Sucking and Other Pulmonary Aerodynamics
whispering sweet nothings in our political ears
By haystack Posted in 2008 | Featured Stories — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Field Of Dreams, formerly known as the 2008 Republican Presidential candidates, continues to get planted, watered, and fertilized laying in wait for greener grass and occupied seats in the peanut gallery.
The list grows, almost daily, with names that range from total obscurity to absurdity in the absolute. With each addition comes the obligatory “quick review” and quicker casting aside of any serious consideration. Why then, given the near Total Eclipse of Conservatism under the “Bush Watch”, do these political court jesters continue to interrupt our sojourn through the wilderness with empty rhetoric and principled contradictions hoping for someone to lay myrrh at their feet?
With the so-called sweeping defeat shining brightly in our sitting President’s eyes, the GOP finds itself in similar circumstances to those of our enlightened college students in the wistfully remembered bygone days of the 60’s trying to find themselves.
I could resolve myself to be laughingly entertained, were it not otherwise so critically important to our Nation’s future that we get this right. With the opportunity to further at least the most basic of Conservative Principles thoroughly squandered over the past 6 years, we need to have a discussion about just exactly what we want from our next GOP President, should there even BE a candidate that legitimately exists out in that field.
If such a person doesn’t exist, can we please just pick someone we can glean some personal entertainment and amusement from to keep us from further slipping into a political coma for the next 6 years? Just pull the 2012 calendar out now, get back to the wilderness, and get to hunting?
More below the fold...
I find little value in trying to distinguish here between those who have “declared” and those who are “exploring”; such folly can remain with the girl-scout campfire ghost stories being bandied about on the Left. In order to form a more perfect union of support or rejection of these power aspirants, any legitimate review and analysis MUST include the points of reference against which we select or reject a candidate.
It has become abundantly clear, especially when one mulls the GOP cannibalism we have observed since November 8, 2006, that every faction and plank of the party has blamed every other (and the principles and beliefs they each espouse) for the defeat at the polls and the loss of majority status in Congress. While we busy ourselves with the knee-jerk reactions that engages criticism and demonization of the victors, we expend energy we should be reserving for determining how best to avoid a repeat in 2008.
We lost for a number of reasons; some obtuse, some abstract, and some plain and clear to even the untrained eye. Most important for us to acknowledge up front if we are serious about our self-inflicted rehab is to accept that the opponent won. They outplayed us, they took the field, and they are enjoying their election victory dance in the end-zone. Say it with me…
They won! Say it again….They won. There-isn’t that better?
Understanding HOW they won is the only way to even ATTEMPT to prevent them from back to back victories. Understanding that they won by making us look bad is the first step to recovery. And, they made us look bad because we were. As we busied ourselves arguing principles and ideologies, they were whispering sweet nothings in the ears of their faithful, and promising things would be less bad if everyone would just trust them, and go to the polls.
They succeeded in convincing their minions to play nice with each other in public, while making sweetheart deals with those colleagues that may have been under indictment or hiding bribe money in their freezers. They ratcheted up the "sell-able" accusations of high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of their opposition, and enabled the communications conglomerates to get the message across that bad guys in the majority are more bad than bad guys in the minority. We owe them a well done, and a closer look at the fundamental secret to this success.
The Democrats are not concerned with arguing Liberalism in public. Like religion, they prefer that be kept (along with a great many OTHER human endeavors) behind closed doors, and outside the public limelight. Simultaneously, they were able to analyze and tear down the fundamental tenets and principles of Conservatism in the open arena of ideas, successfully (and wrongly) associate ALL Republicans with Conservatism, and thusly found themselves in possession of the Speaker's gavel.
As the Mitt Romneys, Rudy Giulianis, Newt Gingrichs, Chucky Hagels, Sam Brownbacks, and Ron Pauls (and God knows who else I have missed or forgotten), come along, we will be faced with the more basic question of whether we pick the candidate that best fits our ideologies (or offends the least of them), or whether we pick the one that has the best chance of blowing the most effective smoke up...err, IN everyone's ears.
The planks of the GOP (and separately of the Conservative-minded subset of same) have been successfully placed under our collective feet much the same as Saddam's gallows. He fell through his, and the intended result was fully realized. We keep standing firm to ours, and we may well share that fate.
The GOP is going to stay out in the wilderness a good long time until and unless it understands that winning takes precedence over principle. However much I wish I could believe otherwise, this remains true until Americans re-learn the ills of liberalism (even closet liberalism). To achieve that, this party is going to need leadership that first and foremost actually BELIEVES in Conservative Principles, second, develops a public record of actually LIVING Conservative Principles, and finally, can articulate and LEAD the masses to that kool aid dispenser willingly and enthusiastically.
Until then, ALL that matters is that we find someone we think can beat the opposition, and make it so-by doing all that we have learned from those currently residing in that cuckoo's nest we so badly want back.
Today, as was said more eloquently HERE , no such man or woman has left the dugout and come on to the field. There is MUCH to be done
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Cheering me up — Comments (5) »
Sucking and Other Pulmonary Aerodynamics 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
In light of this...
... ALL that matters is that we find someone we think can beat the opposition ...
I ask the following: how well did "finding someone who we think can beat the other guy" work for the Dems in 2004?
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
they got better at it in '06...the chances they get better at the Prez level for '08...as of right now...are very good.
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
But I think you might be conflating the relative (media enhanced) strength of their potential POTUS candidates with ours (encumbered as they are by reality and a lack of media looking at them like my then 12-year old sister used to ogle posters of Bon Jovi).
