PDA

View Full Version : The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties


Bloggingheads
01-23-2008, 07:59 PM

which hunt?
01-24-2008, 12:33 AM
Great diavlog! I could listen to a boring policy discussion from these two all day. They are insightful, pragmatic, interesting, and have chemistry.

Good times.

zookarama
01-24-2008, 12:50 AM
amen to that. Ruy worries that he's just participated in "a long boring policy discussion" Well, this is why I spend so much time on this site. A tremendously successful pairing, IMO. I'll be chewing on tonight's ideas for quite a while.

Eastwest
01-24-2008, 02:31 AM
What a marvelously intelligent and refreshing discussion. Such a breath of fresh air. I'd say bring them both back head-to-head, but I would also be especially interested in hearing RT engage with yet others.

EW

jmcnulty
01-24-2008, 09:43 AM
No wonder Ruy Teixeira seemed so smug. If the answer of the Republicans is only to be a pallid echo of the Democrats ("We're for national healthcare too, but we will do it more efficiently"), then the Reagan coalition truly is as dead as Reagan, and maybe it is, judging by the ascendancy of John McCain and the failure of Fred Thompson.

But if that is the case, who will the Republican voters be? Why vote Republican if the party intends the same destination as the Democrats, but just wants to get there a little more slowly? Why bother? Meanwhile, the Democrats are creating new spending constitutuencies. Eventually, most of the country will be getting a government check of some kind. At that point, there will not even be any remaining stigma.

The situation for Republicans is grim, grimmer that anyone wants to admit. On the one hand, you have the libertarians pulling away from the Republican Party over personal automny and social issues. On the other hand, you have the social conservatives, resentful that the Republicans have taken them form granted for decades. They are ready to walk, and the Democrats have prepared a populist evangelicalism for them. The traditional Wall Street Republicans only want to make money; they don't care which country they make it in of which party is in power, as long as taxes are not confiscatory. Paying off politicians with campaign contributions is only a cost of doing business. The national security conservatives, discredited by Iraq in the absence of a major terrorist attack, shout a lonely alarm that nobody wants to hear.

This is a mess for Republicans, and I do not see how they will not be wandering in the wilderness for years. In fact, it may be the end of the Republican Party. If what they say is true -- that the so-called "millennial" generation is socially liberal and sees a larger role for government (when the 30-year-olds are not busy playing video games)-- then it is hard to see how this turns around without long-term efforts at popular education or Democratic mistakes.

Fred Thompson was the only conservative capable of papering over the diffirences in the coalition through the election. The fact that he could not get traction with his campaign indicates that the coalition is dead. I predict that either Hillary or Obama will carry 40 states in an electoral meltdown for the Republicans.

We will become the new "Europe," which may not a bad idea since the old Europe is going Islamic.

waSP
01-24-2008, 01:41 PM
Anyone else find the reflection on Ruy's glasses to be distracting? Anyone else find his tone overly goofy at times?

Fantastic discussion. Their being engaged with each other kept me tremendously engaged.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
01-24-2008, 02:26 PM
Gabriel Sherman reports in TNR that Mr. Douthat was on the "short" list of 25 persons in the running for the "conservative" columnist slot at the New York Times that went to Bill Kristol.

I find it hard to imagine anyone in BH TV land who wouldn't agree that Mr. Douthat would have been a better choice.

I really like Mr. Douthat's personality, intelligence and his takes on popular culture. The only time I can't read him is when he tries to defend Republican politicians but he does this pretty rarely.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
01-24-2008, 02:31 PM
The new "Europe," jmcnulty? Didn't you hear that the U.S. is being taken over by Mexico? (or is that only the portion that previously was Mexico, Mr. Kaus?)

So, jmcnulty would you rather live in the coming United States of Mexico or the Islamic Caliphate of Europe?

[QUOTE=jmcnulty;69266
We will become the new "Europe," which may not a bad idea since the old Europe is going Islamic.[/QUOTE]

Trevor
01-24-2008, 03:37 PM
I dunno, JM. How much of the much-vaunted Republican crackup is just a function of an idiosyncratic candidate field? If Thompson had proved to be a more effective campaigner we probably wouldn't be hearing much about deep ideological rifts in the party.

