When did the GOP lose touch with Reality?

[Ben]

A really great (and somewhat lengthy) post by lifelong conservative Republican and former W. Bush speechwriter David Frum about the GOP's descent into madness. An honest assessment from the inside of the intellectual collapse of a once vibrant party. It's a shame intellectual honesty has become such a rare commodity on the right. I hope they find their way back soon. I've only posted an excerpt here but I highly recommend the full piece.

"But the thought leaders on talk radio and Fox do more than shape opinion. Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy *errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action *phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) “the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.”

"We used to say “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.” Now we are all entitled to our own facts, and conservative media use this right to immerse their audience in a total environment of pseudo-facts and pretend information."

http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politi...-frum-2011-11/

David Frum is okay.... He's quite principled. (I like so-called conservatives who don't waver. One should stick firm to their beliefs. Again, Ron Paul is indicative of a principled politician. Albeit I disagree with Paul on a lot of his positions.) I mean, most politicians are opportunists. Whether they're so-called Dems or so-called Republicans. Anyway, they're essentially part of the same team. Although there are some differences. An acquaintance of mine said he doesn't vote because politicians, all politicians, serve their own interests. That's partly true. They serve their own power. And corporate power. All governments serve power structures.
Here's David Sirota: "... every politician on the national stage is an opportunist. As a rule, you don’t get to be a U.S. congressman, Senator or president without being a narcissistic, self-focused, would-fleece-your-own-mother-to-get-elected opportunist. In a sense, politics at that level is rarely ever about ideals and “good guys” and “bad guys” — it’s about a bunch of opportunists getting together and seeing whose self-interest wins."

[onmyknees]

Attention Blue Grass .....head to a dark room and and start a
re-evaluation of all you previously held dear. Two Democrats are about to tell you Why Obama is bad for your party. I'm sure we can expect your mea culpa................tomorrow? Get Real man.

• 
  By PATRICK H. CADDELL
  AND DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN

When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.
He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president's administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.
Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president's political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.
Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.
Enlarge Image


Close



Associated Press Secretary of State Hillary Clinton



President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president's performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll.
Consequently, he has to make the case that the Republicans, who have garnered even lower ratings in the polls for their unwillingness to compromise and settle for gridlock, represent a more risky and dangerous choice than the current administration—an argument he's clearly begun to articulate.
One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be "guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it." The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline.
If President Obama were to withdraw, he would put great pressure on the Republicans to come to the table and negotiate—especially if the president singularly focused in the way we have suggested on the economy, job creation, and debt and deficit reduction. By taking himself out of the campaign, he would change the dynamic from who is more to blame—George W. Bush or Barack Obama?—to a more constructive dialogue about our nation's future.
Even though Mrs. Clinton has expressed no interest in running, and we have no information to suggest that she is running any sort of stealth campaign, it is clear that she commands majority support throughout the country. A CNN/ORC poll released in late September had Mrs. Clinton's approval rating at an all-time high of 69%—even better than when she was the nation's first lady. Meanwhile, a Time Magazine poll shows that Mrs. Clinton is favored over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 17 points (55%-38%), and Texas Gov. Rick Perry by 26 points (58%-32%).
But this is about more than electoral politics. Not only is Mrs. Clinton better positioned to win in 2012 than Mr. Obama, but she is better positioned to govern if she does. Given her strong public support, she has the ability to step above partisan politics, reach out to Republicans, change the dialogue, and break the gridlock in Washington.
President Bill Clinton reached a historic agreement with the Republicans in 1997 that led to a balanced budget. Were Mrs. Clinton to become the Democratic nominee, her argument would almost certainly have to be about reconciliation and about an overarching deal to rein in the federal deficit. She will understand implicitly the need to draw up a bipartisan plan with elements similar to her husband's in the mid-to-late '90s—entitlement reform, reform of the Defense Department, reining in spending, all the while working to preserve the country's social safety net.
Having unique experience in government as first lady, senator and now as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton is more qualified than any presidential candidate in recent memory, including her husband. Her election would arguably be as historic an event as the election of President Obama in 2008.
By going down the re-election road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength. If he continues on this course it is certain that the 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity to such a degree that the scorched-earth campaign that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election will pale in comparison.
We write as patriots and Democrats—concerned about the fate of our party and, most of all, our country. We do not write as people who have been in contact with Mrs. Clinton or her political operation. Nor would we expect to be directly involved in any Clinton campaign.
If President Obama is not willing to seize the moral high ground and step aside, then the two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, must urge the president not to seek re-election—for the good of the party and most of all for the good of the country. And they must present the only clear alternative—Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Caddell served as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is author of "Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What It Means for 2012 and Beyond," forthcoming from Rowman and Littlefield.

[BluegrassCat]

And you're using a country club republican as some sort of leverage thinking we'll react with OMG...David Frum?? We'd better do some self evaluation because he's been our savior in the past..... LMFAO.

