This Week's Redeemable Republican Friday
Is Cancelled.
I'm always having great difficulty selecting my Weekly Redeemable Republican (WRR) for Friday's feature. It's always 'hard work'.
Last night, I made the mistake of leaving Keith Olberman's show on in the background. His interview with John Dean just made this Friday's mission for me even more unattainable, because a comment made by Dean sapped all of my remaining motivation.
Dean was saying that when Reagan left office after eight years, the hard core of the Republican party - and 'hard' is the right term - was angry that their hero departed with an approval rating of 60 %. The implication was that he had been too soft on America; that he had 10% worth of political capital (or more) to burn; that he had left the scene with so few political enemies! In short, with only a 40% disapproval rate, the Gipper should have driven their GOP program harder. In football terms, Reagan left too much on the field. The Great Communicator had left the stage with too much love and admiration which he could have better spent driving their agenda.
Dean said that that was the feeling of the current hard core of the GOP: They want Bush to leave office with no political capital left to spend.
I could not believe it the first time I heard it. I had to replay my Tivo. But Dean should know what he's talking about.
This week's Redeemable Republican Friday feature is canceled. Maybe next week...
I'm always having great difficulty selecting my Weekly Redeemable Republican (WRR) for Friday's feature. It's always 'hard work'.
Last night, I made the mistake of leaving Keith Olberman's show on in the background. His interview with John Dean just made this Friday's mission for me even more unattainable, because a comment made by Dean sapped all of my remaining motivation.
Dean was saying that when Reagan left office after eight years, the hard core of the Republican party - and 'hard' is the right term - was angry that their hero departed with an approval rating of 60 %. The implication was that he had been too soft on America; that he had 10% worth of political capital (or more) to burn; that he had left the scene with so few political enemies! In short, with only a 40% disapproval rate, the Gipper should have driven their GOP program harder. In football terms, Reagan left too much on the field. The Great Communicator had left the stage with too much love and admiration which he could have better spent driving their agenda.
Dean said that that was the feeling of the current hard core of the GOP: They want Bush to leave office with no political capital left to spend.I could not believe it the first time I heard it. I had to replay my Tivo. But Dean should know what he's talking about.
This week's Redeemable Republican Friday feature is canceled. Maybe next week...
posted by Vigilante at 10/05/2007 09:22:00 AM
13 Moderated Comments:
How about Larry Craig. The longer he sticks around, the more he helps our caise.
Larry Craig is a gift elephant that keeps on giving.
How about a 'retrospective' Republican for next week, say Abraham Lincoln ?
Unfortunately he was kind of a clunker also in a lot of ways.
I think you should expand this segment into Redeemable Politician Friday.
Name one that is worth a *hit.
Name one that is actually interested in the best interests of the citizens of this land area.
So now a crappy approval rating is a good thing?
Give me a break.
there is a lesson for all Americans to be learned by what is happening in Myanmar. That country was stolen from the people by the army. America is also being stolen from the people, but by a dishonest government and big business. If we don't stand up now, we may find ourselves in the same hopeless state.
Ok, howsabout worst republican in the world Friday? Or something similar.
Sure would have plenty to choose from.
C.W., (1) it would be easy work and (2) Keith Olberman does it five times a week!
Paul Krugman. in an article linked at SwiftSpeech gives Mark Crispin Miller the credit for once making a striking observation:
Of all of the famous Bush malapropisms most have involved occasions when Mr. Bush was trying to sound caring and compassionate.
By contrast, Mr. Bush is articulate and even grammatical when he talks about punishing people; that’s when he’s speaking from the heart.
What’s happening, presumably, is that modern movement conservatism attracts a certain personality type. If you identify with the downtrodden, even a little, you don’t belong. If you think ridicule is an appropriate response to other peoples’ woes, you fit right in.
So, mystery solved: in other words, I finally get it. Krugman is telling me, 'it's the context, stupid'.
From Far-Right Records the Limited Edition of Neocon Gold. Order now!
there is a lesson for all Americans to be learned by what is happening in Myanmar.
Yeah, it's called, Marxism doesn't work.
I guess your mission in life is 'reforming' Conservatives (after checking out your other posts). Any Conservative that comes over to the Dark Side was never a Conservative to begin with.
But do enjoy your attempt at 'redeeming'.
By the way, if anti-war is your whole reason for being Left, what do you think of Hillary? She's indistinguishable from Bush in her war policy. She plans on continuing the war as long as necessary.
And there are Republicans, such as Ron Paul who hate the war and would like to bring the troops home as soon as possible.
The war is not a partisan issue any more. As a matter of fact, I believe the partisan balance in politics is disappearing. Unfortunately.
Hi Aurora,
I’m not sure of what you mean by the partisan balance disappearing. I would be hopeful than partisanship itself would become less evident. Say,maybe like it was before 1993? I don’t know if that is possible, but you liking Hillary might be a start.
BTW, Marxism has long been discredited. Myanmar has nothing to do with Marxism, and more to do with militarism.
I have been to your site. Interesting.
Have a nice day
I’m not sure of what you mean by the partisan balance disappearing.
I don't believe that a one party state is conducive to individual rights and freedoms. There must be a balance from one side to keep those on the other side honest. When the two parties become virtually indistinguishable, we're heading towards a situation where the voters become all but redundant.
President Bush is endorsing Hillary Clinton as the next president! I read this in the Australian media (and checked it out to its American source). IF this isn't losing the partisan balance, I don't know what is!
You said you liking Hillary might be a start.
You misunderstand me utterly. I despise Hillary Clinton (her policies and goals) with a passion. I despise her seedy connections with the underworld and her vows to sink the people of America into stasis market and poverty. I despise her hypocritical vow to make Americans 'give up something' when she herself is a multi-millionaire who will never have to give up anything because she sits at the top of the hierarchy. I believe every human is redeemable however.
I admire you as a Leftist by the way. I admire the fact that you have an unmoderated comment policy and that you publish debate. I've been to many blogs which don't. I admire also that you had the guts to come onto my blog and debate me in my own territory.
Cheers.
Welcome to my pages, Aurora. I am glad you have found a comfort level in here and have met Messenger. I'm also gratified to see that you appreciate that we do not engage in comment moderation here; that is, in the sense that we use prior-restraint. That encourages spontaneity in conversations.
As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, we might agree on Bush depending on her to continue his occupation of Iraq. Bush and Cheney hope a Clinton administration will maintain the occupation of Iraq for many years to come, making their nightmare simply accepted as a ‘the way things are.’ Leaving in 2-3 years shares the casualties and atrocities with the next white house administration. However, leaving Iraq ASAP would place the debacle entirely on Bush and the NeoCons where it belongs..
Post a Comment
<< Home