Further, I think Romney would do a good job of holding the coalition together, even if he lost in the general. He very explicitly appeals to all three legs of the Reagan coalition, and if he loses it's easy to attribute that to some combination of his Mormon beliefs, his strikingly transparent insincerity, and the general political climate. There's no reason the Republicans couldn't run a conventional, Reagan-style conservative in '12 and expect to do well.

Trevor
01-24-2008, 03:57 PM
Agree that this was a remarkably good episode.

Some thoughts on a potential Republican realignment:

For me it seems to come down to which constituency the party can afford to alienate in order to shift. Which interest groups wield the most power within the party?

For something like Douthat's (quite appealing) pro-family agenda, you need a diminishing of the power of Wall Street Republicans, who currently drive the anti-tax agenda. One imagines there aren't actually a whole lot of votes there, and it's hard to imagine CEOs suddenly deciding to vote Democrat just because their priorities go down a peg. But Jon Chait argues (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Con-Washington-Hoodwinked-CrackpotEconomics/dp/0618685405) that they're the bloc the really calls the shots in the party, and they have always won conflicts between their priorities and those of other groups. Is Chait right? What has to happen for them to lose their grip?

The priorities of the social conservative base are probably the biggest liability in terms of winning over my (Millenial) generation, but they are a huge part of the coalition votes-wise. Would they accept a pro-family agenda that was also multi-racial and pro-gay rights? One could imagine a broader campaign against the licentiousness of the hookup culture that treated stable, monogamous homosexual relationships with respect and tried to work with socially-conservative black and Latino leaders to combat births out of wedlock, but that would require dialing down on vocal opposition to gay rights, recognitions of Southern "heritage," and immigration demagoguery. I genuinely don't know how much it would cost them to force those elements out of the party, or at least relegate their concerns to the back burner.

The national security hawks actually seem like the smallest problem, and a shoo-in for inclusion in any Republican coalition. Their priorities cease to be a problem as soon as Americans stop dying in Iraq, either because we pull out (call it a victory if Republicans make the call, an embarrassing loss that must be avenged if it's democrats) or because things actually settle down there on their own (call it a victory). Doe that mean that hawks become the ideological core of the party, or just a powerful interest group that's always along for the ride. It's hard to imagine foreign policy really becoming the animating force behind a whole half of the political scene.

jmcnulty
01-24-2008, 04:42 PM
You aksed: "So, jmcnulty would you rather live in the coming United States of Mexico or the Islamic Caliphate of Europe?"

Thankfully, it will not affect me. My children and grandchildren? Come back in 50 years and tell me. I once thought that this would not be a danger for 200 years, but at the speed it is preceding, 50 years sounds about right. As Lenin said, every revolution is the kicking in of a rotten door.

Planes, tanks, and missiles are not the proper "metric" for this war. Zeal, immigration, and numbers (birth rates) are. In those areas, we are losing and nearing collapse. We are showing that we have no willingness to resist infiltration by a foreign element, whether it comes from Mexico (and is Christian, but culturally foreign and irrendentist) or the Islamic world.

At some point, it will be more convenient for masses to follow you and convert to Islam. Someday, we will see someone at the Academy Awards wearing hijab (to general applause). Islam will become the Kaballah of tomorrow. Is anyone willing to resist in the name of "Christendom"? Why would we resist when the elites consider Christianity vestigial and a problem -- when they consider it at all. Note the contempt for Christianity on this board among literate commenters. Against this, personal piety will not be able to stand for long.

Zawahiri would be smart to abandon the jihad of the AK-47 in favor of the jihad of the cradle and immigration. Muslims do not have to rule through a Caliphate. Look at Brussels, where no one will dare oppose the 30 percent of the city council that is Muslim to avoid being called "racist."

cousincozen
01-24-2008, 06:00 PM
Mr. Teixeira's remarks concerning "the next American people," (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8120?in=00:50:39) delivered in an offhanded, conversational, nonchalant, wingback-chair manner, creepily summoned up for me Bertolt Brecht's "electing a new people," (http://www.vdare.com/pb/people.htm) referenced in Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation (http://www.vdare.com/alien_nation/). With that intense light reflection off his glasses, all he needed was a lit cigarette in a long black cigarette holder (and it's not that I'm saying that he reminded me of Major Toht (http://indianajones.ugo.com/images/villains/arnold-toht/arnold-toht-3.jpg) in Raider's of the Lost Ark).

Wonderment
01-24-2008, 06:01 PM
In those areas, we are losing and nearing collapse. We are showing that we have no willingness to resist infiltration by a foreign element, whether it comes from Mexico (and is Christian, but culturally foreign and irrendentist) or the Islamic world.

JM, No te preocupes tanto. Ojalá que los científicos descubran una vacuna antimexicana para inmunizarte, antes de que sea demasiado tarde, contra esta plaga que infecta y contamina la pureza de la raza blanca.

Allah Hu Akbar,
Wonderment

jmcnulty
01-24-2008, 06:21 PM
If you play your cards right, you may end up putting all your posts in Spanish or Arabic, just to show how sophisticated you are. Maybe that does not bother you. I wonder if the reverse would bother anyone in Mexico City or Mecca? It sounds like you reject the very idea of a "foreign element."

cousincozen
01-24-2008, 06:42 PM
"As Lenin said, every revolution is the kicking in of a rotten door." I think Toynbee's "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide" (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp) is more apt.

jmcnulty
01-24-2008, 07:47 PM
Except, as you know, suicide is prohibited by the Qur'an.

David_PA
01-24-2008, 10:55 PM
JM - What Ross Douthat says in this diavlog outta scare you silly, especially given your propensity to go down the scary road.

bjkeefe
01-24-2008, 11:06 PM
jm:

I wouldn't worry too much about a prolonged Republican time in the wilderness. The Democratic leadership has an amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, for one, and for another, the right-wing noise machine will only become stronger if the Dems run the table in the next election.

David_PA
01-24-2008, 11:32 PM
jm:

I wouldn't worry too much about a prolonged Republican time in the wilderness. The Democratic leadership has an amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, for one, and for another, the right-wing noise machine will only become stronger if the Dems run the table in the next election.

I wouldn't put Hillary in the 'defeat from the jaws of victory' category. Though I'm supporting Obama. H has more inevitability; and you've got to acknowledge that unlike Dukakis, Kerry, or even Gore, she's an excellent fighter.

Of course, if H is the pres. and doesn't have a successful first term, you'll be right, BJ.

cousincozen
01-24-2008, 11:38 PM
"All great nations commit martyrdom" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

bjkeefe
01-25-2008, 12:15 AM
David:

I wouldn't put Hillary in the 'defeat from the jaws of victory' category.

You're right about that. She's a canny and capable politician who doesn't make big mistakes.

On the other hand, picking her as the nominee risks snatching defeat in the larger, party sense: either she loses the general, or takes office with nearly half the country permanently locked into Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Neither of these is really her fault, but it is reality. So, to return to my original point, jm's worry about a prolonged Republican absence from power is probably unfounded.

David_PA
01-25-2008, 12:58 AM
David:
You're right about that. She's a canny and capable politician who doesn't make big mistakes.

On the other hand, picking her as the nominee risks snatching defeat in the larger, party sense: either she loses the general, or takes office with nearly half the country permanently locked into Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Neither of these is really her fault, but it is reality. So, to return to my original point, jm's worry about a prolonged Republican absence from power is probably unfounded.

The data & trends both Ruy and Ross discussed didn't point that way; rather, they point to a long-term democrat trend.

What you appear to be saying BJ is that H, while canny and capable as a politico, is at the same time too politically inept to prevent herself from falling prey to C-derangement-syndrone. My view: Hillary's a lot wiser now and would prevent a lot of that from happening - again.

Furthermore, if there is a dem-trend wave, I think Hillary would be able to ride it - meaning she'd get 10% - 15% of electorate (from those who didn't vote for her) to, addition to those who voted for her, rate her favorably if she performed well.

