenging a well-entrenched incumbent.
Aside from being a bad political strategy for the G.O.P. and the conservative cause, I also think taking a dive this fall would be bad for the country as a whole. Four years of President Lieberman I could live with, but he’s not getting the nomination. Among the more realistic options, we have John Kerry, who voted in 1991 to let Saddam Hussein’s Iraq hold onto Kuwait, at a time when his WMD program was very extensive and nukes were just around the corner. Then we have Wesley Clark, who is so damned nuts he shouldn’t be trusted with his finger on the button for four minutes, let alone four years. And then there’s Howard Dean, who is both. Sorry, but that’s a price the American in me is unwilling to pay, no matter what political or strategic advantage the Republican in me may gain from it as a result.
Anyway, as you can see, I’m thoroughly unconvinced by Spoons’s proposed suicide solution. Nevertheless, I would encourage you to read his piece and the comments that follow. As always, his analysis is very thoughtful, and he does raise a number of very good points about the Bush Administration. It’s just the conclusion that is wrong.
January 28th, 2004 at 2:33 pm
Fair enough. One thing that I should always add, though, is that my view is premised on the idea (the reality), that we will have lots of Democrats, and lots of Republicans, as President in the future. That’s why I’m never swayed by the argument that we “can’t afford” a feckless Dem in the White House. We’ve had them before, and we’ll have them again. As conservatives, the best we can do is try to affect what kind of Republicans we’ll get, because we know all the Democrats will suck goats.
January 28th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
I was thinking of posting something along these lines myself. I think to some degree you are seeing a rift develop between fiscal and social conservatives, and this rift is widening. To social conservatives, the Senate and WH is all that matters; to fiscal conservatives, the WH isn’t as important just one house of the Congress. Either way, fiscal conservatives attitudes in this is probably the beginning of the end for the coalition.
January 28th, 2004 at 3:37 pm
Why we can’t replace Bush in 2004
I have nothing to add to this: Four years of President Lieberman I could live with, but he’s not getting the nomination. Among the more realistic options, we have John Kerry, who voted in 1991 to let Saddam Hussein’s Iraq…
January 28th, 2004 at 5:12 pm
The point isn’t to actually do it, but to put the Fear of God (that is, the Great Clam Spirit) into Bush, pushing his liberal ass back rightward.
Bush deserves to lose- the damage he’s done to our country and our cause over these last three years is monumental.
January 28th, 2004 at 8:55 pm
How about Edwards-Lieberman 2004?
I think it’s imperative to let Bush go back to Crawford. The Bush/Fox Amnesty is the last and heaviest straw. Consider this comment from a Bush assistant about his “guest worker” program:
If I had a 20 million dollar ad budget to replay that statement (and her cynical laugh about enforcing our laws) over and over, Bush would get 5% of the vote.
January 29th, 2004 at 7:49 pm
I agree with you, X, we can’t lay down in ‘04, hoping for better in ‘08.
If the Dems have one thing right, it’s the philosophy of winning–Winning is ALWAYS preferable to losing.
Win today, then focus on winning tomorrow. Never lose today, based on some delusional pipe dream of winning tomorrow. All in all, winning today is the best investment toward the goal of winning tomorrow.
In politics we can take a lesson from sports–the opposition never says, “Ok, you lost last time, we’ll give it to you this time.” Don’t believe me?, just ask the Buffalo Bills!
January 29th, 2004 at 8:03 pm
Yup. Agree. Winning better.
When the paranoiac part of my personality (a hefty part of it, as my friends know) thought Gore might win the post-election fracas in 2000, I spent a few days rationalizing that it would be good — since whoever took the White House would get blamed for the crappy economy and would be a one-termer.
After Bush’s win was finally official, I was very happy, and couldn’t believe I had tried to rationalize otherwise.
January 29th, 2004 at 8:06 pm
Lonewacko,
I agree with you that Bush is doing his level best to turn America into a northern province of Mexico.
You ignore, however, the fact that the Democrats have in mind even more ambitious goals to assist the reconquista of America.
The Dems would consider running the commercial you envision, except for the fact that Dems would want to add “CEOs” to the dream of “nurses, teachers, [&] high-tech workers” by the Bush staffer.
When our choice is between two great evils (closet-leftist Bush vs. flaming leftist Dem party), I prefer at least the lesser of the two.
January 30th, 2004 at 12:19 am
The Bush/Fox Amnesty is not popular with “Hispanics.” “Undocumented workers” are especially against it when told what it involves.
So, at least the pandering to “Hispanics” part of his amnesty didn’t work.
And, it’s alienated a large part of his base.
Bush is in a bit of trouble, and continuing to harp on the Amnesty thing by bloggers and pundits will make that worse and worse.
If Bush wants to win, he’ll have to take a pledge to be more conservative; being Dem hasn’t worked. Presumably Bush will want to win and will wake up in time. If not, oh well.
Alternatively, there’s a huge opportunity here for a Democrat who will stand up for our laws.
January 30th, 2004 at 12:58 am
Of course there is, but no Dem is going to take that opportunity. If Bush loses to any of the Dems who have a real chance of winning, the mandate will be for both parties to move further to the left.
January 31st, 2004 at 11:21 pm
There is too much blood in the water.
Bush and the neocons must go, because thier secretive supremist policies are failing America miserably at home and abroad regardless of the political pursuasion, and there is absolutely zero accountability.
Once these investigations (Plame, 9/11, Iraqi WMD hype, Cheney’s secret energy clique, republican hacking of democrat computers, etc.)start releasing thier findings - the myths and airy substantless delusions cloaking the Bush government will swiftly evaporate, and there will be a regime change here in America.
The political vectors will certainly move to the left of the present trajectories, - but if some kind of truce or peace can be arranged betweem the two warring parties and a genuine reconciliation and cessation of hostilities and divisiveness can be negotiated - American will return to a more centrist and balanced government and society, and we can all live happily ever after.
But, Bush must go.