Posted by: Rick | Saturday, June 12, 2010

An Intelligent Republican

This guy from National Review Online, commenting on last week’s Nevada Republican primary, gets it:

Look, I wish Sue Lowden had won.  Why?  Because Harry Reid was weak and she could have beaten him.  Sharron Angle probably (probably) cannot.  I’ve maintained that the biggest lesson from the Obamacare debacle in the Senate is that party affiliation matters, far more than actual ideology, in determining the fate of the Obama agenda.  To those who say they’d rather have 40 Jim DeMints in the Senate than 50 Lindsey Grahams or 60 Susan Collinses, I say this: If you held everything else in the Obamacare debate constant and flipped the Ds to Rs next to the names of Landrieu, Specter, and Nelson — there wouldn’t be an Obamacare.  Simple as that. [Emphasis added]

When push comes to shove, THERE ARE NO GODDAMN FUCKING MODERATE REPUBLICANS!  In the end, Sue Lowden’s voting record in the Senate would have been virtually identical to Sharron Angle’s.

High-profile publicity hounds like Olympia Snowe are paper tigers.  Their own party will crush them if they seriously threaten the corporate agenda.  Apparently, the wingnuts don’t know this.

Live long and prosper, teabaggers.  The stronger you get within the GOP, the better for Democrats.



  1. The inverse is apparently true as well. To paraphrase your own words, THERE ARE NO GODDAMN FUCKING MODERATE DEMOCRATS!

    I agree that party plays a huge role in how an elected official votes. We saw the immense pressure party places on rouge politicians during the health care debate. Party will sacrifice it’s own with complete indifference for ideological gain. But to say any two politicians would vote exactly the same is to assume your readers are as stupid as that conclusion.

    I’d like to latch onto some undertones that jumped out at me. You are apparently missing the point that the tea party movement is a reaction to an out of control majority party. Flying against the will of their own constituents. They have disrespected those who elected them by calling them names and ignoring them.

    The arrogance of politicians, especially now that one party has a near super-majority, is shocking and inspires activism. We saw the left react much more radically to the arrogance of G.W. Bush. By comparison I find the tea party movement tame. Very few effigies of Obama burning/in a noose/or other murdered caricatures as compared to the vast numbers I saw of Bush.

    You throw around a lot of trash-talk like “teabaggers” and “wingnuts” I admit not having read anything else of you have written, but I wonder if you apply the same disdain for the left-wing nuts?

    To some extent the point is true that there are no moderate partisans in America anymore. I think the biggest problem in our system is the childish partisan politics. An attitude has evolved since the 1960s where each party reacts to the other. If a member of party A has an idea automatically 98% of party B are radically opposed without reading or listening to the details.

    Under these circumstances I think the best balance is one party in the White House, while the other holds Congress with slim majorities. Gridlock? To quote the left’s favorite Republican, you betcha. Gridlock beats radical ideology IMO.

    The wonderful thing about movements like the Tea Party, is they serve as wake up calls to politicians if they listen. They should remind politicians who they work for. Politicians need such movements to counter the arrogance.

    Democrats should realize the ONLY reason they are in power is because Republicans f’d up. I think Obama knows this because he is constantly reminding us that everything is Bush’s fault. As Chris Dodd said, “Why not? It works.”

  2. Undoubtedly, many Tea Partiers are sincere in their radical beliefs. But if they think the GOP is anything other than a shill for big business, they’re just Karl Rove’s suckers. (See for more on this topic.)

    For better or worse, partisanship is here to stay. I only wish progressives had the kind of stranglehold on the Democratic Party that corporate conservatives have on the Republicans.

  3. Ummmmmm, I beg to differ, Rick. There is no such thing as an “intelligent Republican.”


%d bloggers like this: