The Volokh Conspiracy

We do not need two political parties that favor open borders, racial/gender preferences, bilingualism and multiculturalism. We do not need two political parties that are frankly anti-white, and believe that assimilation is somehow a concession to white racism. We do not need two political parties that believe Americans in general are lazy and stupid, and can only be saved by mass immigration. We do not need two political parties that believe that just because someone is from another country, that they are automatically smarter and harder working than an American. And I am actually an immigrant and am disgusted by our national self-hatred.

Just curious. How many Volokh conspirators really stood up to the bush administration and attacked some of its worst policies when it was unpopular to do so? How many criticized the handling of the war on terror or the war in Iraq? How many said, whoops, we were wrong about how easy the war in Iraq was going to be?

In what sense have the Republicans "lost their way"? They have been following this way for a long time,

I think she's aiming in the wrong direction. Noonan became an anti-Bush person some time ago, and now filters everything through that viewpoint. The real culprits are Trent Lott and Haley Barbour and Tom DeLay and all the folks who supported them who transformed the GOP Congress into a mirror image of the Democrats we rebelled against in 1994.

Certainly President Bush deserves his share of blame for things like the massive increase in spending for the prescription drug benefit addition to Medicare and not holding a tighter budget line. On some of those issues, yes, DeLay and others went along because the President demanded that they do so. But it wasn't George Bush cramming pork into every nook and cranny of the budget. It wasn't George Bush feeding at the trough with all the lobbyists on K Street. It wasn't George Bush that installed the woefully under-powered Dennis Hastert as Speaker of the House.

We didn't lose Congress in 2006 because of George Bush, but because of Tom DeLay and his crowd of self-righteous hypocrites.

Bush and Rove ruined the Republican Party as the home of conservatives.

No, the 80's generation of conservatives ruined conservatism by withdrawing into little pockets like the Heritage Foundation and National Review, and allowing elite/left opinion to mold general cultural debates/framework. Conservatives are not the republican equivalent of liberals, yet they have allowed the entire 'conservative' brand as some sort of similar idealogical extreme. Evangelical protestants, who are tepid Republicans at best, were allowed to be branded 'social conservatives'. Iraq war boosters were allowed to be branded 'Neo-conservative', though they represented a pretty broad center-right stripe. The 'conservative' brand was allowed to be made toxic; young folks have grown up with the term 'right-wing' being a meaningless term that simply denotes something you disagree with. Liberal fight tooth and nail not to be labeled liberals, 80's/90's generation conservatives wonk away in their little magazines as the entire cultural understanding of conservatism was redefined by their political enemies. In short guys like Newt Gingrich, however smart they may be, ceded the general cultural field to the Left, and in turn allowed the Left to dominate public discourse, entertainment, academics, and the attitudes of the younger generations.

Empty, 'Slightly different then Democrats' Republicans like Bush were allowed to shape the GOP because conservatives were good at producing folks who could wonk in think tanks and scribble at NR, but couldn't passionately argue the merits of the conservative position in public like Reagan. Conservatives of the previous generation also allowed evangelicals to turn the conservative staple of the importance of 'civic virtue' into the easily mock-able/school marm-ish 'family values'.

The Wall Street Journal, and Peggy Noonan, are prime players in the 'Drop core conservative values, just be popular' GOP incarnation ('Only yahoos have a problem with unbridled immigration! Who else will maintain your mansions on the cheap?'). This complaint coming from them is beyond ironic.

What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They're stuck.

No. By two years ago they were already stuck, having colluded for so long in dismissing earlier critics of the administration as victims of BDS. That's one crow they'd never be willing to eat.

mathgeek, how about from 2001 until 2003? How quickly we forget that the Republicans argued that criticizing the commander in chief during war time was tantamount to treason. If you’ll recall, the Dixie Chicks were viciously attacked for criticizing Bush in 2003 (to cite to perhaps one of the most prominent examples.)

We didn't lose Congress in 2006 because of George Bush, but because of Tom DeLay and his crowd of self-righteous hypocrites.

I'm sure DeLay's negative influence on the GOP factored into their 2006 losses, but its an act of tremendous denial to assume that the president's unpopularity wasn't also at issue. 2005 was the year Bush's approval ratings sank into the 30s -- its reasonable to assume this had a negative coattail effect on the party down the line.

This has the air of excuse-making for a president that hardly deserves the benefit of the doubt.

