comments for topic:

Self-Immolating Republicans Part 2

(click here to view original posting in a separate window)

Mr. Brooks begins from such a knowledgeable perspective of contemporary conservatism's roots. Then he so elegantly--so intelligently--proceeds to get lost.

This much credit I will give the man: at least he understands this nation's Joe Sixpacks enough to refer to them as "wholesome." I'm appreciative of that one little word which may be patronizing but is still decent (as well as accurate) in its 'take' on ordinary, middle-American, working stiffs.

In attempting to make his 'case' against WBush, Brooks quotes Fred Barnes: "He’s not a sophisticate and doesn’t spend his discretionary time with sophisticates." That speaks to no one but themselves & their own kind. One sophisticated, inbred Beltway insider quotes another.

And here in this next sentence is where Mr. Brooks truly reveals his own short-sighted snobbery

George W. Bush restrained some of the populist excesses of his party - the anti-immigration fervor, the isolationism - but stylistically he fit right in."

Fit right into what? The kind of lowbrow, 'redneck' mentality he, the beltway and the would-be elites wish to assign to middle America? As for some of the "populist excesses" President Bush restrained such as "anti-immigration fervor," forgive me, Carlos, but protesting the presence of 20million illegal aliens in our midst does not convey a "populist excess" of being anti-immigration to anyone but a wanna-be insider, elitist snot!

If Mr. Brooks (or any of his kind) cannot see any distinction between being 'anti-immigration' and being anti-open borders with the resulting mass influx of illegals by the TENS of millions, then it is he who is far more intellectually challenged than any down to earth Joe Sixpack ever could be.

I don't know how many times I've said this, but it's like talking into the VOID. When finally do we become cognizant of the consequences of such a number attached to breaking laws that are deliberately NOT enforced by our government? And this too goes completely across party lines. Significantly sufficient numbers in both parties subscribe to this open border policy against existing laws (and our constitution) when the vast majority of Americans (also across party lines) have wanted the border closed, monitored & protected. He who calls that "populist excesses" has got his Ivy League head well up his butt!

Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all - men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch.

Talk about class prejudice in action! Someone should inform this well-educated pillar of puff that contempt breeds contempt. And his assumptions--with regard to American Conservatism and the American people--are highly contemptible.

It is incomprehensible to blithely assume that any true conservative ever stopped admiring Churchill & Lincoln "above all." Just because the Bush clan (and their ilk) do not fit this mold does not mean they are today's conservatives pandering to the dumb masses. It means the opposite: that they are NOT conservatives. They are something else (within the Republican Party) that Mr. Brooks fails to recognize and would be wont to define!

Ronald Reagan never lacked the common touch because, like Lincoln, he came straight from the common people (as the Bush clan does not!). And like Lincoln (though this tends to get forgotten) he was very well-read & erudite, with a keen grasp of not only history, but also economics. But the greatest American Conservative of all who Mr. Brooks oddly neglects to mention is Teddy Roosevelt. In his day he was defined as "Traitor to His Class," who took a bullet for his agenda: Trust busting and championing the common man.

Mr. Brooks concludes by stating the obvious: "The party is losing the working class by sins of omission" and commission as well. The truth is that the working, middle and (eventually) upper-middle classes have nowhere to go but on their knees. As for the "educated" class Mr. Brooks so celebrates, if they know not how to cling to the rule of law & the Constitution--as our rulers will not--then they (and we) must at least reach out LIKE MAD to the middle & working classes--FAST! If not, let them--and Mr. Brooks--EAT CAKE.

#1:

I think the news that Bush is not a conservative would come as a big surprise to most of the party base. They turned out in droves for Bush in the past two elections, but at best have been lukewarm towards McCain.

Illegal immigration is not the reason McCain is losing. McCain is losing the election because he lost himself, between his own centrist tendencies and the pressure of the base to turn him into another true believer. The day he picked Palin - a last-minute impulsive decision he would never had made if he felt he could have his druthers - he sealed his fate. Palin appeals only to people who would never vote for Obama anyway, and she alienates everyone else. Besides which, her pick deprived McCain of his strongest argument against Obama - the latter's inexperience.

As to your last paragraph, why ISN'T the Republican Party appealing enough to the middle and working classes to win this thing? The Republicans better do some fast self-examination if they ever hope to win another national election. If you're not winning, then you're a loser. You can blame others for it till the elephants come home, that won't win you a single election. The Republicans had a shot, but scuttled their own ship. Thanks, Rush - for nothing.

PS: I'm afraid the Republicans will draw precisely the wrong lesson from this, and nominate Palin the next time. If that happens, you'll see McGovern in reverse. RIP for the GOP.

#2
Re: "The day he picked Palin - a last-minute impulsive decision he would never had made if he felt he could have his druthers..."
To pick WHOM?

#3:

Anyone who would have had broader appeal and could have reached out to independents. Tom Ridge has been mentioned. It's a big country. I'm sure there were others.

Obama was smart. He picked a Democrat more to the center than himself, AND with a lot of experience. McCain did just the opposite. To everyone but the base, his ticket is a laughing stock. You see many people laughing at Biden imitators?

Surely Palin wasn't the best the Republicans could get. But the Limbaugh crowd certainly popped the champaign corks when she was picked. We'll see what they'll be drinking in three weeks.

#4
Here's another analysis on what is going wrong in the McCain campaign. I don't know that I agree with everything the author has to say, but it is worth pondering. From Sunday's NY Post OpEd section:

Presidential candidates who've choked in the clutch often turn out to be plagued by their own doubts--prey perhaps to a political law of natural selection.

When Bear Stearns went under, John McCain was actually ahead, with a little help from Sarah Palin. To seal the deal, he just needed to be the grownup. Instead he kept changing positions, and staged a phony "campaign suspension."

A book about the 1988 election described how Michael Dukakis refused to respond to attacks, after taking a vacation that let him ponder his 17-point lead over George H.W. Bush. "Saying over and over that you were going to be president gave you a kind of a runner's high; but when the cheering stopped, a certain hollow feeling set in, a sudden vertigo of the soul."

Elections often boil down to which candidate wants it more. This past summer, McCain seemed to, as he launched harsh ads attacking Obama as a "celebrity," and when he picked Palin. But now he's blown his second election. Isn't it logical to wonder if his erratic behavior under fire shows he was terrified of the prospect he might actually become president? - Peter Feld

#5:

I read this when it came out. I think it's baloney, as is most armchair psychoanalysis.

McCain is losing this election because he showed rotten judgment. He hired the Bush campaign crowd, led by that idiot Steven Schmidt, and he listened to them. Big mistake. His negative ads - which are practically the only ads he has anymore - are turning people off in droves. When your nest egg blows up and you lose your job, you have no patience for mud-slinging, you want a MATURE candidate who can point the way out. Not that Obama fills the bill, but since a) he's not a Republican, and b) he sounds more grown-up than McCain, he will probably win handily.

McCain was done in by Democratic mud-slingers, Republican die-hards who wanted to prove they can destroy the candidacy of anyone who fails to toe their line, and most of all by his own stupidity. He could have overcome his foes - in the end, he did this to himself.

#6

He could have overcome his foes

That is exactly what I believed and hoped for.

in the end, he did this to himself.

At last! Something we both agree on--sadly...