I think Obama could do a better job of ushering in and maintaining a dem-trend, which is why I'm supporting him. But, H could do almost as well.

bjkeefe
01-25-2008, 01:22 AM
David:

You make two good points: reminding me of Ruy and Ross's predictions about trends, and arguing for Hillary Clinton being able to win over some of her detractors.

To the latter, she does have some evidence of doing this from her efforts in (pretty red) upstate NY when running for Senator. It remains to be seen if she can overcome the right-wing noise machine on a truly national scale, though. I swear, she could get elected president, end all strife in the Middle East, cure cancer, solve nuclear fusion, and invent the next Internet, and Rush Limbaugh would still be railing against her. And worse, a lot of people would say Rush was right.

Which leads me to my even more serious doubts about your first point. For a long time now, the majority of the population's view on issues has much more closely resembled a Democratic platform, yet people still keep voting Republican. Or, at least, did until 2006. I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons why this should be so, but in the end, there's something real at work here, and not just in Kansas. Maybe I'm being defeatist, or just worrying unnecessarily based on recent history, but ... well, ask me how I feel in two years.

David_PA
01-25-2008, 01:41 AM
Ha - well, BJ, I definitely agree that Rush and a good percentage of his ditto-heads would hate H 'til the end of their days, no matter what she would do, if pres.

Still, think she can win over some centrists and center-rights.

I'd be inclined to agree that with you that the dems wouldn't be able to cash in on the dem-trends, if not for two things: 1) breaking in 2006, the repub attack machine isn't at full strength like it was in 2000 and 2004, 2) hearing Ross assess the repub's strength in the current climate, showed a party with an old message out of focus with the times. That can't be turned around quickly.

I'm not saying dem landslides, just at least a percent or two more falling their way - enough to win, given how close the last two pres contests have been.

And ... even if I thought you were right, I wouldn't admit that now. I'd pay homage to your 'I told you so's' next Nov - and hope you'd do the same.

bjkeefe
01-25-2008, 02:03 AM
David:

Nothing would make me happier than having to bow to your "I told you so's" next year.

David_PA
01-25-2008, 02:36 AM
David:

Nothing would make me happier than having to bow to your "I told you so's" next year. [... bowing]

jmcnulty
01-25-2008, 09:09 AM
You said: "What Ross Douthat says in this diavlog outta scare you silly, especially given your propensity to go down the scary road."

I think I said that the situation is grimmer for Republicans that anyone in the party wants to admit. The only hope is a libertarian approach (not that I personally like it) because the currrent "hook-up" generation, sexually libertine, socially liberal, with a live-and-let-live attitude towards homosexuality, is open to a litbertarian approach on exonomics. The problem is that if the Republican Party alienates the religious right, by taking an agnostic position on abortion, for instance, the party cannot win without those votes. I suspect that a few years of Hillarycare and attendant bureaucracy will make a difference. Obama is a different case, but time would tell whether he truly is transformative or just another programmatic big government liberal.

Regarding my tendency "to go down the scary road," I would ask, as opposed to what road? I do not think that I have gone down "the scary road" ro recognize where we seem to be heading, even though the destination is not yet clear to most people. By the time it is clear to everyone, it will be too late to do anything. As I have said, we will get denials that anything is wrong right up to the moment when we will be told, "There is nothing that we can do."

I once thought that our confrontation with Islam was like the irrestible force meeting the immovable object. But we seem to be willing to make significant accommodations to Islam for social peace and to feel good about ourselves. In a clash of civilizations, we lose, because we are prepared to move away from OUR civilization as far as necessary. We have seen abridgement of Western rights -- free speech, for instance -- that I would have thought impossible -- all in the name of "tolerance."

Not a SINGLE American newspaper published the cartoons of Muhammed (even for "informational" purposes), yet The New York Times felt free to publish a picture of a painting of the Virgin Mary smeared with Elephant dung. Tolerance of what?

bjkeefe
01-25-2008, 11:23 AM
jm:

Not a SINGLE American newspaper published the cartoons of Muhammed (even for "informational" purposes) ...