I explained....he was a part ( albeit) a small part of what put us here. Would you ask for Micheal Jackson's doctor for some drugs if you weren't feeling well simply because he had some political positions that you found useful? If you're looking to affect fiscal conservatives to do some soul searching....come up with something better than David Frum. Three or 4 of us have told you that, but you're pretty slow. He had no cred with lefties yesterday, but suddenly he's a sage....you're fuckin' kiddin with this......right?

Another dodge. The more you attack the messenger the more important the message appears. Since you don't object to any of the substance I assume you agree with it or at least recognize its truthfulness. Congrats, it's the first step on a long road back to honesty.

[Erika1487]

I would comment, but I have no dog in this fight anymore

[BluegrassCat]

Attention Blue Grass .....head to a dark room and and start a
re-evaluation of all you previously held dear. Two Democrats are about to tell you Why Obama is bad for your party. I'm sure we can expect your mea culpa................tomorrow? Get Real man.

So now we can add changing the subject as well as character assassination to your response. Every little bit keeps building my case. lol.

As for this nonsense, the idea that the president would have more bargaining power with the GOP if he resigned is literally laughable. I laughed. Why would the GOP cooperate with someone who has no power? And as the article states, Obama still has a good shot at winning re-election, indeed, most political scientists are predicting his victory. The article cites Truman and Johnson, do they remember who actually went on to win the WH in those elections? It's just a silly idea that Clinton could just step into the role and win. Her positive poll numbers are largely a result of being out of the public eye and partisan crosshairs. She would quickly be the target of smears that would lower her standing.

So thanks for your bit of fiction OMK. Now back to the reality of the conservative movement. Still nothing to say? Your silence is deafening.

[Stavros]

onmyknees, surely the point of this thread and the value of Frum's article is that it opens up for debate the problem that the Republican Party has in agreeing on what it now stands for. On both sides of the Atlantic these 'conservative' parties have tended to contain blocs that are -in your cute phrase- 'country club' conservatives at one end, and libertarians at the other -the aggressive manner in which the Tea Party enthusiasts denounce their Republican brothers and sisters as RINO's suggests that this is a bitterly divided party, and divided parties don't win elections -although in the US I guess individual candidates will win. The voters either don't know what they are voting for, or they may look at another fiasco in Congress today, for which the 'no surrender' loonies are responsible, and decide the Boston Tea Party looks much better in the history books than as a roadshow on its way to the Capitol...the English conservative party is not as badly divided as it was after Thatcher left, but the fissures remain similar -if we didn't have the comedy of this coalition I dread to think where we would be now. But Hippifried in the other thread did raise the core question -are Libertarians actually Conservatives? Shouldn't the Tea Party actually be a separate party from the Republican?

[hippifried]

I would comment, but I have no dog in this fight anymore

Oh? Change of heart or just tired?

[yodajazz]

Lol, didn't waste my time reading it.

You're proving his point by engaging in character assassination rather than dealing with the substance of his claims. FAIL indeed. lol

I agree with you BC. Rather than discuss facts, I see people only looking to things that confirm their viewpoint. I have seen so many articles with statistics saying the rich are getting a greater percentage of the total wealth, and that middle class wages have been stagnant for decades. Yet the Republican universe says tht giving more breaks, and less oversight, to the wealthy is the answer. Republicans say creating jobs here, when the evidence shows they're increasing tied to overseas investments. Why was the stock market in such upheaval over the European monetary situation, if thier real focus is the US economy?

Even though, throughout history, people understood that war meant, that a nation needed to band together and sacrifice, its not recognized today. But facts outside the Republican universe, are not given much weight. I'm not sure who believes this, but I am surprised that there are people who think that cutting back on support to public education is good ofr our collective future.

[Stavros]

I need to qualify my earlier comment as I am not always completetly aware of how the US system works. According to today's New York Times, the failure of the Supercomittee to agree on the deficit could work both ways -Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2012, which I was not aware of -and I assume taxes then rise (?) but the cuts must also go ahead, mostly in the military, hence the argument that both sides win if they let things stay as they are. Whether or not your economy overall wins is another matter. But I have to say to use all those man hours to come up with no agreement at all suggests your Congress is in need of reform, or you just need to elect people who put their country's interests first.

[Silcc69]

I need to qualify my earlier comment as I am not always completetly aware of how the US system works. According to today's New York Times, the failure of the Supercomittee to agree on the deficit could work both ways -Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2012, which I was not aware of -and I assume taxes then rise (?) but the cuts must also go ahead, mostly in the military, hence the argument that both sides win if they let things stay as they are. Whether or not your economy overall wins is another matter. But I have to say to use all those man hours to come up with no agreement at all suggests your Congress is in need of reform, or you just need to elect people who put their country's interests first.

They will go to the Clinton era which was 39% for the richest. They currently pay 36%. I'm not sure how it would effect the other tax brackets.