DU

Please provide an example of an earlier critic of the Bush administration, the actual criticism that they made, evidence that they were labeled as suffering from BDS, who labeled them as such, and an explanation for why you think it was wrong to label them as such.

I detect a bit of facetiousness, but I'll come right out with an answer: nobody. Ain't never gonna happen until the Republicans go the way of the Whigs and the subsequent conservative party lays the blame on the dead one.

mathgeek:
GV: When was it ever unpopular to criticize Bush?

Srsly? I'd like this question to be posed to Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and others of that ilk. Still looking for an answer?

Thorley,

The Ron Suskind article from 2004 that I blogged about here is an interesting example of a Bush criticism that drew a lot of BDS-style comments but that as best I can tell seems to have been pretty accurate.

Does Ron Paul count?

Ron Paul never counts.

Frankly, I find Peggy Noonan <i>highly</i> overrated and, indeed, something of a mediocrity. She wrote a well-reviewed speech or two for Reagan, and has been riding his coattails ever since.

To describe her current editorial as "powerful" says more about Orin Kerr's hopes and dreams than Ms. Noonan's capabilities as a political thinker or writer.

But they've publicly supported it so long they think they . . . support it.

I don't mean to be unduly combative here, but the other consequence of so many (not all, of course, but many) Republican party leaders and conservative thinkers publicly supporting so much of what the Bush Administration has done, even when the actions in question are beyond plausible defense, is that many people who might otherwise be willing to listen to these folks' arguments now just think they are liars and shills.

"Frankly, I find Peggy Noonan highly overrated and, indeed, something of a mediocrity. She wrote a well-reviewed speech or two for Reagan, and has been riding his coattails ever since. "

amen, bro. She hasn't had an original thought in years.

But back to the Republicans: They have no one to blame but themselves.

When Bush was elected, there was glee all across the Republican land. Now, for once, they had in place a plan to make the R's a permanent majority. And so they set about doing so. They planned to reduce taxes on the wealthy, who would in turn use a portion of those taxes as contributions to the R Party. Then, they would privatize as much of the gov;'t as possible, making it clear that this new businesses would be loyal to the Rs and donate to their party. Then they established system of largess to religious groups -- bribes really. These religious groups would vote R, and donate to R causes, and in turn would recieve federal funds to operate day care centers, drug abuse centers, and sexual reorientation camps to get rid of those gays. They would deal only with R lobbyists, and federal funds would be funneled to only R districts and R projects. People like Tom DeLay would work to redistrict the congress.

On the other hand, liberal programs would be cut and reduced to nothing, the source of funding for many Dems would be cut off by limiting the awards available in jury trials (the trials lawyers being a large contributor to D party). D lobbyistst would be shut out.

Once accomplished, the R party would have a steady stream of income from the rich, and the businesses that feed off the federal teat, and the D;s income would be decimated. This would pave the way for a permanent R party rule.

Once permanent R party rule would be in place, the prez would be given enormous powers, environmental rules would be eliminated, consumer safety rules eliminated, the gay agenda would stop in its tracks and maybe reverse them (the R's don't really care about gay rights, but it's an issue to the religious right. Got to throw them a bone for all the support they give. Terrry Schiavo was another bone for them.). And abortion would finally be outlawed throughout the land.

The White House and the R leaders decided that reality isn't something that binds them -- they can rewrite their own reality.

Think this is a conspiracy theory? Think again. R's relished this idea and talked about it in their think tanks. It's been in numerous articles, reports, and quotes.

The R's actually believed this hubris, that they could get away with anything, but the public is fed up. This is why people are going to the polls to throw the bums out. When you mess with the system, Americans get pretty damn angry.

This is pretty silly. The main reason Bush is unpopular nationally is that the Iraq war has gone badly. Quite a few Volokh Conspirators supported the war enthusiastically. Now I understand that it's easier for Prof. Kerr to mock George Bush than to get out some of those old posts by Prof. Volokh on weapons of mass destruction and mock them, and I understand doing the easy thing because that's what I mostly do, but then you can't pose as a profile in courage.

Meanwhile, let's not pretend that Bush's popularity ratings are in the 20's because of the prescription drug plan, which is actually pretty popular.

