Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Congrats, Dems: You Got Another Hypocrite!

It's about as natural a fit as you can get:

Sen. Arlen Specter, talking about switching parties, on March 17th.

You can have him.

Hat Tip: The Hill

8 comments:

  1. This is the big problem for Republicans. Almost the entire party apparatus at the state level has been taken over by a bunch of lunatics, and few people outside of Georgia and Texas can win a state primary and then go on to win a statewide election. The reason Specter switched yesterday was because the dwindling band of sociopaths who still call themselves Republican in Pennsylvania are so detached from reality, so far removed from the mainstream, and so convinced of the utter infallibility of their own bizarre brand of “conservatism,” that someone like Jon Huntsman or Arlen Specter, who deviated slightly on a few issues here and there, just isn’t pure enough for them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let me see if I've got this right:

    The "problem" with the Republican Party is that it has people who, unlike Spector, have principles?

    Yea, I can see how that would be a "problem" to a Democrat, since they don't ever say anything they mean; that can't be rescinded when it becomes inconvenient to the bullshit image they're trying to manipulate others into believing about them.

    The reason Spector switched is to save his own skin, and because he's a callow opportunist - he went back on the principles that he supposedly believed in, in the video we posted - a fact you conveniently left out of your analysis. That makes him a liar as well. Would you trust a friend who lied to you about the most imporant issues you shared? Of course you would: you're a fucking Liberal.

    Like we said: you can have him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. None of this behavior by what remains of the GOP is remotely surprising if one knows anything about the history of the Conservative Movement and its 50 year love/hate relationship with the Republican Party which, throughout most of its history, was a liberal party.

    To make a long story short, after the 1964 landslide, Goldwater's most conservative supporters were almost giddy that they finally had the party to themselves. They were big fish in a small pond and perfectly happy that they did not have to trim their sails in order to make themselves acceptable to people they could not stand in the first place.

    There is conservative intellectual tradition going back to Burke, DeToqueville, and others of this calibre. Growing out of the experience of the French Revolution, conservatism's focus is primarily on finding ways for society to balance inevitable and needed change with social peace and harmony.

    But the kind of conservatism we see dominent in the GOP coalition is one that deliberately provokes social disharmony because it is intent on social, cultural and political regime change in the name of an idealized utopian vision of a homogeneous society subscribing to a Judeo-Christian ethic of traditional values. Yet, since it lives in a complex and diverse environment, conservatism becomes a philosophy of destruction, separatism and tribalism.

    Ever since the Gingrich revolution of 1994, the hard core Right has been doing everything it can to purge moderates and liberals from the GOP coalition so that it could have the party to itself. Karl Rove encouraged this instinct when he was riding high with his "energize the base" strategy of pursuing what in retrospect was the ludicrous ambition of a "permanent Republican governing majority."

    Republicans today are trying desperately to recapture the old Ronald Reagan magic, but it won't work because what they do not realize is that Reagan was popular because he exhibited hope and confidence while the present GOP thrives on fear and hatred -- the classic emotions of any right wing movement.

    And having empowered the hard core right for a few quick, cheap political gains the GOP now finds it impossible to rebuild a durable coalition on a rigid conservative base that despises the very idea of coalitions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Y'know, JK, sometimes I read what you say and think to myself, "Jesus, can this guy be such a fucking tool?"

    Like what you just wrote, here, that's Democratic Party bullshit 101. Un fortunately, I don't have time to tell you why you're so off - I'm "off" to work - but, believe me, you are.

    Keep this in mind, my friend:

    One presidential election every 20 years don't make you guys viable - just an option.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As soon as I read words like "tool," "pussy" etc my eyes just glaze over and I yawn. I've dealt with enough juvenile delinquents in my time that your potty-talk doesn't particularly impress or move me one way or the other - it's really just kind of forgettable.

    But, feel free to respond with some sort of adult analysis (if you're able) whenever you have the time and I'll check in again in a few days.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Y'know, it's a good thing I bought a dictionary so I could understand what the word "elitist" meant. I kept reading about the "media elite" and "elitist liberals" but had no idea what qualities they were referring to - like the ability to disregard what people say because (wow!) they're above talking like normal human beings talk.

    Must be nice to be such an asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  7. (Shrug)

    When you decide that you're willing to engage in the discussion of ideas on a grown-up level, I'll be all ears.

    We do need a serious opposition party and I'm eager to see the GOP get its act together, if for no other reason than because the last 8 years have shown that one-party rule doesn't work very well.

    OTOH, I may be simply interrupting you in mid-tantrum here, in which case, please do carry on - I'll check back in 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Considering, both, the positions you've espoused so far and your elitist attitude, why should we care? You want to be our Left-Wing Nanny: telling us how to think - and talk?

    Sorry but we had a woman already - don't need another.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTS ARE BACK ON