Thinking the Unthinkable
Deacon from Powerline ponders the worst by way of answering a rhetorical question:
Dean Esmay poses this question to conservatives: If Kerry is elected, will they try to support him if he does the right thing, or will they degenerate into partisan backbiting as Democrats did after 2000? My answer is "both." We will support him if he does the right thing but attack him in ways that will seem partisan if (when) he does not. For example, if Kerry stays the course in Iraq, he should not be attacked when mishaps occur or second-guessed over every questionable tactical decision. In the unlikely event that Kerry initiates new military actions for which he can make a case in the context of fighting terrorism, conservatives clearly should rally behind him since, heaven help him, many liberals will not. And conservative support should not diminish if the intelligence that contributed to his decision turns out to be flawed or if a few soldiers engage in abusive behavior.
That is, of course, what I believe.
I think that while many - probably most - rank and file Democrats genuinely care for their country, the mainstream and "elite" of the party are most concerned about getting back into power, whatever the means or cost.
I think that most Republicans are primarily motivated by the safety of the country, and that gaining and holding "power" is at most a secondary motivation.
"But wait", someone will say, "what about the Clinton years? That couldn't have helped the country, can it?"
Three problems with that idea:
- Clinton did damage the country; he lied under oath. Forget the original transgression if you want; he still broke the law.
- Show me the Republican MoveOn.org. No, not a group that is a far-out as MoveOn - that's easy. I mean show me an extremist group that so controls the GOP's agenda.
- The devil makes work of idle hands. The nineties were a trivial decade; with no communism to vanquish, parts of the GOP became unclear about their mission. The Democrats rarely have that problem - they basically are always on one crusade or another, be it class warfare or the sacramentalization of infanticide or whatever. Republicans' crusades are bigger - when we don't have them (vide: the seventies), some of us get a little crazy. That is clearly not a problem these days.
Anyway - what Deacon said.
Posted by Mitch at
July 29, 2004 08:52 AM
| TrackBack
*Clinton did damage the country; he lied under oath. Forget the original transgression if you want; he still broke the law.
Fine, but Tom DeLay lied under oath during the 90s, and he hasn't been impeached yet. Stupid as what Clinton did was, taking this minor offense to the impeachment level was wrong, and yes, worse for the country than Clinton's offense.
*Show me the Republican MoveOn.org. No, not a group that is a far-out as MoveOn - that's easy. I mean show me an extremist group that so controls the GOP's agenda.
Two words: Christian coalition. Mitch, Jerry "9/11 is the fault of Atheists" Falwell is slated to give your party's invocation. Don't tell me that extremists have no place in the GOP; much of what GDub has done on the domestic front has been to pacify those very extremists.
*The devil makes work of idle hands. The nineties were a trivial decade; with no communism to vanquish, parts of the GOP became unclear about their mission. The Democrats rarely have that problem - they basically are always on one crusade or another, be it class warfare or the sacramentalization of infanticide or whatever. Republicans' crusades are bigger - when we don't have them (vide: the seventies), some of us get a little crazy. That is clearly not a problem these days.
So basically, what you're saying is that the GOP went after Clinton because they were bored?
Your party took our nation through the most wrenching Constitutional crisis since Watergate BECAUSE THEY WERE BORED?!?
I'm sorry, Mitch--you just made the best argument for keeping the GOP far, far away from the levers of power that I've ever seen. If the GOP response to good times is to try to damage our country, I think it fair to say that they should not ever be allowed near the levers of power again.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke at July 29, 2004 10:55 AMJeff,
"Your party took our nation through the most wrenching Constitutional crisis since Watergate BECAUSE THEY WERE BORED?!?"
A clearly disingenuous statement if I have ever seen one.
The simple fact of the matter in the Lewinsky case is that the law was applied to its end, just like it was with other members of our military caught in flagrante delicto.
There was no crisis, the constitution was never in question and the president came out with egg on his face as well as many members of congress in the public's opinion.
Opinion, however, is not law, nor should it be government. Our Republic is still alive thanks to laws, not opinions.
It's the same as getting mad at someone when you want to speed and they are holding you back by doing the speed limit. The person ahead of you is obeying the law. If that inconveniences you, then you need to make an internal adjustment.
Sadly, I think we, as a nation, and our representative parties, have almost forgotten how to do that.
Posted by: Kaptin Marko at July 29, 2004 11:15 AMJeff Fecke wrote:
“Fine, but Tom DeLay lied under oath during the 90s, and he hasn't been impeached yet.”
Actually he didn’t but thanks for playing.
“Stupid as what Clinton did was, taking this minor offense to the impeachment level was wrong, and yes, worse for the country than Clinton's offense.”
Evidently perjury and witness tampering are a bit more serious than a “minor offense” since it cost him his license to practice law.
“Two words: Christian coalition. Mitch, Jerry "9/11 is the fault of Atheists" Falwell is slated to give your party's invocation.”
(A) Jerry Falwell isn’t part of the Christian Coalition
(B) Giving the invocation at a convention is hardly evidence of “control(ing) an agenda”
(C) Considering that last night was the DNC’s tribute to anti-Semites in the form of Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson and Al “Bloodsucking Jews” Sharpton, I’ll take Falwell any day of the week
“Don't tell me that extremists have no place in the GOP; much of what GDub has done on the domestic front has been to pacify those very extremists.”
I agree that Bush has pacified the extremists like Ted Kennedy and Tom Harkin by letting them write the agricultural and education bills but I disagree that either of them have a place in the GOP.
“So basically, what you're saying is that the GOP went after Clinton because they were bored?”
No but if Kerry really does drone on for 55 minutes tonight, we might just get bored enough to after him . . . ;)
“Your party took our nation through the most wrenching Constitutional crisis since Watergate BECAUSE THEY WERE BORED?!?”
Um no, actually Clinton took “took our nation through the most wrenching Constitutional crisis since Watergate” because decided that he’d rather abuse the power of his office to tamper with witnesses and commit perjury than have the world know he was schtuping the fat chick in the office.
Posted by: Thorley Winston at July 29, 2004 04:34 PMCan I please have a detailed answer as to what leftists find "extreme" about the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or basically ANY practicing, sincere Christian whatsoever? And if abortion is one of the top "extreme" issues, please tell me how being FOR (and how) the killing of innocent life is NOT "extreme"? I can see being "blase" about what other people do, but being hell-bent on it is so perplexing. Other than that, please elaborate Jeff Fecke.
Posted by: Colleen at July 29, 2004 11:13 PMHmm...something extreme about Jerry Falwell.
What could it be? What...could...it...be?
Could it be...this?
September 14, 2001 Posted: 2:55 AM EDT (0655 GMT)
LYNCHBURG, Virginia (CNN) -- The Rev. Jerry Falwell said late Thursday he did not mean to blame feminists, gays or lesbians for bringing on the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington this week, in remarks on a television program earlier in the day.
On the broadcast of the Christian television program "The 700 Club," Falwell made the following statement:
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"
* * *
Posted by: Jeff Fecke at July 30, 2004 12:18 AMNo...nothin' extreme there.
I think all those people mentioned are "extreme" as well...so I guess we could call this a draw. Got any more examples?
Posted by: Colleen at July 30, 2004 07:58 AM