PDA

View Full Version : Karl Rove and the GOP Socialists



Chris
01-03-2014, 10:55 AM
This is a curious rant by someone just learning what statism means.

He's still stuck in one dimensional politics but perhaps beginning to see the light.


KARL ROVE AND THE GOP SOCIALISTS (http://spectator.org/articles/57314/karl-rove-and-gop-socialists)


While America was celebrating the holidays, the Wall Street Journal ran a page one story the day after Christmas headlined as follows:



GOP, Business Recast Message
Republican Leaders, Allies Aim to Diminish Clout of Most-Conservative Activists


The story said this right up front:



Meanwhile, major donors and advocacy groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads, are preparing an aggressive effort to groom and support more centrist Republican candidates for Congress in 2014’s midterm elections.


Welcome to the 2014 election.

An election which, by all accounts, both historically and in terms of the specifics of President Obama’s sinking ratings, should be a winner — a big winner — for the GOP.

Unless.

Unless there is a deliberate, willful attempt to sabotage the GOP from within. Using the GOP Establishment as a launching pad to ensure that Reagan-style conservatives — the base of the Republican Party — are defeated by Establishment, statist Republicans. Republicans who will in turn so anger the GOP base that the base simply refuses to turn out in November. Thus handing President Obama and the statist forces of Big Government a victory they should never have had and in fact would be unable to earn on their own.

Or? Worse?

The GOP Establishment wins under the ruse of being… honest, they promise, cross-their-hearts-and-hope-to-die… conservative. And then they do the inevitable… the usual… GOP version of the Socialist Deal. Being “realistic”… seeking (Margaret Thatcher’s hated word) “consensus.”

Harrumph, yada yada yada and all of that.

Translation?

Karl Rove (i.e., architect of the American Crossroads SuperPAC), the Chamber of Commerce, and the Washington GOP Establishment have declared war on the Reaganite conservative base of the Republican Party.

...

This is about whether the Republican Party will abandon its Reagan/conservative base — the base that elected Reagan in two landslides, Reagan’s vice president (running as Reagan’s heir) in a 1988 landslide, the Gingrich Revolution in 1994 and made John Boehner Speaker of the House in 2010 — to become Republican socialists, a paler version of the Obama/statist party. Obama Lite. Unwilling not only to challenge the President’s left-wing agenda but insisting on acceptance of that agenda — just a cheaper, better managed version of it.

This is exactly how the nation got into its $17 trillion debt in the first place — not to mention repeated GOP defeats at the polls — with too many Republicans using their time in office not to keep pledges of limited government but rather to grow the government. And the debt and deficit that went along with it.

...

This is exactly the problem Margaret Thatcher spent a career fighting. Not to mention Ronald Reagan. As Mrs. Thatcher’s ally, the late Sir Keith Joseph called it, this was the “socialist ratchet” effect. Assuming office on a so-called “conservative” platform, British Conservatives and American Republicans immediately settled in to assimilate the last spurt of government growth from the preceding Labour or Democrat administration — and then expand it.

...

The Republican Party can control every last seat in Congress after 2014 and the White House in 2016 — and it will not make a lick of difference. Because just as occurred when Rove was a man with clout in the White House and John Boehner was on an earlier ladder of the GOP House leadership passing No Child Left Behind with Teddy Kennedy — the Washington GOP Establishment will do everything they can to fight efforts to limit the size and growth of the federal government.

Why is this?

The answer is as simple as it is blunt. Follow the money.

Green Arrow
01-03-2014, 11:00 AM
I am unimpressed with this writer. He's ignorant and misguided. He starts off wrong by completely misusing "socialist" and "statist." Then he just gets completely off-base in what he thinks the solution for winning is.

Cigar
01-03-2014, 11:10 AM
Republican Reformers Stop Being Polite to Tea Party, Start Getting Real If John Boehner’s support for immigration reform is a kind of Prague Spring for the mainstream of the elected Republican Party, the equivalent among conservative intelligentsia can be found in the latest issue of National Affairs, which launches a double-barreled assault on conservative dogma. The first is an essay by Bush administration veterans Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner, setting the philosophical and historical precedent for a non-dogmatic Republican domestic agenda. The second is a manifesto by the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Strain laying out a Republican agenda to aid the jobless.

