GOP (and Dems, don’t forget) hurtling toward madness

Back on a previous post, Bud writes:

… (S)omehow Brad manages time and time again to confuse the idiot GOP with political parties in general. It really is pretty disgusting to have the Dems, who are at least attempting to address the nation’s problems in a meaninful way, with the imbecils who continue to distort, lie and weasel their way to power.

And what do they use this power for? For the good of the American people? Hell no. The bastards are merely trying to rule in order to feather their own nests. The GOP is about wealth creation for the super rich. And it’s worked. The poor and middle class have gotten nowhere for 30 years while the elitists in the GOP fool and fear their way into making the gullible believe there is a boogeyman behind every rock. And, inexplicably, they fool some poor school bus driver into thinking it’s in his best interests to give a billionare’s son his parent’s fortune TAX FREE! Unbeleivable.

But until the press gets it and starts calling the GOP out for the liars and scoundrels that they are we will continue to read about GOP idiocy in the name of political party partisanship. It’s NOT political party partisanship, it’s GOP fear mongering.

Bud, um… I’m pretty sure, without actually setting out the mathematical proof, that the set “political parties in general” DOES include the Republican Party. I’m not confused on this point. In fact, pretty much anyone who compiled a credible list of “Political Parties in the U.S.” would almost certainly list the GOP among the first two. I’m very confident in this assessment.

That’s why it’s such a problem that the GOP seems to have lost its frickin’ mind since Nov. 2008. Sensible Republicans are sort of walking around in shock as the screaming meemies take over.

Any other election, and Sarah Palin would have been relegated to the ranks of “unpersons” on the day after the last election, her name never, ever to been mentioned by any Republican who ever wanted another Republican to speak to him again. Instead, she is THE most mentioned Republican nationally, and it is widely accepted — among Republicans, and others — that her endorsement can make or break candidates running in races that have nothing to do with her. Yes, I’m speaking of the woman who as governor of Alaska repeatedly embarrassed the GOP ticket by how little she had learned from the experiences in her life about world affairs, and who since then has only added to her resume by… well, resigning as governor of Alaska. This is now the party’s queenmaker.

Any other election, and every Republican who ran against Nikki Haley for governor would have meekly lined up behind her on the day after the primary in a show of solidarity, all acting as though she was the one they really wanted to unite behind in the fall all along. This election, the GOP gubernatorial field is nowhere to be seen, with the exception of Henry “Good Soldier” McMaster, who’s doing his best to back her in spite of the vacant, confused look on his face. (He just doesn’t know what hit him, and is sufficiently dazed that he thinks this election is like other elections, and is acting accordingly.)

You may notice that the two examples I just cited describe OPPOSITE phenomena: One describes how the GOP is gravitating TOWARD its loonier, least credible fringes, while the other indicates how they’re moving AWAY from candidates they don’t trust, candidates who are trying to ride the Tea Party’s unfocused resentments right past the GOP into office.

Well, that’s just how crazy things are in the GOP these days. They’re about to win big nationally in November, and yet they don’t know whether they’re coming or going. That is to say, the sensible Republicans, the traditional core of the party, doesn’t know what’s happening. The Jim DeMints of the party know exactly where they’re trying to take the nation, and they keep confidently explaining it to us, but unfortunately what they say makes little sense.

Now you, Bud, may take solace in thinking that there’s a place for sensible people to run to amid the madness — the Democratic Party. I know no such solace, because I know better.

As Bart pointed out this week:

POINT: According to a recent Newsweek poll, “Some people have alleged that Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world. From what you know about Obama, what is your opinion of these allegations?”……52% of Republicans polled think that statement is either “certainly true” or “probably true.”

COUNTERPOINT: According to a Rasmussen poll taken in May 2007, …”Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.”

In other words, BOTH parties are rapidly rushing toward their crazier extremes. People who identify themselves as “Democrats” or “Republicans” have surrendered their abilities to think to their respective sides to such an extent that they no longer stop to ask, “Does this make sense?” If someone who identifies himself as one of THEIRS says it, there must be something to it. And if someone on the other side denies it, well then it MUST be true.

And the members of BOTH factions are being pulled, with increasing acceleration, toward those loony poles as though they were in the grips of the gravitational fields of black holes at opposite ends of the universe. (Yes, I know the universe doesn’t have “ends,” but THEY obviously think it does. Besides, it’s a metaphor. Sheesh.)

The only hope for the country lies, of course, with the UnParty. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

10 thoughts on “GOP (and Dems, don’t forget) hurtling toward madness

  1. Mark Stewart

    Saw an interesting sight this evening in Nikki’s neighborhood: Lawn signs for Sheehen and (Todd) Atwater at the same residence. That can’t be good for her in Lexington.

    Reply
  2. jfx

    But until that last great hope for the country manifests itself as something that consistently appears on a ballot, there is the matter of proportionality. I’m going to mutilate the ethos of Robert McNamara/Fog of War to make this observation:

    In the Point/Counterpoint cited above, if we want to extrapolate that singular comparison out to the battle of all partisans everywhere, for argument’s sake, then the way I read it, 52% of all Republicans are certifiably stupid-crazy. Whereas only 35% of Democrats are stupid-crazy. Sure, another 26% of Democrats are stupid-LAZY (probably too busy tweeting and navel-gazing and whatnot to pay attention to either hard news or soft conspiracy), but in my mind that flaky, fragmented mix of competent/incompetent/catatonic Democrats is probably safer for the country than a calcified majority of belligerent crackpots. Proportionality. At least until this UnParty thing is something more than UnReal.

