Politicians to Watch For 2012, 2016

[Ivanhoe]

Some wisdom from the past;

 

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M...WQ4ZDAyYmNhMTM=

 

Now let's look at the broader issue of elitism versus populism. For Brooks to be right, his elites have to make better policy judgments than average Americans. But he overlooks the fact that in America we have a particularly bad elite, an elite that holds most Americans in contempt and has no sympathy for the history and traditions that make us great. And that elite has been wrong on issue after issue for most of the last 40 years. Who was more right about the Soviet Union, the elites or the people? Who was more right about the need to cut taxes in the 1970s, the elites or the people? Who was more right about the need to get tough on crime, the elites in black robes with life tenure, or the folks cheering for Dirty Harry? Who would Brooks trust to decide critical issues regarding the War on Terror today, the voters or the inside-the-Beltway types who lose sleep over tough interrogation tactics? Elites — particularly our American elite — are much more likely to go for the latest fad, for seek to apply whatever notion is currently trendy in the salons of Europe. To find true Burkean conservatism in this country — to find citizens who are both respectful of our country's traditions and anxious to see our country remain a world leader — you have to turn to the voters.

 

To improve electoral results, the Republicans need to look at what works and what doesn't. A few things that recent history has shown to fail;

- trying to win the approval of the MSM (McCain thought they were his friends, and didn't have a Plan B for getting his message out)

- trying to give all things to all people (as seen in the effect of the Medicare expansion, ensuing budget deficits, and resulting voter dismay)

- the "compassionate conservative" method (one example of which is NCLB, which displeased a ton of parents and teachers)

 

What does work?

- a simple, clear, and consistent message that is projected loud and often

- overt respect for traditional values and American exceptionalism

- addressing those issues that the general population feel are proper responsibilities of the federal government (defense, foreign policy, critical infrastructure)

[Stargrunt6]

Gary Johnson, former governor of the pretty blue state of New Mexico.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30714.html

 

He'd get my vote, no problem.

[Ivanhoe]

Oh yeah, another thought on the existential threat that populism supposedly presents to the Republican party; wasn't it just a few years ago that the existential crisis bedeviling the Republican party was the rise of the neocons?

 

When you look at the sum total of the opinionsphere, the chattering classes have constructed the infinitesimal goalpost problem. Can't have social conservatives, can't have neocons, can't have libertarian populists, etc etc. In simplistic terms, the only Republicans that won't destroy the Party are those that mostly vote with the Dems.

[Old Tanker]

When you look at the sum total of the opinionsphere, the chattering classes have constructed the infinitesimal goalpost problem. Can't have social conservatives, can't have neocons, can't have libertarian populists, etc etc. In simplistic terms, the only Republicans that won't destroy the Party are those that mostly vote with the Dems.

 

 

...good one !

 

The problem with the elites is 80% drink the same water and use the same rest rooms.

They become overly arrogant to the extent that no one else is qualified to have an opinion unless they belong to the favored Elite clique.

 

But there are Elites , about 20% that don't fit that mold , Reagan , JFK and TR come to mind as examples.

 

The Elitist arrogance of todays pols is being well exposed as opposed to yesterdays because of 24 hour news and the net. Good for us.

 

Obama shows his arrogance with an in-your-face off the cuff dismissal of nearly all things that don't fit his ingrained ideology. As with his dissing of Scott Brown for driving a P.U. truck .

That disssing was Lefty-Lib Urban Elitist arrogance at it's best. It was Lefty code talk for Redneck Racist.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Those writing Palin off are looking at old information, the polls have moved more in her favor since then. She trailed Obama by only two points in a recent poll.

Washington Post/ABC poll today, 71% say Palin unqualified to be Pres, including a majority of self-described Republicans. We can all flip flop back and forth whether polls are the truth or 'statistics lie' depending on our position, a fine tradition of American politics. Just like Proud Ignorance populism, and/or trying to harness it for a more thinking agenda is also an American political tradition, nothing new. But, I would say that what those two polls* tell you are actually two consistent facts the GOP should already know: Obama is shaping up as potentially vulnerable in 2012, and somebody like Palin is not the best way to go about exploiting it.

 

*though ISTR another recent poll with Palin running worse against Obama than other likely suspects.

 

Joe

Edited February 11, 2010 by JOE BRENNAN

[Gregory]

If Palin ever develops something resembling an actual platform, consisting of something other than saying "I'm going to do things which are good and not do things which are bad" I'll be glad to give her another look.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Oh yeah, another thought on the existential threat that populism supposedly presents to the Republican party; wasn't it just a few years ago that the existential crisis bedeviling the Republican party was the rise of the neocons?

That's a singularly poor example, since though a pretty unclear term, 'neocon' has generally been taken to mean agressive foreign policy, particularly the Iraq War. And whatever the evaluation of history about the Iraq War in the longrun, it's the number one reason the GOP lost control of Congress in 2006, strong contender along with the financial crisis why the Dems ran up their Congressional majorities and won the WH in 2008, and a big reason (though along with too much domestic spending) the GOP base got de-energized. The rise of the neocons *was* a disaster for the GOP, in strictly political terms.

 

And, though for now the national security issue has conveniently come down to clear mishandling of terror suspect issues by Obama the GOP still hasn't come to any new consensus what they basically stand for in foreign policy, besides 'strong'. For example war would they fight a war with Iran ('strikes against Iran' is a euphemism, it would be another war) to prevent nukes?

 

Populism isn't a yes or no, as I said before. It's a spice to sprinkle, at least. Kerry the windsurfer rich guy, kinda dumb, but it worked, that's politics. The problem is when you lean on that to the extent of having almost nothing concrete to say ('I'll do what's good'). And concrete populist policies (like protectionism, driving off the best foreign minds, 'punishing corporations' etc) can be catastrophically bad policies, and ones the Democrats can play just as well or better. Look at Dems and populist GOP'ers recently allying trying to upend the markets by voting against Bernanke. *That's* who votes together often, GOP populists and the Democratic left.

 

Joe

[Jeff]

Washington Post/ABC poll today, 71% say Palin unqualified to be Pres, including a majority of self-described Republicans. We can all flip flop back and forth whether polls are the truth or 'statistics lie' depending on our position, a fine tradition of American politics. Just like Proud Ignorance populism, and/or trying to harness it for a more thinking agenda is also an American political tradition, nothing new. But, I would say that what those two polls* tell you are actually two consistent facts the GOP should already know: Obama is shaping up as potentially vulnerable in 2012, and somebody like Palin is not the best way to go about exploiting it.

 

*though ISTR another recent poll with Palin running worse against Obama than other likely suspects.

 

Joe

Look, I'm not carrying water for Palin or any other particular Republican candidate (none of them grab me at this point) but her numbers have improved, both in the party and against Obama. We can play dueling polls and I will point out that the WP/ABC polls tend to have some of the more skewed samples of the major polls but anyone trying to write her off at this point is being premature. Whether that's good or bad for the party, remains to be seen.

[Ivanhoe]

That's a singularly poor example, since though a pretty unclear term, 'neocon' has generally been taken to mean agressive foreign policy, particularly the Iraq War. And whatever the evaluation of history about the Iraq War in the longrun, it's the number one reason the GOP lost control of Congress in 2006, strong contender along with the financial crisis why the Dems ran up their Congressional majorities and won the WH in 2008, and a big reason (though along with too much domestic spending) the GOP base got de-energized. The rise of the neocons *was* a disaster for the GOP, in strictly political terms.

 

Actually, its a singularly good example. Regardless of how knuckledraggers take it to mean, the label of neocon stems from the Kristol & Podhoretz crowd. Free markets, fairly libertarian social policy, foreign policy based on the promotion of western liberal democratic values. The common description of neocons is well-educated liberal elites who became disenchanted with the rise of the entitlement society and foreign policy designed more to accomodate authoritarianism than to combat it.

 

Most adherents were from the Northeast, overwhelmingly university educated and often at elite unis, and a goodly percentage of Jews (leading to the common but ignorant conflation of neocons with conservative Jews in general). Precisely the sort of gents who pass muster with the chattering classes and well-distanced from any whiff of populism. Somehow the complete absence of populism in the neocon wing of the Republican party did not deter the losses in 2006 and 2008.

[Skywalkre]

The WH mocked her again this week which shows the fear they have of her.

 

Y'know... For Palin to be so ignorant and ineffective, she sure has a lot of people running scared.

 

When the White House press secretary seems to think that she's worth going after, that's a sign that they're more than a little worried about her.