The two pieces represent an important moment in the conservative reform movement, displaying a heretofore rare confidence of the party’s movement to frontally attack their own party’s shibboleths. They also display the dodges and compromises that make conservative reform both so infuriating and so useless in breaking the fever that has gripped the party throughout the Obama era.

In his book Do Not Ask What Good We Do, Robert Draper reported that leading Republicans met the night of President Obama’s inauguration and decided that their path to regaining power lay in opposing every bill that Obama put forward. The political strategy formulated by Washington Republicans was quickly subsumed within a larger flowering of reactionary ideology, flowing from tea-party devotees to highbrow conservative pundits and back: Barack Obama was undermining the basic fabric of the Constitution, threatening an imminent Greek-style collapse and choking out liberty itself.

Gerson and Wehner assail the historical and philosophical underpinnings of this whole line of thought. The Founders, they point out, were not proto-libertarians — the staunch ideological opponents of a flexible national government were actually the opponents of the Constitution. The Founders “would have little toleration for politicians who are committed to abstract theories even when they are at odds with the given world and the welfare of the polity.” They proceed to assail dogmatic opposition to any position for the state, arguing for a government role in furthering “the common good,” “equality of opportunity,” and even “ensure broad access to modern health care.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/01/gop-reformers-stop-being-polite-to-tea-party.html

Chris
01-03-2014, 11:18 AM
I am unimpressed with this writer. He's ignorant and misguided. He starts off wrong by completely misusing "socialist" and "statist." Then he just gets completely off-base in what he thinks the solution for winning is.



He's a real hoot.

Chris
01-03-2014, 11:20 AM
Republican Reformers Stop Being Polite to Tea Party, Start Getting Real If John Boehner’s support for immigration reform is a kind of Prague Spring for the mainstream of the elected Republican Party, the equivalent among conservative intelligentsia can be found in the latest issue of National Affairs, which launches a double-barreled assault on conservative dogma. The first is an essay by Bush administration veterans Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner, setting the philosophical and historical precedent for a non-dogmatic Republican domestic agenda. The second is a manifesto by the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Strain laying out a Republican agenda to aid the jobless.

The two pieces represent an important moment in the conservative reform movement, displaying a heretofore rare confidence of the party’s movement to frontally attack their own party’s shibboleths. They also display the dodges and compromises that make conservative reform both so infuriating and so useless in breaking the fever that has gripped the party throughout the Obama era.

In his book Do Not Ask What Good We Do, Robert Draper reported that leading Republicans met the night of President Obama’s inauguration and decided that their path to regaining power lay in opposing every bill that Obama put forward. The political strategy formulated by Washington Republicans was quickly subsumed within a larger flowering of reactionary ideology, flowing from tea-party devotees to highbrow conservative pundits and back: Barack Obama was undermining the basic fabric of the Constitution, threatening an imminent Greek-style collapse and choking out liberty itself.

Gerson and Wehner assail the historical and philosophical underpinnings of this whole line of thought. The Founders, they point out, were not proto-libertarians — the staunch ideological opponents of a flexible national government were actually the opponents of the Constitution. The Founders “would have little toleration for politicians who are committed to abstract theories even when they are at odds with the given world and the welfare of the polity.” They proceed to assail dogmatic opposition to any position for the state, arguing for a government role in furthering “the common good,” “equality of opportunity,” and even “ensure broad access to modern health care.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/01/gop-reformers-stop-being-polite-to-tea-party.html



A progressive who does as bang up a job as the OP.

texan
01-03-2014, 01:13 PM
Truthfully all of the Tea Party somehow thinks they own Reagan. Not! Reagan would not approve of many of the things these folks do. I also get tired of the Tea Party calling anyone that has a few differences with their beliefs Rino's.

darroll
01-03-2014, 08:31 PM
This is so true.

Newpublius
01-03-2014, 09:15 PM
Truthfully all of the Tea Party somehow thinks they own Reagan. Not! Reagan would not approve of many of the things these folks do. I also get tired of the Tea Party calling anyone that has a few differences with their beliefs Rino's.

Well, how about the ones who rack up debt and increase government spending. In my mind, that's the difference that makes a difference.

Chris
01-04-2014, 12:07 AM
Truthfully all of the Tea Party somehow thinks they own Reagan. Not! Reagan would not approve of many of the things these folks do. I also get tired of the Tea Party calling anyone that has a few differences with their beliefs Rino's.