I'll go along with you on that bit. I thought this was shameful behavior on the part of the MSM. Truly, they let the terrorists win that one.

cousincozen
01-25-2008, 11:37 AM
"...yet The New York Times felt free to publish a picture of a painting of the Virgin Mary smeared with Elephant dung."

A Christopher Hitchens quote (http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/01/25/its-not-what-you-say-its-how-you-say-it-department-christopher-hitchens-the-ron-paul-letter-and-dr-king/) in a current article at VDare might provide a hint of an explanation for that: "These things, which of course disturb the faithful, are rather encouraging in that they show that a high moral character is not a precondition for great moral accomplishments." In other words, what about all the good things that Hitler did? (http://web.archive.org/web/20041026075203/http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=192) But on the bright side, as Mr. Douthat points out (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8120?in=00:53:34), being identified with such moral desolation doesn't cut it with the, dare I say it, moral majority. Much to the consternation of the guardians of elite opinion, the slavering hoi polloi aren't THAT gullible.

David_PA
01-25-2008, 11:54 AM
JM:

So, why don't you apply worst-case-scenario (aka scared) thinking to the global warming issue? The worst case there could be just as dire (as the ME issues) for your children and grandchildren?

jmcnulty
01-25-2008, 12:32 PM
I don't object to The New York Times publishing the picture of the Virgin Mary. The point is that it is acceptable and considered "free speech" to publish anything critical of Christianity, yet the "proper respect" must be shown towards Islam and Muhammed. Isn't this the first step to dhimmitude?

Whatever happened to "freedom for the idea that we hate?" The goal is not that something critical of Christianity should NOT be published, but that Islam should not be immune from criticism or comment.

I fear that at some point, it will become socially unacceptable to SAY OR WRITE anything critical of Islam and Muhammed. This has already has a chilling effect on radio and television.

I am not a postulant in the new global warming religion. For secularists, it is a spiritual replacement for the failed god of communism since its collapse -- a way to restirct and pay penance for the success of capitalism.

Why is it that one possible "solution" to the emissions problem is to replace today's cars with fuel cell-equipped ones? Do you not realize that one of the consequences of fuel cerll cars will be water vapor emissions, and water vapor is a much more important "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is a small component of the atmosphere. As I understand it, "global warming" stopped in 2001, and global temperatures have remained unchanged since then. Have emissions of carbon dioxide remained constant since then?

The UN panel is predominantly not climate scientists, but political representatives of governments. This is an attempt to do indirecly through environmentalism what the Left could not do through Marxism.

bjkeefe
01-25-2008, 01:02 PM
jm:

I fear that at some point, it will become socially unacceptable to SAY OR WRITE anything critical of Islam and Muhammed. This has already has a chilling effect on radio and television.

I am not a postulant in the new global warming religion. For secularists, it is a spiritual replacement for the failed god of communism since its collapse -- a way to restirct and pay penance for the success of capitalism.

You off your meds again?

jmcnulty
01-25-2008, 01:24 PM
Very clever. And so original. That is the kind of thinking and insight that we need.

bjkeefe
01-25-2008, 01:46 PM
Very clever. And so original. That is the kind of thinking and insight that we need.

Thanks! I appreciate the shout-out!

David_PA
01-25-2008, 02:02 PM
The UN panel is predominantly not climate scientists, but political representatives of governments. This is an attempt to do indirecly through environmentalism what the Left could not do through Marxism.

Right. and of course ... the Right has no political agenda whatsoever in manipulating people like you, getting you all hopped up on war adrenaline, so you'll continually sound the alarm bells about the "Islamo Fascist" menace.

jmcnulty
01-25-2008, 02:16 PM
I haven't described an "Islamofascist" menace. What would YOU call it? As I understand it, the term is an effort to distance the terrorists from orthodox Isllam by describing the terrorists as "Islamofascist," combining elements of Islam with the threat of fascism. It is, at best, useful shorthand. I do not think anyone has got me excited about anything, as if I am just useful dupe who can be manipulated. My opinons about Islam come from a reading of the Qur'an and books about Islam, including one containing translations of the writings (intended for Muslims) of Bin Laden and Zawahiri. Is it your contention that we should NOT educate ourselves about Islam? No one has pointed out factual errors in my depiction of Islam. Whether you want to hear it or not is something else.