Why, when someone makes fun of Palin, do folks here continue to make this claim that "they're scared of her"? Gibbs wasn't going after Palin because the WH fears her, but because she looked amateurish with her crib notes (and after making fun of Obama and teleprompters, good on Gibbs for calling her out). Has anyone seen the footage of her taking a peak during that convention? It looked bad.

 

Most of my friends are of the left-leaning types, and I can assure you they're not scared of Palin, they just find her... well, comical at times. The next time someone points out a gaff from Biden would it be appropriate for me to point out 'you must be scared of him!'

[Old Tanker]

Why, when someone makes fun of Palin, do folks here continue to make this claim that "they're scared of her"? Gibbs wasn't going after Palin because the WH fears her, but because she looked amateurish with her crib notes (and after making fun of Obama and teleprompters, good on Gibbs for calling her out). Has anyone seen the footage of her taking a peak during that convention? It looked bad.

 

Oh well too bad for you and your friends.

 

Mocking her at a Dem political event or a Dem orientated TV show is the norm and routinely happens.

 

But mocking her from the podium of the WH Press Room shows the disdain , fear and contempt the Lefty-Libs have or just Plain Jane Elitism.. Maybe you and your friends haven't noticed the WH Briefing room isn't the SNL set or Letterman. This week Joe Biden and Michelle both had nice things to say about her.

 

How about a triple telepromter momemt for CORPSE . MAN. Of course few Lefties would recognize the error.

[DKTanker]

Why, when someone makes fun of Palin, do folks here continue to make this claim that "they're scared of her"? Gibbs wasn't going after Palin because the WH fears her, but because she looked amateurish with her crib notes (and after making fun of Obama and teleprompters, good on Gibbs for calling her out). Has anyone seen the footage of her taking a peak during that convention? It looked bad.

Amateurish as in Dianne Feinstein amateurish? For Lady Di has recently been spotted sporting her own "palm pilot". And you seriously equate one or two word notes to a 15 minute teleprompter speech for 11 year olds? Well of course you do...no Doubting Thomas you...oh no, the ObaMessiah is infallible.

 

Most of my friends are of the left-leaning types, and I can assure you they're not scared of Palin, they just find her... well, comical at times. The next time someone points out a gaff from Biden would it be appropriate for me to point out 'you must be scared of him!'

I've been afraid for our country since January 2009 when dumbass and dumberass were inaugarated. Actually, it was well before that when Dumbass and Senileass were vying for the presidency November '08. Edited February 14, 2010 by DKTanker

[DKTanker]

How about a triple telepromter momemt for CORPSE . MAN. Of course few Lefties would recognize the error.

Corpse aka Democratic voter.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The Left has been obsessed with and deranged by Sarah Palin since she rose to national prominence in 2008. Not disagree, not poke fun at her, but obsession and derangement. There is simply nothing about her that ought to drive reasonable people nuts.

 

As for Biden, I'm not scared of him, I'm not obsessed by him, and I'm not deranged by him. I do think that he is a buffoon and doofus, which is harmless until the day (God forbid) when Washington, DC is a smoking crater and a shaken Joe Biden is sworn in as the 45th President, in which case we will have a buffoon and a doofus as commander-in-chief at the worst imaginable time.

 

Why, when someone makes fun of Palin, do folks here continue to make this claim that "they're scared of her"? Gibbs wasn't going after Palin because the WH fears her, but because she looked amateurish with her crib notes (and after making fun of Obama and teleprompters, good on Gibbs for calling her out). Has anyone seen the footage of her taking a peak during that convention? It looked bad.

 

Most of my friends are of the left-leaning types, and I can assure you they're not scared of Palin, they just find her... well, comical at times. The next time someone points out a gaff from Biden would it be appropriate for me to point out 'you must be scared of him!'

[Archie Pellagio]

As for Biden, I'm not scared of him, I'm not obsessed by him, and I'm not deranged by him. I do think that he is a buffoon and doofus, which is harmless until the day (God forbid) when Washington, DC is a smoking crater and a shaken Joe Biden is sworn in as the 45th President, in which case we will have a buffoon and a doofus as commander-in-chief at the worst imaginable time.

 

And the thought of President Palin would've filled you with optimism in the event of POTUS biting the dust?

[Kenneth P. Katz]

She is not a doofus and not a buffoon.

 

And the thought of President Palin would've filled you with optimism in the event of POTUS biting the dust?

[FALightFighter]

And the thought of President Palin would've filled you with optimism in the event of POTUS biting the dust?