As a tea partyer I'd say that's someone true, Reagan was more inclusive and would reach across the aisle to compromise. We are to some degree intolerant of those who don't adhere to basic principles like less taxes, smaller government and more liberty--no compromise!

Mini Me
01-04-2014, 12:44 PM
As a tea partyer I'd say that's someone true, Reagan was more inclusive and would reach across the aisle to compromise. We are to some degree intolerant of those who don't adhere to basic principles like less taxes, smaller government and more liberty--no compromise!

You admit to being a Pee Partier? WOW!

I never would have guessed that.I had thought you were better than that, with all your pontificating and theorizing and jumping back and forth circus tricks.

In other words you stand for NOTHING. Just another: "I've got mine and to hell with everyone else" me firster.

I'm deeply dissapointed.....shocked beyond belief....mortified! <sarc>

Mr. Freeze
01-04-2014, 12:48 PM
You admit to being a Pee Partier? WOW!

I never would have guessed that.I had thought you were better than that, with all your pontificating and theorizing and jumping back and forth circus tricks.

In other words you stand for NOTHING. Just another: "I've got mine and to hell with everyone else" me firster.

I'm deeply dissapointed.....shocked beyond belief....mortified! <sarc>

Dr. Strangelove

do you really limit yourself to such binary answers? I'm antistate and I created cooperatives so that my community of friends have medical care, food, power, and land. If it is all "I've got mine and to hell with everyone else" then why would I do that?

There's a great big world of through out there and it doesn't fit into two columns or two ways of thinking.

Chris
01-04-2014, 01:03 PM
You admit to being a Pee Partier? WOW!

I never would have guessed that.I had thought you were better than that, with all your pontificating and theorizing and jumping back and forth circus tricks.

In other words you stand for NOTHING. Just another: "I've got mine and to hell with everyone else" me firster.

I'm deeply dissapointed.....shocked beyond belief....mortified! <sarc>



If I thought for a moment you knew what you were blabbering about I might be concerned.

Chris
01-04-2014, 01:03 PM
Dr. Strangelove

do you really limit yourself to such binary answers? I'm antistate and I created cooperatives so that my community of friends have medical care, food, power, and land. If it is all "I've got mine and to hell with everyone else" then why would I do that?

There's a great big world of through out there and it doesn't fit into two columns or two ways of thinking.



It's the Internet. ;-)

Mini Me
01-04-2014, 04:03 PM
@Dr. Strangelove (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=907)

do you really limit yourself to such binary answers? I'm antistate and I created cooperatives so that my community of friends have medical care, food, power, and land. If it is all "I've got mine and to hell with everyone else" then why would I do that?

There's a great big world of through out there and it doesn't fit into two columns or two ways of thinking.

I am a minimalist. I break down complex ideas into the simplest of terms. I am merely chiding Chris and reacting to what he wrote. That's what the problem with forums are; we react to the previous poster with an immediate response. Its entirely reactionary the way the forum is set up.

This was not intended as a flame at all. If you love the T party fine, wear it like a badge of honor.

Mr. Freeze, I agree with all your posts, so why do you chastise me? I'm not here to write a college essay on anything. I hate typing out elaborate answers and having no one even read them.Why react to a comment directed at someone else?

Mini Me
01-04-2014, 04:09 PM
If I thought for a moment you knew what you were blabbering about I might be concerned.

I had thought you were a much more cerebral thinker than the T party is all. Just judging by your posts, you see.Now, besides the T party mantra of drowning govt. in a bathtub, tell us what you actually stand for?

I'm 68 years old, been around and seen most things, and majored in poly sci and business and ran my own businesses and I do know what I am talking about!

Like I said before, you are better than the T Party. Aren't you?

Chris
01-04-2014, 04:12 PM
I had thought you were a much more cerebral thinker than the T party is all. Just judging by your posts, you see.Now, besides the T party mantra of drowning govt. in a bathtub, tell us what you actually stand for?

I'm 68 years old, been around and seen most things, and majored in poly sci and business and ran my own businesses and I do know what I am talking about!

Like I said before, you are better than the T Party. Aren't you?


As a tea partier I am for what I already said is shared among all tea parties, less taxes, smaller government and more liberty. Care to discuss that? I'm not interested in me, that would be boring. And, btw, I'm unimpressed with your old credentials--you are what you post.