David_PA
01-25-2008, 02:23 PM
I haven't described an "Islamofascist" menace. What would YOU call it? As I understand it, the term is an effort to distance the terrorists from orthodox Isllam by describing the terrorists as "Islamofascist," combining elements of Islam with the threat of fascism. It is, at best, useful shorthand. I do not think anyone has got me excited about anything, as if I am just useful dupe who can be manipulated. My opinons about Islam come from a reading of the Qur'an and books about Islam, including one containing translations of the writings (intended for Muslims) of Bin Laden and Zawahiri. Is it your contention that we should NOT educate ourselves about Islam? No one has pointed out factual errors in my depiction of Islam. Whether you want to hear it or not is something else.
C'mon ... all of the sudden out of nowhere you decided to start reading about Islam and that had nothing to do with the anti-terrorist drumbeat that began after September 11th, 2001? You give Zawahire and Bin Laden so much credence - as if everything they think they can accomplish they will. They're rhetoricians leading a political movement and you're swallowing it whole. And, on top of that you're not self-aware enough to recognize the Right's manipulation of you. It's a double-duping whamy that has lead to your continual little-picture ranting.

jmcnulty
01-25-2008, 02:54 PM
I taught a course on Islam five years ago. I have been reading other books since then. I do not know what the "Repulican" policy on terorism is. I am very unhappy about some aspects of the Bush Administration's policy in this area (sich as Karen Hughes conducing "outreach" to the Muslim world). The only good thing that can be said about it is that it is not the willful blindess of the Democrats, who, like you, see terorism as, in the Rev. John Forbes Kerry's phrase, "a nuisance, like prostitution or gambling." John Edwards, a candidate for President who is still taken seriously, has called the war on terrorism a mere slogan for a bumper sticker. I do not know what Bin Laden or Zawahiri can accomplish. Before 2001, no one thought they could make a major attack on American soil. I just know what their intentions are. The current lull in attacks can be seen either as (1) proof that antiterrost operations are succeeding or (2) that attacks are being withheld until a disabling attack can be mounted. In contrast to the Japanese on December 7, Zawahiri (the real brains of the operation) realizes that September 11 had a bad effect for them -- it served to make us mad and, temporarily, vigilant. The next attack has to be both unforeseen and "disabling." I do not expect to convince you. When it happens, maybe you will be convinced. The fact that any political party happens to have a "political agenda" on an issue (when every political party seeks work out a "poliical agenda" on EVERY issue) is irrevelent.

Wonderment
01-25-2008, 03:05 PM
I taught a course on Islam five years ago.

Now that's scary.

jmcnulty
01-25-2008, 03:17 PM
I am always surprised at the rudeness of Leftist commenters. I do not care whether you find anything scary or not. Obviously, you find me more scary than terrorism. So be it. It would do you good to take a course on Islam, although you think yourself to be already so smart that you may be uneducable.

David_PA
01-25-2008, 03:31 PM
JM: Terrorism is a real threat. We just disagree about what to do about it. Assessing the threat has nothing to do with what Islam teaches, or what radical Muslims advocate. It's about doing the best we can to protect ourselves given what we can find out about terrorist operations.

I'd not get so mad at you if you'd have discussions about what to do about the terrorist threat. But, continually hearing you trying to 'teach' about what Islam says is tiring. And it's beside the point.

TwinSwords
01-25-2008, 04:49 PM
I taught a course on Islam five years ago.
To whom did you teach this course? I'm guessing a Bible Study Group at your local Pentacostal Temple, or something like that.