    Reply
  3. Phillip

    The big difference, of course, is that those on the further left wing of the Democratic party rarely get nominated, and very rarely win their overall elections. Whereas the Republicans are nominating their crazies.

    Another way of saying the same thing, or addressing the issue you’re talking about, is to say that it’s really all about the independents, the centrists, the Unparty-ists, however you want to call them. When Democrats have won, it has generally been because they have appealed to the middle and won their support, as in 2008. Somehow, the GOP seems to have come to the conclusion that the solution to their losses in 2008 is to move FARTHER to the right, in other words, AWAY from the center. This is making them feel very yummy in primary season; but it’s already probably cost them control of the Senate in the next term, and may well reduce the size of their probable majority in the House to come, if they can even take the House.

    As for those two polls: as I pointed out to Bart on the other thread, the Rasmussen question was sufficiently vague as to trigger “yes” answers from those who felt Bush had access to some advance intelligence of the attacks (don’t forget that famous August 2001 briefing paper, “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”). While I would certainly not agree with anybody who thought Bush really “knew” about the attacks in advance, I hardly think the implication of the two polls (whatever their relative degrees of accuracy) is comparable.

    It seems odd for an agnostic to have to remind a Catholic of this, but sometimes you just have to take a moral position, a stand. Not all issues are equally divisible down the middle. While I agree that rank partisanship for its own sake and unwillingness to try to understand another’s views is reprehensible, the idea that a middle ground solution is automatically superior guarantees that the side that pushes harder will have the “middle” oriented closer to their view. And some positions must be rejected out of hand. As in this imaginary constitutional debate circa 1787:

    Party A: “Blacks are not people, they should not count as citizens.”
    Party Z: “Yes, black people are citizens, they must count as full citizens.”
    UnParty: “OK, you bickering argumentative extremist partisans: our solution is they are worth two-fifths of a person. Problem solved.”

    Reply
  4. Ralph Hightower

    Nikki Haley keeps yelling “Let’s take back our government!”

    Um, Nikki, Columbia is firmly controlled by your party, the GOP. Are you confusing Columbia for Washington? In that case, Washington is in firm control by Democrats.

    Nikki, do you know what office you are running for?

    Reply
  5. Ralph Hightower

    @MarkStewart

    ROTFLMAO! That is so funny! I am going to have to cruise Nikki’s neighborhood count the houses for Sheheen/GOP signs.

    It’s either a mixed marriage, like a USC/Clemson marriage, a Republican/Democrat marriage, or they are intelligent.

    Reply
  6. bud

    …”Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance.
    -Counterpoint

    It was perfectly reasonable to believe that Bush should have known something was up prior to 9-11. Afterall, he was furnsished with a presidential daily briefing in Aug-2001 that said “Bin Laden determined to strike America”. Did Bush have detailed foreknowledge of the 9-11 plan? Of course not. But clearly he should have been more diligent in trying to connect the dots. It’s not unreasonable on some level to conclude he had some knowledge of the plan since he actually did.

    So a large minority (not even a plurality) of Democrats went too far when answering this particular question. That is clearly NOT the same as 52% believing Obama is ready to impose Sharia law on the American people. The two points actually refute Brad’s contention that the two parties are the same. While it’s true that some Democrats are out of touch (many still believe the twin towers were intentionally destroyed by Bush cronies) it seems pretty clear that the Dems, by and large are far more sensible that the GOP.

    I would prefer a party that tries to stick with facts and evidence when making policy. The Dems don’t fully meet that standard but they do come much closer than the GOP and certainly more so than the Tea Party. As for the fledgling Un-Party, I need to see a platform before I decide. Chances are there is a high percentage of those folks who believe something nutty too. Like the invasion of Iraq was sound policy. Doesn’t get much wackier than that.

    Reply
  7. Ralph Hightower

    I heard of the first plane crash on the radio.

    When I saw the second plane crash on TV, I said al-Qaeda. They had been targeting us beginning with the “van bomb” in the World Trade Center parking garage, the USS Cole attack, the embassy attacks in Africa.

    CNN’s website was down until they dumped the flashy graphics, NBC was passable. I got more news from Slashdot.

    Reply
  8. Doug Ross

    “The only hope for the country lies, of course, with the UnParty.”

    Would you vote for an UnParty candidate who was pro-choice? Or is that a dealbreaker?

    Would you vote for an UnParty candidate who wanted to pull out of Afghanistan? or is that a dealbreaker?

    Would you vote for an UnParty candidate who did not want single payer healthcare? or is that a dealbreaker?

    The UnParty is just like any other party, except it’s platform (pro-life, pro-war, pro-government healthcare, pro-high-gas-tax) has a platform that automatically will cause it to be a non-starter for 80-90% of the voters.

    How many Democrats will join a party that is to the far right on abortion? How many Republicans will join a party that is to the far left on healthcare?

    You’d have trouble matching the Libertarian party in membership with those conflicting tenets.

    Reply
  9. bud

    Seems like the Un-party is mostly pro-government intervention on virtually all issues. Not sure that makes them very pragmatic.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to bud Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *