I Blame The RINOs
For months I’ve been asking myself, how did the Republican Party devolve into madness? It seems to have happened overnight – most notably election night last November – but I know that isn’t true. I know the current state took years to come to fruition. I also know the insanity was wooed with skill of a lover. A lover, who now finds themselves in the Michael Douglas Fatal Attraction role – With no one to blame but themselves.
RINOs (a term created by real Conservatives) invited the fringe into the party because they needed their votes. They also relied on the fringe’s single issue mentality, and, quite honestly, thought they were not too bright and, therefore, easily controlled. So they tossed them the “I’m pro-life” bone, patted them on the head and sent them into the voting booth. RINOs viewed their wingnuts as good little soldiers – who followed orders.
The order following stopped when Obama beat McCain. And, strangely enough, I think the political coup within the Republican Party didn’t have much to do with Obama. He was just the symbol they pointed to. McCain was the problem, and to this day Conservatives believe the election would have turned out differently had Palin been at the top of the ticket.
Palin was the game changer, and the RINOs fatal mistake. And you’d think a party so obsessed with the evils of appeasement would have known better than to appease its fringe. It’s worth noting that moderate Republicans (those that are left) are still appeasing. Which isn’t helping since Conservatives are getting crazier by the day.
But I am ready to declare victory for the Conservatives. They have taken over the party – what’s left of it. A classic example of their victory can be seen over at Delaware Politics. Dave Burris, Smitty, and Maria are gone – people I didn’t agree with, but respected. David “everyone who disagrees with me is a commie lib” Anderson is in charge, and he’s just brought the intellectual prowess of Frank “I don’t believe in global warming because I had to wear a sweater today” Knotts back on board. Ooh, and Frank’s first post is a call to join his new group RACE (Republicans Against Castle’s Election).
And while we all have been guilty of ramping up rhetoric, the path DP is traveling takes it to a new level. Steve Newton (Delaware Libertarian) has a post up concerning David Anderson that’s worth a read. Meanwhile, the comments here at DL are pretty disturbing.
Let me put it clearly. Liberals are harming America. I love America. Ergo, I must stop liberals. Not aid them in a misguided effort. Not invite them to my political party. When they repent of their misguided ways, they are more than welcome. Liberals are not my enemy. Liberalism is.
Repent? Sounds more like a preacher than a political blogger. But, I guess that should be expected since Conservatism has way more in common with religion than politics. Nice little cult you have there.
So, yeah, I blame the RINOs in the same way I blame the parents of children misbehaving in a restaurant. You guys were supposed to be the adults, not create a Lord Of The Flies scenario.
And when, and if, Conservatives get a few winning elections under their belt, expect the rhetoric to shoot off the charts. I know, hard to imagine. My only hope is that going crazier (again, hard to imagine) will lead to their downfall – since there are no grown-ups left to put them in a time-out.
Tags: Republican Crazy
Al Mascitti is going to town on this purging business this AM on WDEL. It is a real lesson to listen to these wingnuts make their excuses for “real” conservatives.
There is a massive childishness in this doubling down on “real” conservatives. There is simply nothing about insisting on “People Like Us” that has a damn thing with governing this country.
Wish I could tune in. 🙁
It is a thirty-year arc that started with Reagan. What you see today is the logical outcome of Reaganism as it has been amplified and extended. Palin is a symptom and not a cause.
Conservatism has failed on its own merits and its own internal contradictions; the evidence is plain to see. But conservatives have made it a religion and are constitutionally unable to accept that conservatism doesn’t work. The insanity results from mass denial and cognitive dissonance. Thus, all the failed conservatives are made into nonpersons (Bush, McCain) who “weren’t really conservative.”
Republicans have always felt entitled to executive power; when they don’t have it they feel something is wrong with the universe.
Plus, as America becomes more diverse, social conservatives are definitively losing the culture wars. They know it and this is making them crazy too.
I’ll repeat a piece of what I wrote on another thread:
Look at David’s stated fear: liberals are destroying America. Of course, he’s got the causality wrong: America is changing, just as it always has, and liberals are less afraid of that than conservatives are. But conservatives throughout our history have said exactly the same things David says, and clearly they weren’t right, or America wouldn’t have become the most powerful nation on earth — it would have been destroyed by the liberals of the 1820s, and 1840s, and 1860s, etc., etc., etc.
So try to be gentle. Though he is dangerous in his ignorance, he deserves pity more than hatred.
God, I hope David calls into Al’s show.
True, Geez. Conservatism has never been a successful operating model for America. Its usefulness has been as a brake on the excesses of liberalism, which makes progressivism healthier.
I love being right. Check this out:
“Don’t listen to the left-wing maggots, or their operatives in the media. They love Republican ‘moderates’ because they know a political loser when they see one. Like McCain (’he could really win,’ and ‘he crosses the aisle,’ etc.). Socialist-Democrat vitriol is in direct proportion to their political fear.
Sarah Palin has undergone a baptism by fire, and is now battle-hardened (including being thrown under the bus by bumbling McCain and his inept operatives). The left is scared to death of her. They are going to try to shred her to pieces; but, it won’t work this time, chumps!
Watch and learn.”
Comment by Rick at DP.
I predict Sarah Palin will steadily rise in the polls, until the liberal media sics it secret weapon on her – Katie Couric.
The last poll I saw had 70% saying she was not qualified for the office. In other words, the Bush dead-end 30% is consistent.
Ah, but that 30% will control the Presidential primary results. It’s going to be interesting.
Oops! Make that 21%. Wait, 20%! 19%? It’s hard to keep up.
When I first started thinking about it a few months ago, it was more as an interesting hypothetical. Now, I’m thinking more and more that a Republican Great Schism is inevitible. I also think the comparisons of conservatism to religion are appropriate. Like the devoutly religious, there is no “give” to hardcore Conservatives. They are right and good, you are wrong and evil. These conservatives have no desire to reconcile with moderates except under the condition that the moderates “repent” and adopt the conservative ideals. There is a good reason why there is no such thing as “The Christian Church”. If you deviate from their beliefs by more than a very small margin, you’re out. Unless the grown-ups take back the GOP soon, we’re close to having three parties — one major one, and two minor ones.
I’d have to agree/expand on anon at 10:55. In my lifetime, the Republican nominees for president have gone from the 1960 aspirants Nixon, Rockefeller, Goldwater, to 1964 Rockefeller, Goldwater, Scranton, Stassen, Lodge, Margaret Chase Smith, Fong, in that race, the social conservatives got rid of Rockefeller.
In 1968, with all hell breaking loose, Wallace took temporary custody of wingnut racists from both parties. The presidential contest was mostly between Nixon and Reagan. If you can just say to yourself, “In 1968, Richard Nixon was a moderate”, it gives you an idea how far the party had moved in just that time period. However, as an incumbent, in ’72 he ran virtually unopposed.
In 1976, Gerald Ford was a moderate AND incumbent president, and he still barely fought off Ron Reagan. His loss to Carter sealed the fate of the moderate wing. The R’s had decided that platitudes and flattery were their preferred platform.
If the GOP was the party of business, they’d have nominated Romney last go-round. If they were the party of religious faith, Huckabee was their man. They nominated McCain, the consummate political opportunist, and then hung Sarah Palin around his neck.
They’re the Larry Darryl and Darryl party, and their slogan is “Anything for a buck.”
Here is madness, the Dems hold a super majority in both Senate and House and Obama has accomplished nothing.
A one term President is a sure thing.
Mike Protack
Protack – there’s a plank in your eye.
Obama has accomplished nothing.
So what are the teabaggers so worked up about?
“A one term President is a sure thing.”
So confident. So wrong.
Ooooh! I live in the district where Mr. Protack wants to run for County Council. And, he’s doing our opp-reseach for us every time he posts that crap here. Got my first quote! Thanks Mike.
Contrary to what Mike Protack and Dave Anderson think, most New Castle County Republicans are moderate Republicans who vote for the Democratic Party most of the time. Espousing the Palin-Beck agenda will get you no where. Just ask Clatworthy.
Don’t worry, Protack won’t respond until he turns around and gets back to Minneapolis. Overshot again…
Oh, Rebecca, we have mountains of his stuff… just waiting for the right time. I can hardly wait. 👿
“most New Castle County Republicans are moderate Republicans who vote for the Democratic Party most of the time”
Not sure about the last part, but you’re right, nemski, the Clatworthy experience — winning the primary and losing the election, even in a strongly R-leaning SEnate district — ought to send these folks a message. I suppose the words were too long for them to understand it.
With the opportunity to vote against Protack, I think I’m gonna switch my registration again.
Tanzey was a Democrat before he was a Republican, and now he’s a moderate. No wonder he’s retiring.
Let’s see who the Dems put up for NCCC before we get all gleeful about Protack.
Geezer, I did a quick look at Lavelle’s district. I think historically you are correct, but starting in 2004 things begin to change. Minner beats Lee, Castle wins of course, Denn loses IC by 4%, Carney crushes his opposition, and Kerry beats Bush.
In 2008, Obama almost beats McCain by twice as many votes, Katz beats Clatworthy, KHS lags only a few points behind O’Donnell (different races, I know), Markell trounces Lee, and Denn beats Copeland by 1400 votes.
As I said, 2000 and earlier, you are right. But I believe that the Republican brand for many NCC GOPers has been severely tarnished by Bush, teabaggers and Palin.
Soon we’re going to start seeing the effects of the Republicans nationalizing local races.
I think a schism is inevitable but that doesn’t mean the rabid base won’t gain a lot of power until they collapse upon themselves. I just wonder what’s going to happen with the Democratic party – are we going to absorb everyone to the left of Newt Gingrich?
nemski,
There has also been a migration of the old-line DuPonters from the Brandywine Hundred down to the beech. Younger, more progressive folks are moving in up there.
U.I.
That is a serious concern for those of us on the progressive side of the party. The wing nuts could succeed in moving our party to the right. Watch out for the unintended consequences here.
John Boehner lies his ass off.
Good grief. These Republicans don’t even exist any more.
The Christian “Right” founded the GOP, the RINO’s did not. Read James B. McPherson or other accounts of the GOP founding. The Republican unconditionalists are back and this time we won’t let the machine guys take our party away. Come play with us but don’t take our ball home.
Well, you’d expect someone wearing as much foundation as old “Bone-her” from Ohio to lie about other things, too. Honestly, have you seen his ‘official” portrait? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Boehner_official_portrait.jpg
lip gloss. honestly.
There’s mascara, too, I think.
But you think he’s wearing foundation, huh? I always thought that the coloring came from an ancient tanning bed he probably got off of George Hamilton.
I thought Boehner wanted to look orange.
BTW, Mike Castle said Boehner smokes like a chimney, perhaps it’s soot mixing with foundation to give that orange look.
i thought his people were against “those people” (Larry Craig must be sportin a huge Boehner looking at that.
The Christian “Right” founded the GOP, the RINO’s did not.
More of the revisionist history. Probably in those christianist home school books too.
Oh, can’t rule out the tanning bed, but you can see that on his, um, “upper forehead” (for our friends who are sensitive about their receding hairlines) there’s no mottling, at all, and there always is with balding men at that age. So, foundation, and a nice full coverage one. I think the mascara is to play up his eyes, which ARE a good blue. Do you think he wears contacts?
Maybe he goes orange to give a bigger contrast with his blue eyes.
Putting “Christian” in quotes is more of David’s segregationism at work. From Wikipedia, citing Paul Kleppner, “The Third Electoral System”:
The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party. This was especially true for the pietistic Congregationalists and Presbyterians among them and (during the war), the Methodists, along with Scandinavian Lutherans. The Quakers were a small tight-knit group that was heavily Republican. The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran), by contrast, largely rejected the moralism of the Republican Party; most of their adherents voted Democratic.
In other words, only true “Christians” founded the Republican Party, while the false “Christians” stayed Democrats. As I said, he’s consistent.
Geezer, thanks for that research.
I knew David was wrong before he was wrong. 😉
That’s interesting. Most of the Quakers that I know are now Democrats and the Catholic church seems to have switched sides too. I guess the religions must have changed, since it is impossible that the Republican party did. Right?
It is also important to realize that the original Republicans were largely progressive on the issue of the day, slavery. If slavery were still legal, the “Conservatives” would be the ones saying “this is how it has always been and always will be. Slavery is in the bible, ya know.” It is also useful to note that Lincoln was accused of overstepping the boundary of the federal government against the states-rights crowd.
They would say that ending slavery would hurt the economy.
liberalgeek for the win!
BTW, your analogy about the Quakers vs. the Republicans is spot on. I know it’s impossible to keep up with the ever changing Quaker theology.
Cassandra, ending slavery would STILL hurt the economy. 🙁
Pandora — I’m back. And I’m not happy about it, either.
Stop on by.
The media reprise the “Republican civil war” theme.
By JAMES TARANTO
The trouble never ends for the Grand Old Party, as the New York Times reports:
A string of defections by prominent Republicans who endorsed Democratic candidates, the biggest in decades, has exposed an ideological rupture in the Republican Party and demonstrated how difficult it has become for the major parties to enforce discipline.
While it is not clear how much effect the endorsements will have on this year’s state and Federal races, the fissure exposed by the desertions points to trouble ahead for Republicans. . . .
If the campaign events are any indication, even if the Republicans make major gains next Tuesday, the party may have a hard time smoothing over differences between its conservative and moderate wings. . . .
Not since the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964 sent many Republicans scurrying to rally around Lyndon B. Johnson have so many prominent party members bitterly turned on the party’s candidates. And that was in a Presidential contest. Just as in 1964, they are shifting in one direction: away from conservative Republicans.
“They’re frightened about the movement of their party to a more right-wing conservative agenda,” said Fred Steeper, a Republican pollster in Detroit.
Although most experts agree that one person’s endorsement does not usually sway voters in numbers large enough to turn around an election immediately, candidates can seize on such events to show that things are turning their way. That seems to be happening in the closing days of the campaign, with Democrats using the endorsements as a sign of movement for their candidates.
And the article was published a week before Election Day, so it doesn’t even mention former Republican Dede Scozzafava’s decision to back Democrat Bill Owens in that upstate New York House race.
Actually, make that 783 weeks before Election Day. To be precise, the article appeared Nov. 1, 1994, a week before the big Republican sweep. And it does bring back memories.
nem, geezer showed that my contention was correct. It was the evangelical, moralist who founded the GOP. This is not controversial. They were anti-slavery, anti-abortion, pro-free soil, pro-economic nationalism,pro-traditional western marriage, and pro-voting rights for all adult Americans. Not much has really changed.
GOP’s founders were…”pro-traditional western marriage” Also, pro-nuclear energy too I imagine.
Lizard, great article. Please post it on the open thread at delawarepolitics.net
R David, why do you say these things? Here’s Susan B Anthony. She had hope for the R’s. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials14.htm
Here’s how she felt about the CURRENT R approach to families, and your evil combination of hate and “righteousness”.
“Anthony toured Europe in 1883 and visited many charitable organizations. She wrote of a poor mother she saw in Killarney that had “six ragged, dirty children” to say that “the evidences were that “God” was about to add a No. 7 to her flock. What a dreadful creature their God must be to keep sending hungry mouths while he withholds the bread to fill them!”[10] (From Wiki, so you can follow it back)
And she was the MODERATE, dude.
Any of those old time abolitionist suffragette people would EVISCERATE you …um, moderns.
Delusional David is utterly reworking Geezer’s point to suit the narrative he needs — or he doesn’t know a damn thing about these congregations. Congregationalists, Scandanavian Lutherans, Presbyterians and Quakers are in no way “evangelicals”. Geezer specifically notes that Republicans of that era rejected the moralists. Why do you need to lie so much?
David
I’d love for you to back up your contention that the folks who organized the GOP in the 1850s even had a stand on abortion, much less that they were pro-abortion.
They were also heavily nativist (anti-immigration) and disliked slavery for the harm it did to the white middle class.
There is no evidence that the GOP of the 1850s supported voting rights for women or African-Americans.
Here’s Victoria Woodhull:
I am a free lover. I have an inalienable, constitutional and natural right to love whom I may, to love as long or short a period as I can; to change that love every day if I please.
I would like above any other place to go to Hartford. I want to face the conservatism there centered and compel it into decency.
It makes no difference who or what you are, old or young, black or white, pagan, Jew, or Christian, I want to love you all and be loved by you all, and I mean to have your love.
Let women issue a declaration of independence sexually, and absolutely refuse to cohabit with men until they are acknowledged as equals in everything, and the victory would be won in a single week.
Born 1838.
Steve, you are so silly. All you have to do is read history. They were pro-life and rejected abortion. After slavery was settled, what did they do? They passed the civil rights laws and passed withing 20 years tighter abortion laws. It started with a New York Times expose on the evading of abortion laws. Democrats and populists joined them and every state had the strict abortion laws that are still on the books in most states. After that they moved to continue fighting to ban child labor, pass temperance, and women’s sufferage. They won on every count. Even though temperance eventually was repealed.
Did you not notice that we went from the common law standard of quickening to a statuatory standard of conception? Who do you think did it?
Oh dear.
I don’t think it is Steve who is the “silly” one here.
Again, David is applying his absolutist standard, learned at his church, to politics. It is not enough that his church (whatever it is) is right today — it has to have been right throughout its entire history. And so it is with his selective history of his party.
David,
You have just proved my point. Your original contention was the the folks who organized the GOP were anti-abortion and pro giving the vote to all adult Americans. The GOP was organized in the mid-1850s. There are no specific party political stances on abortion until the 1880s; even then if you were to go back and read the documents, you would discover that the overwhelming arguments are not moral but public health (the mortality rate of the operation). Nor can you find a GOP-wide argument for universal male suffrage before the end of the Civil War, and most “moderate” GOPers tacitly supported the Southern suppression of the Black vote for DECADES after 1877. Nor did the GOP support woman suffrage. Cite any legitimate documentation that suggests otherwise.
As has been said numerous times, you have a right to your Christianist perspective; you do not have the right to your own set of manufactured facts. Try actually reading serious scholarship by Eric Foner, Michael Holt, Ira Berlin, or other real historians before you start throwing around crap.
As for being silly: one of us makes his living as a professional historian, the other doesn’t. I’m pretty sure anybody reading this can tell which is which–especially since the last time when you supported Pat Buchanan’s idiotic and factually erroneous version of World War II.
Why argue? David is a deliberate, overt, and calculated liar. He doesn’t care what anybody else thinks or what the facts are. His religious piety is just a fraud. If serial dishonesty were a bannable offense, David would be first to go.
And it seems David Anderson is the one thing Delaware Liberal, Delaware Libertarian, The Mourning Constitution, and it would seem Dave Burris agree on.
He has crossed many lines. I use to think calling him delusional Dave was just funny, but he’s earned the title.
Please God, let the GOP follow David’s absolute doctrine for its candidates in 2010 and beyond. There will be no more GOP, and that’s a good thing.
Conservatism has failed on its own merits and its own internal contradictions; the evidence is plain to see. But conservatives have made it a religion and are constitutionally unable to accept that conservatism doesn’t work. The insanity results from mass denial and cognitive dissonance. Thus, all the failed conservatives are made into nonpersons (Bush, McCain) who “weren’t really conservative.”
One of the best posts ever posted.
*blush* Thanks, anon.
David gets his history lessons off of a box of frosted flakes. That sugar overdose has really warped his mind. Alas, there is no cure for his sickness.