Maybe you could do us all a favor and post up the syllabus. I think I would pay to see that.

jmcnulty
01-25-2008, 05:11 PM
I think it matters if Islam is the motivating ideology. We have never faced an enemy like this. The kamikazis of World War II attacked battleships, not office buildings, and they did not operate under the promise of immediate Paradise. I hope that you are right. I apologize for being a "bore" about Islam, but Samuel Huntington wrote his book about the "clash of civilizations" in the EARLY NINETIES. He foresaw where this ideology would lead.

David_PA
01-25-2008, 05:43 PM
Huntington saw it would lead to what it has lead to today, or he forecast more trouble than the West has so far experienced?

daveh
01-26-2008, 03:33 AM
Hmmm -- the beard, the cozy sweaters, where have I seen that before? For a while there I thought that Ross Douthat was the reincarnation of my high school guidance counselor. He must be 28 years old or so, what is he going to be like when he's fifty? He already makes David Broder look like Don Rickles.

I think that Mr. Douthat's greenness shows through in his commentary on the current election. I have heard him repeat several times that "this is a Democratic year", but weren't 1988 and 2000 Democratic years? Ask the Dukakis campaign staff who went house hunting in D.C. in 88. What about 1992? Didn't George Bush look unstoppable for a while? I agree that the generic preferences probably will have a big effect on downticket races, but I don't think that Republicans should write off the Presidential race on account of that. After all, 1976 was the most Democratic year of all and poor Gerald Ford even made it close.

As to Mr. Douthat's long-term gloominess, I think that also shows that he hasn't been around that long. I felt the same way in 1992 -- but soon enough you had the avalanche in 1994.

piscivorous
01-26-2008, 05:23 AM
Gee when I made such a suggestion of a hate filed screed against me personally it was followed by further hate filled screeds. While I am getting old and sometimes my memory fails I believe you were one of those that replied.

bjkeefe
01-26-2008, 08:50 AM
Pisc:

To whom was that reply directed?

David_PA
01-26-2008, 11:41 AM
Pisc:

To whom was that reply directed?
To you and TwinSwords, of course, BJ - he he. My comments are too short to be called screeds and are never hate-filled.

But then again, yours aren't really hate-filled - more like contemptuous, which mine sometimes are too.

bjkeefe
01-26-2008, 11:55 AM
To you and TwinSwords, of course, BJ - he he. My comments are too short to be called screeds and are never hate-filled.

But then again, yours aren't really hate-filled - more like contemptuous, which mine sometimes are too.

That was my thought, too, that Pisc had replied to me, but the threaded view suggests he replied to JM, and the tone of his remarks could as easily have been read as a response to JM.

Thanks for chiming in, in any case, since I'd rather be called "contemptuous" than "hate-filled."

David_PA
01-26-2008, 11:55 AM
Hmmm -- the beard, the cozy sweaters, where have I seen that before? For a while there I thought that Ross Douthat was the reincarnation of my high school guidance counselor. He must be 28 years old or so, what is he going to be like when he's fifty? He already makes David Broder look like Don Rickles.

I think that Mr. Douthat's greenness shows through in his commentary on the current election. I have heard him repeat several times that "this is a Democratic year", but weren't 1988 and 2000 Democratic years? Ask the Dukakis campaign staff who went house hunting in D.C. in 88. What about 1992? Didn't George Bush look unstoppable for a while?

You're discounting one of the brighter ones of your own, Daveh. Better watch it.

Yeah - lots of previous bad dem candidates unable to cash in on electorate trends that favor the dems. I may wind up supporting H because at least she knows how to fight pretty well - and it seems so far more effectively than centrist-vote-grabbing Obama.

So, don't get smug, daveh. I'm calling your comments what they are: 'wishful thinking'. On second thought, daveh, stay smug.

David_PA
01-26-2008, 12:31 PM
That was my thought, too, that Pisc had replied to me, but the threaded view suggests he replied to JM, and the tone of his remarks could as easily have been read as a response to JM.

Thanks for chiming in, in any case, since I'd rather be called "contemptuous" than "hate-filled."

It's hard to figure out when you post which thread you are replying to - as it always gets mixed up.

I support our being contemptuous - in the service of getting posters on the right to reveal the often shaky premises on which the more sweeping right-wing generalizations are built.