 

#1- She actually had executive experience. Something neither Obama or Biden had. Before becoming a US Senator, Biden was a lawyer for a year and a county councilman for 2 years.

 

#2- She had a track record of actually accomplishing things for the good of the public that elected her. Including taking on corruption in her own party. Biden has been on the wrong side of every issue since he became a Senator in 1972. He supported intervention in Bosnia (we're still there, with no solution), opposed ODS. Can you name one piece of legislation that Biden has authored? No, becuase he has been insignificant.

[DKTanker]

#2- She had a track record of actually accomplishing things for the good of the public that elected her. Including taking on corruption in her own party. Biden has been on the wrong side of every issue since he became a Senator in 1972. He supported intervention in Bosnia (we're still there, with no solution), opposed ODS. Can you name one piece of legislation that Biden has authored? No, becuase he has been insignificant.

Well he did chair the techno-lynching of Clarence Thomas. So he has that, and it's disgusting.

[Jim Martin]

#1- She actually had executive experience. Something neither Obama or Biden had. Before becoming a US Senator, Biden was a lawyer for a year and a county councilman for 2 years.

 

#2- She had a track record of actually accomplishing things for the good of the public that elected her. Including taking on corruption in her own party. Biden has been on the wrong side of every issue since he became a Senator in 1972. He supported intervention in Bosnia (we're still there, with no solution), opposed ODS. Can you name one piece of legislation that Biden has authored? No, becuase he has been insignificant.

 

 

 

Hey! Didn't you see the White House presser the other day? He made elections possible in Iraq!

[Ivanhoe]

Hey! Didn't you see the White House presser the other day? He made elections possible in Iraq!

 

You have to admit, the Obama administration's Iraq accomplishments in just 12 short months are pretty remarkable. That nation went from a peaceful dictatorship conquered by an aggressive imperialist, to a functioning democracy, in just about one CY.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Amazing! Wonders never cease.

 

You have to admit, the Obama administration's Iraq accomplishments in just 12 short months are pretty remarkable. That nation went from a peaceful dictatorship conquered by an aggressive imperialist, to a functioning democracy, in just about one CY.

[Archie Pellagio]

Oh Christ, here we go...

 

Biden being a doofus, does not change Palin's abilities, competencies or lack there-of.

It isn't some shifting balance between the two.

 

Again, the thought of President Palin is frankly scary. (And that doesn't mean Biden is better)

Edited February 15, 2010 by Luke Y

[FALightFighter]

Biden being a doofus, does not change Palin's abilities, competencies or lack there-of.

It isn't some shifting balance between the two.

 

No, but it is a direct comparison, since they were the two choices for the spot. I trust Palin (only a little, because she is a politician, even if one that I tend to agree with). I don't trust Biden if he told me the sky is blue- he has been on the wrong side of history for his whole life, and he disagrees with me on EVERY SINGLE issue he has ever taken a stance on.

 

 

Again, the thought of President Palin is frankly scary.

 

Why? Because she is inexperienced and not political enough? Neither is Obama, but for some reason he is not scary.

 

Frankly, I don't want a polished politician as president. Look where that has gotten us. I want someone who is a little rough around the edges, and has the backbone to stand for his/her beliefs. It also helps if those beliefs match mine, but I'll take agreeing with the Constitution of the US. Reagan was successful because the Commies believed he might just be crazy/cowboy enough to press the button. Despite all the predictions, has the rest of the world changed their actions toward the US and/or US policies because of Obama? The Chinese have stepped up their activities, the Iranians and NorKs have stepped up theirs, and the Europeans haven't changed anything. I guess the kow-towing idea didn't work.

[Archie Pellagio]

Why? Because she is inexperienced and not political enough? Neither is Obama, but for some reason he is not scary.

 

Who says he doesn't?

Did you somehow miss the 1900+ post 'Does Obama Creep Anyone Else Out' thread that has been going strong since I started it back in October 2008?

 

But then I guess that clashes with the idea that anyone who criticises an ® is therefore instantly a gun-stealing-pro-abortion-tax-hiking-illegal-immigrant-loving-homosexual-communist...

[Jeff]

But then I guess that clashes with the idea that anyone who criticises an ® is therefore instantly a gun-stealing-pro-abortion-tax-hiking-illegal-immigrant-loving-homosexual-communist...

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. There are plenty of people here who are ostensibly R's who do plenty of criticizing of them themselves.