But as I've said all over this place, it's January 2007, for Pete's sake. Can we at least let pitchers and catchers report before tossing our prospects for November 2008 into the dunnie?
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
...seems to be making a paradigm shift in presidential elections.
It used to be you could wait until the September or October of the year preceding the election. But now, in the 24/7 media and instant information age, it seems you almost have to start or announce in January to make sure you shore up the $dollars$ - I'm almost positive this is a major reason why Kerry's not running and why algore will pass as well.
To which I can only say, "Oh joy! A 2-year long Presidential Campaign!!"
I'm phoning the wife to have her hide my belts and shoelaces as I type...
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
The course they took was to run even or to the right (in some cases that meant "slightly right of Attila the Hun") of their republican opponent.
That won’t work the other way around!
But as much as it pains me, I think your right in saying:
... ALL that matters is that we find someone we think can beat the opposition ...
It took the perfect storm to get the Dems a 1% majority in the Senate and a 3% majority in the house.
I am talking multiple Repubs with felony charges, high gas prices, worst possible news out of Iraq, record low incumbent President popularity, terrible candidate recruitment by the GOP, a record number of gaffes by incumbent Repubs, and ofcourse child molesting Republicans.
Dems BACKED into that "sweeping" victory. Without any ONE of the aformentioned "gifts" from the GOP, the Dems fail to win the Senate, without any TWO of them, they don't win the House either.
You are right about one thing, "stealing" votes in red states with "allegedly" moderate/conservative candidates (ie: Tester/Webb) will DEFINATELY not work for the Dems in a Presidential election.
It really matters for us who we nominate. Nominate a liberal, pro-abortion, pro-special gay rights Republican like Giuliani and we lose even if we win.
At least John McCain has NEVER waivered on the bedrock issues of values voters, despite his personal angst and bitterness toward Bush about SC in 2000.
Also, in a straight up race, there is NO WAY any credible Republican loses to the wicked which of the north Hillary or pretty boys Edwards or Obama.
The ONLY way we lose to any of them is if we nominate someone like a Pat Buchannan (ie: Tom Tancredo).
As long as we nominate someone who is competent, conservative but not a whack job, and reasonably good in front of a camera, we win in 2008 and probably take both houses back on coat-tails.
If we nominate Giuliani on the other hand, even if we win and take back the Senate, what good is it? Forget being "forced" into "compromise nominees" to the courts, he will gladly nominate like-minded liberals to the courts and our numbers in the Senate will be irrelevant.
"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"
whether we pick the one that has the best chance of blowing the most effective smoke up...err, IN everyone's ears.
Several of the proposed candidates have as their main qualification their ability to blow smoke in the ears of Republican voters. I don't think that running left is going to somehow help us end up getting to the right. See the Guilliani/Chave suggestion above. The two parties have swapped the conservative/liberal positions between themselves in the past, and they seem to be in the process of doing it again.
Conservatism does seem to be all but dead in the GOP. I don't see a lot of suggestions out there as to how that can be reversed though. I don't even see much agreement within this site as to what conservatism is, which is rather an obstacle to advancing it.
I am trying to write just such a piece, and await the beatings and onslaught...please ready yourself to offer your thoughs as well on what conservatism really is.
Steven Foley knows of what I speak...more soon on that.
consider that a "heads up"
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
Or fools, perhaps. I've been trying to come up with something similar.
The party has picked up a strain of people for whom Goldwater and Hayek are too old-fashioned, too statist, not progressive enough. We'll have to cut such people loose sooner or later, or become a more liberal version of the Democrats; I'd rather do it sooner.
I agree that it is very important to have a candidate that can win. There is an excruciatingly important caveat that belongs to my aforementioned statement. We must also have a candidate that supports the American forms of Conservatism. If we select a candidate that ignores, attacks, undermines, etc. Conservatives we will have as many if not more problems than we would have with a democrat. We cannot select a candidate that tries to out socialist the socialists, because that will only create more socialism.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
"... ALL that matters is that we find someone we think can beat the opposition ..."
This type of mentality is exactley what got US to were we are today. F*ck principle and doing the right thing lets just go buisness as usual (wide spread graft of gov), screw principle lets not balance the budget, screw principle lets pour huge amounts of wasted money into Chafee and other sell outs who do more harm than good and even flip as soon as they no longer need the money, screw principles lets not kick immoral, corrupt, out right perverted freeks out they can win elections, screw principle forget small government lets go do LLL stuff and try to buy votes (that still don't vote for US), screw principles lets just vote for the Democrat enmass and then we will win.
Short term victory is useless even if acheivable without the PRINCIPLES, FOUNDATION, IDEAS to make that shorterm longterm. If the Repubs had not forgotten why they were made the majority and stuck to PRINCIPLE we would be figuring out what to do with out new super majority today but instead they chose "... ALL that matters is that we find someone we think can beat the opposition ..." instead, and here we are.
If there is not a Conservative then we have no canadite. Its not just about picking a winner this is not a horse race betting warm fuzzies, its our way of life and most especially our childrens.
Suck it UP.

I think that a Rudy Giuliani/Linda Chavez ticket would be a VERY interesting ticket. An Italian northeasterner from New York, and a female Hispanic westerner from New Mexico.
Some silly people may have a problem with an all Catholic ticket, but if they give us more Catholics on the court like John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Sam Alito...I'm all for it. :-)