Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

I've been waiting for the grownup republicans to show up since last december but at this stage, i no longer see any chance of them appearing until after the election (and then only if bush loses).

As the drezner papers demonstrate, there are still plenty of nominally adult republicans in thrall to some idea of bush that to the rest of us looks like some kind of fantasy, and the ones that aren't are, i suspect, scared that if they say something critical of the dear leader and he wins, they will get their legs cut off at the knees.

As Josh Marshall noted today, David Broder joining Charlie Cook in noting that the trend is not Bush's friend may change the dynamic, but i suspect that fear and denial continue to trump rationality....

Your invitation to our upcoming Berkley "Ask the President" session is hereby rescinded, DeLong... and no, I don't care how many of those #$%@ing loyalty oaths you signed.

Brad,

You keep hoping that the so-called "grownup Republicans" will somehow turn up and be the saviors of their party and country.

But there are no grownup Republicans; they were extinguished long ago by the GOP right wing. Even supposed "grownups" like Sens. Lugar and McCain are unwilling or unable to speak clearly and forcefully about the disaster created by Bush and the pliant Congressional Republicans. I, for one, have lost all respect for McCain, who cannot possibly believe that Bush should remain president, yet actively campaigns with Bush.

Keep up the good work.

Brad,

You keep hoping that the so-called "grownup Republicans" will somehow turn up and be the saviors of their party and country.

But there are no grownup Republicans; they were extinguished long ago by the GOP right wing. Even supposed "grownups" like Sens. Lugar and McCain are unwilling or unable to speak clearly and forcefully about the disaster created by Bush and the pliant Congressional Republicans. I, for one, have lost all respect for McCain, who cannot possibly believe that Bush should remain president, yet actively campaigns with Bush.

Keep up the good work.

Speaking in the third person hypothetical once removed someone might imagine a well intentioned American who was willing to be other than totally frank with grown-up Republicans about the best strategic moment for them to start criticizing Bush since criticism right now would be good for the country and the world.

But hey let's face facts. The Republicans demand loyalty. Democrats mainly do to, but set the bar much lower, maybe, in part, because Democrats don't consider dissent disloyalty.

I think that if the grown up Republicans hope to gain control of the party, they are dreaming. I also think they should wait until after the election. Criticizing Bush now would be severely punished. If I really had any hope that grown ups could gain power in the Republican party, I would advise them to wait until after Bush is defeated to explain how he managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of 90% approval ratings.

Brad,

You keep hoping that the so-called "grownup Republicans" will somehow turn up and be the saviors of their party and country.

But there are no grownup Republicans; they were extinguished long ago by the GOP right wing. Even supposed "grownups" like Sens. Lugar and McCain are unwilling or unable to speak clearly and forcefully about the disaster created by Bush and the pliant Congressional Republicans. I, for one, have lost all respect for McCain, who cannot possibly believe that Bush should remain president, yet actively campaigns with Bush.

Keep up the good work.

In Oregon, the fact that Kerry had a very successful rally in the Republican south of the state is much more significant. Unless something changes, Oregon will go Kerry.

Kerry is a much better speaker than he's given credit for. His poor wife was given the task of filling quite a lot of time because of TV scheduling. I was grumbling, but it wasn't really her fault.

I think that, visavis "adult Republicans", we should smack the ball into their court as hard as possible. It's not for us to convince them any more. It's for them to ask forgiveness in advance for the horrible thing (vote for Bush) that they're planning to do.

If the egregious David Broder says something that's not completely mushy, it has to be taken seriously. Two big initiatives, two big failures, and a general pattern of incompetence, dishonesty, and meanness. If Drezner and the Volokhs and David Brooks and Tacitus are willing to march shoulder to shoulder with Patrick R. Sullivan and Warthog and Al and George W. Bush all the other loony trolls, don't they have a big problem?

I take Tom DeLay to be the most powerful Republican--not a President, a governor, or a senator, but a lowly congressman! And what does this say about the coherence of the party? It's a loose confederation of local operators serving larger economic interests. "Grown-up Republicans" can't pull together because they have no fabric to pull on (Clinton decapitated their party, and it's been wandering around ever since with its head in its hands).

I take Tom DeLay to be the most powerful Republican--not a President, a governor, or a senator, but a lowly congressman! And what does this say about the coherence of the party? It's a loose confederation of local operators serving larger economic interests. "Grown-up Republicans" can't pull together because they have no fabric to pull on.

I take Tom DeLay to be the most powerful Republican--not a President, a governor, or a senator, but a lowly congressman! And what does this say about the coherence of the party? "Grown-up Republicans" can't pull together because they have no fabric to pull on.

I take Tom DeLay to be the most powerful Republican--not a President, a governor, or a senator, but a lowly congressman. "Grown-up Republicans" can't pull together because they have no fabric to pull on.

I take Tom DeLay to be the most powerful Republican--not a President, a governor, or a senator, but a lowly congressman. "Grown-up Republicans" can't pull together because they have no fabric to pull on.

WW IV Now Sopa de Jour

World War IV:
How It Started,What It Means,
and Why We Have to Win

by Norman Podhoretz
Commentary, September 2004

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/A11802017_1.pdf

One thing Podhoretz has that Limp BushCo lacks is coherent, logical, logistical threads. This is all one vast conspiracy plot by the Ottoman Empire and Islam to regain world supremacy over Infidelia, or Oceania, the Mammon worship cult.

Sadly, Podhoretz reads just like the runup to WWI, where civilized men must heed the call to arms and the demands of their co-alliances to avenge the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand.
Byzantine subterfuge into Brobdingnagian morte, life ground down to charcoal on paper, a whole generational canvas of blind and lame veterans hobbling through Kafkaesque refusal of meaning.

At the time, it seemed so logical, if somewhat cherry-picked, (e.g. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and Ike's "domino theory"). 10M's of men died as a consequence of each of those three World Wars, (if you consider the Cold War as WW III, with its evil spawn Korea, Viet Nam and Indonesia).

Now comes Donald, Dick, Karl and Paul, the Four Horsemen of our Modern Apocalypse, recast from Austri, Sudri, Vestri, Nordriand. And Podhoretz their Goebbels, their apologist, their connect-the-dots, their repeat-the-lie-until-its-truth.
Madness ... madness.

For one tiny moment humanity had the slimmest of chances to survive, before dinosaurs overruled. Ontogeny recapitulates philogeny... in reverse.
We become paleolithic slime of the reptilians.
Pourquoi? Pour la Grande Huile!

So DoD sloths plot, (and Bobby Fischer bails). 100,000's of US troops coming home from safe duty in Europe/Asia, just in time for November elections, then off to Iraq/Iran for the 2005 turnover, fresh meat for 4th Reich's Crusades.
Our current ally: http://pakistanidefence.com

It may be that we are unable to save ourselves. Simply put, the Neanderthals have slain us all. Wotan, where are our Vanir, now we need them!!

Raul Martinez writes:

> Brad,
>
> You keep hoping that the so-called "grownup Republicans"
> will somehow turn up and be the saviors of their party and
> country.

I think he's more daring them to rather than hoping that they will. The current situation must be absolutely humiliating for them. But there is another way...

> But there are no grownup Republicans; they were extinguished
> long ago by the GOP right wing. Even supposed "grownups"
> like Sens. Lugar and McCain are unwilling or unable to speak
> clearly and forcefully about the disaster created by Bush and
> the pliant Congressional Republicans.

Rule 1 of the GOP is to speak no evil of another Republican, and I think this is really the crux of the problem these days for those who would speak out. They're out of the leadership in the party, so they can't call the shots, and they can't take shots either.

> I, for one, have lost all respect for McCain, who cannot
> possibly believe that Bush should remain president, yet
> actively campaigns with Bush.

This one surprised me quite a bit until I thought of something a bit unusual: What should McCain do if he wants to remain a Republican but is fairly certain there is no real danger of Bush getting re-elected? Yup, that's right: campaign like hell for him, especially in states like Arizona that he needs to win to have a chance but which are not sufficient for him to win. Then, assuming that Bush loses, he can with complete conviction say, "OK, we tried it your way, I put my heart into it, and the SOB still went down. The adults now really *will* take over this party, and, since I'm the toughest thing I see around me, that starts with me."

OK, then, so what happens if Bush does snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? Oddly enough, in all likelihood he will lose control of the Senate the first time he looks funny at any of the {small number of} GOP moderates there. This might sound loopy to some, but I seriously doubt that any of Senators Snowe, Collins, Chafee, or Specter are really willing to put in 4 more years as boot-licking lackeys. The interesting thing is that they and Jeffords could caucus with themselves and any other adults they choose and throw control to the Democrats in the Senate, at which point Bush won't be able to get ANYTHING done without their say so. It's an extreme move, but one I think they'll be willing to make given how little they have to lose.

So I do think the position of the grown-ups in the GOP is pretty precarious, but if Bush goes down *and* they were seen as not undermining him, they are in much, much better position than if they actively worked against him. It's a risk, but one I can't see them not taking if they don't want to split the party.

"the reason that George W. Bush is in trouble is that the chickens of his contempt for the policy process--his reliance on ideologues, hacks, and corporate looters--have come home to roost."

By George, he's got it! :-) This is so simple, even the goon squads ought to get it. You can't run a campaign, much less a government, like a criminal organization.

"the reason that George W. Bush is in trouble is that the chickens of his contempt for the policy process--his reliance on ideologues, hacks, and corporate looters--have come home to roost."

By George, he's got it! :-) This is so simple, even the goon squads ought to get it. You can't run a campaign, much less a government, like a criminal organization.

I don't really understand this way of campaigning at all. What exactly is it supposed to accomplish?

If he's trying to woo undecided voters or those Republicans that have defected to the Democratic camp for this election, I don't see how he's going to succeed. Nor do I see how this is really responding to the ideas and thoughts of the electorate at large, considering that these events are filtered with loyalty oaths and prepared questions.

I can't see any reason why they are using this strategy, other than the possibility that they want to create a positive buzz that will eventually spread to others. But if that's what they are trying to do, I don't see how they are going to be successful.

Brian, apparently, their belief is that they only need to get their base motivated, and that alone will be sufficient to win.

What else could explain the way they campaign, and the way they govern?

Not since Abe Lincoln has an incoming president had such a rude reception as Bush received. People are so angry that the Florida election was decided without counting the ballots that Bush would be met by protestors and hecklers whereever he went if he did not take pains to exclude them.

Bush is and must be content campaigning to the couch potatoes.

As for the grownup Republicans, they have a lot invested in their downballot candidates and cannot afford to have the top of the ticket steamrolled. There are enough agreements on some issues (tax cuts for instance, funding pet projects) that there are risks to not supporting Bush. Face it, Bush has given his party great issues to promote, tax cuts and no cutbacks in pork. What more could they want? (more jobs? less deficit?, less Mess-O-Potamia?) Plus Bush has threatened but really not pushed the hot buttons that would arouse the opposition. For all their bluster, the GOP has not delivered on abortion, gay bashing, Pledge of Allegiance, Flag Burning and other constitutional amendments that seem to motivate their base. Their base is motivated by anger, but they are also frustrated because the GOP controls all branches of government and still does not deliver.

TV Coverage - That is what Rove is after. The only point of the rallies is to get favorable coverage on the news with no distractions from demonstrators. Think of it as a convention every day.

I suspect that the other reason they canmpaign this way is that it is all that Bush will do. Bush is a coward and he really does not like being in a situation wherehe feels people are hostile to him. He does not like being told that anything is complex he does not like feeling he is not in control.

Idea for Theresa, next time you are stuck filling in time while John does some TV work read something to the crowd. Everyone loves a good story. I have heard 'My Pet Goat' is a real great read, should be good to fill in 7 minutes or so.

WHAT WOULD ABRAHAM LINCOLN DO TO A UNION OFFICER WHO DID WHAT JOHN KERRY DID?

Well, we actually know exactly what he would have done. President Lincoln was so committed to reunifying the United States and ending slavery that Northerners who spoke out against his policy were jailed and sometimes hanged.

There can be no doubt that a Union officer, no matter how decorated, who spoke against the cause would have been totally disgraced and hanged.

What would Woodrow Wilson have done in the same circumstances? Again, we know from history that he was so committed to the destruction of German Totalitarian expansion that he disgraced and jailed those who publicly opposed his policies.

What would Franklin D. Roosevelt have done in the same circumstances? Again, we know from history that he was so committed to the destruction of the twin evils of Nazism and Japanese Imperial militarism that he disgraced and jailed those who publicly opposed his policies.

Harry Truman was more tolerant of dissent and Communist North Korea is still bedeviling the world with nuclear threats.

LBJ and Nixon also were overly tolerant of dissenters and over three million Southeast Asians were then murdered by Communists.

What does John Kerry’s candidacy say about the degeneration of American Civilization? In any wiser time he would have...

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/what_would_abra.html

Adrian commits a logical fallacy so obvious it makes my head spin. Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt jailed some people who opposed their policies but not all. Did Lincoln jail decorated soldier Gen. George McClellan? FDR jail Jenny Rankin?

Ooooops. (Lust for a dictatorship will do that to you.)

The Portland Kerry rally of 50-60K people is said to be the
biggest rally there "in at least a decade".

I was at a very big Clinton rally in downtown Portland in 1992 --
it convinced me that the ordinary Democratic-leaners who had
been so apolitical under Reagan were going to come out in
force that time.

Anybody know the size of that rally, and how it compared to
this one?

I poop too much and it makes me tired.

Adrian forgot to study his history. Lincoln's opponent in 1864 was General McCelland whom Lincoln had dismissed and was running on a peace/stop the war platform. The race was considered close until Sherman captured Atlanta and the end of the war was in sight. Far from being hanged, open political opposition (from a former military commander no less) was clearly tolerated.

It was the Confederates that had a bad habit of hanging their opposition.

http://home.cinci.rr.com/secondtennessee/bridge.html

Did Lincoln hang those (mostly Irish immigrants) who rioted against the draft in New York City in 1863? There was a lot of questioning of the Civil War as it went on, draft based and otherwise. Needless to say, it WAS also a different kind of war both tactically and with regard to the probable or certain consequences of losing.

There haven'e been any grownups in the Republican party since they all joined in the consensual delusion called Supply-Side Economics. From then on, having proven the concept that delusion is preferable to reality, it's been all delusion all the time.

It's strictly Lord of the Flies in the Republican Party.

apologies for the reps upthread.

> If the grownup Republicans want to take back their party--if, that is--now is their chance.

"Little Tent" Republicans
http://tinyurl.com/yqszm

Excerpts:

Conservative Republicans continue to show that it's their way or the highway when it comes to Washington.

Illinois Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald told The Chicago Tribune recently that Republicans "sabotage[d]" the campaign of Senate candidate Jack Ryan, who had to pull out of the race after embarrassing disclosures from his divorce records.

"Why fight a two-front war -- against the Democrats on one hand, his own party leadership on the other hand?" Fitzgerald asked.

Considering the trouble Republicans had in coming up with a Republican candidate before Ryan -- and the fact that more than a week has passed with no replacement -- it looks like Democrat Barack Obama is almost a sure bet to pick up the seat this fall.

And on Capitol Hill, Senate Republicans are considering changing the rules of the Senate Republican Conference to allow Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist more power to punish senators who stray from the party line, Roll Call reported.

As Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum told the paper, Republican lawmakers are concerned "that our leader has less levers to be able to accomplish what he wants to accomplish" than other congressional leaders. "They believe giving the leader some more options is something we need to consider."

What prompted this thinking is the trouble Republicans are having as they try to pass a budget. Arizona Sen. John McCain, for example, has said he wants to see the Republican Party adhere to fiscal discipline. Rather than compromising, conservatives prefer to dig in their heels and change the system. There's talk, for example, of assigning committee seats not by seniority but by having Frist award positions.

Whether Republicans actually pass this rule change remains to be seen. Doing so would harden the partisan lines that already exist and could render the few moderate Republicans who buck the party's position -- Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, as well as McCain -- less effective. So much for the "Big Tent" Republican Party. Even as Republicans contemplate this clampdown, however, Bush is all too happy to rely on McCain on the campaign trail to give him cover on the Iraq War. McCain, the loyal military man, has complied.

Moderate Republicans would do well to think about what they are actually getting from or giving to the party these days. Obviously, party leaders aren't anxious to hear their opinions when they disagree with the party line. GOP leaders are looking for a top-down system where they give the orders and lawmakers blindly follow them, contrary to a spirit of the Senate that stresses individualism. And, as long as Bush sits in the White House, you can bet that he'll be the one who's really driving the agenda on Capitol Hill. This means that besides facing anger from Senate leaders, moderate Republicans may be frozen out by the White House as well, except when it's politically convenient for the president.

Perhaps this is one of the dangers of becoming too comfortable with majority status. The conservative leaders of the Republican Party have donned blinders that make them believe everything should go their way; they ignore warning signs that suggest otherwise.

Surely the problem for the President is the security requirements?

The man is a natural politician. I think he is being walled off from the crowd by the concerns over assassination attempts.

Maybe this is not the whole story, but I believe that if we see a President Kerry, we will have the same complaints about his absence from large crowds, controlled access etc.

An observation:
The Republican Party, the Bush Administration, and supporters like Adrian Spidle and Patrick Sullivan all display the disturbing characteristics that are found in families whose father is an alchoholic (practicing or untreated and abstenant). These qualities include things like exersizing extreme control over their invironement. Shut out unpleasent and potentialy anxiety causing eventgs through carefully controlled and stage managed events. Don't bring up unpleasent facts or engage in real dialogue about problems (in this the press hyelps). Us versus them, circle the wagon, defenses carried to the extreme. Domestic opponenets, or even cabinet members with policy differences, aren't merely opponents they are traitors, evil, deserving of ridicule. Think about O'Niel.

Then there is the walking on egg shell quality unique to both this administration, and to the Bush campaign. (When will he fall off the wagon, or has he already). This is not only because W is cacooned alchoholic at the center of all this, but also because he also probably suffers frfom Attenetion Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and the attendent problems that come with it such as dyslexia. The primary characteristic of ADHD is the very sort of decision making that led to Iraq. Impulsive, ill considered decisions.

This administration has truly polarized the country. But not in the usual way. On one side are the enablers, members of the administration, the Family, the Republican Party, and supporters. And the rest, appalled by thye results, confused, and at times unable to make sense of the irratic, senseles behavior. The primary characteristic of those who support and abet W., as well as W. himself, is deep denial.

This also helps explain his poll numbers. As a social phenomena, significant numbers fall into the very sort of families that is at the center of this political drama. They reallyn are comfertable acting this way. Fortunately the American family, by and large is a healthy one, and sense something profoundly wrong at the center of all this.