Duncan Frissell,

I didn't agree with all of your rant, but I do agree that Bobby Jindal would be the boldest choice John McCain could make for VP--and one I hope he makes.

wm13, I always try my best to understand your comments, but I don't get this one. You think my quoting Noonan's criticism of GOP loyalists is "the easy thing to do" to mock Bush, when it would be "a profile in courage" to find some of Eugene's posts from a few years ago and to mock them? I don't understand.

The main reason Bush is unpopular nationally is that the Iraq war has gone badly.

Well it helps that the propaganda wing known as the MSM of the Democrat party tells us this. But it is not the truth. You Libs are a bunch "reality based" idiots.

The problem is that Republican Conservatives abandoned conservatism when the ideology led to outcomes which they did not want. A true conservative (Goldwater, for example) accepted the result even if he or she did not agree.

Examples are legion.

1. Washington should devolve to the rights of state, yet when the citizens of Oregon wanted physician assisted suicide, conservative urged the Feds to intervene and contradict.
2. California wants to have stronger auto emission standards than the federal govt, but because Republicans don't want stronger standards they overrule California.
3. Private behavour is not the business of the government, but Republican do not like homosexual activity and so want to make it illegal.
4. Conservatives believe in the rule of law, not the rule of men, but the leader of the Repubicans says he does not have to follow the law.

I could go on, but you get the point. If you abandon your phisophy when the outcomes are inconvenient, you have no philosophy.

Just curious. How many Volokh conspirators really stood up to the bush administration and attacked some of its worst policies when it was unpopular to do so?

Hmm....I always remember Kerr being circumspect about Bush. And I don't remember too much right-wing hackery here; so while you are usually very insightful and credible, the burden of proof rests on you show the pro-Bush hackery present here. Now, if you wanna talk about The Right Coast...

You are right about one thing (to the extent one can infer it from your comment)... I do see how the comments to various political posts have changed. Now-a-days only one or two people will call you a traitor for being critical of Bush. That was not the case even just a couple of years ago. Four years ago? Man, even suggesting that Bush should, you know, present some evidence in support of his views would be enough to have someone de-flag your lapel.

For the most part, partisans from both parties are thoughtless ghouls. Trevor Morrison notes that: "Republican party leaders and conservative thinkers publicly supporting so much of what the Bush Administration has done, even when the actions in question are beyond plausible defense, is that many people who might otherwise be willing to listen to these folks' arguments now just think they are liars and shills."

But what about the support "feminists" gave Bill Clinton when women came forward with very credible evidence of rape? To this day, many people (like me) do not take that group of people seriously, either. Thoughtful people don't pay much attention to partisan hacks.

And where is the outcry from liberals regarding Obama's shameful treatment of a female reporter?

So I agree with Mr. Morrison's point, to the extent we would insert "Democrat" right next to "Republican."

but I do agree that Bobby Jindal would be the boldest choice John McCain could make for VP--and one I hope he makes.

a bold choice, yes; I disagree on timing. Jindal wants to do his full term as governor, and remember, reform governors of Louisiana historically only serve one term.

Jindal is a fine figure of a conservative, and an American success story- let him mature in office, let him actually run a state, and gather that experience. He'll only get better.

This excerpt from a WSJ interview with William F. Buckley a few years ago says it all, in my opinion (italics in original; boldface is mine):

Mr. Buckley is similarly skeptical of the presidency of George Bush, who, he says, was not elected "as a vessel of the conservative faith." He returns to a formulation he has used before: "Bush is conservative, but he is not a conservative." The distinction is not unimportant; it suggests a way of approaching the world with a conservative disposition but having devoted no particularly methodical thought to the subject--perhaps a bit too in thrall to the formalisms of Republican discourse. . . .

Does [Buckley] think the conservative movement will undergo the same kind of intellectual reinvigoration that National Review spurred in its early years? "I don't think there's any way to avoid it," he quickly interjects. "Mutatis mutandis. So one point on our side."

In the last 10 years, the GOP abandoned the intellectual underpinnings that forged its late-20th-century identity in favor of quick, easy, outcome-based policies that lacked any methodological cohesion. The intellectual dynamism is what must return for the party to lead once again.

Republicans are going to spend a lot of time disassociating themselves from their failed policies, but in the end they'll do what they always do - create a mythology about how their plans would have succeeded except for liberal treachery.

I don't thing conservatives went along with Bush on immigration. It was pretty much a grass roots effort to even get this into the national consciousness. Bush was still stiff arming those against illegal immigration and calling for compassion, as if compassion trumped the law and the side issues that had driven people to complain. The security issue was a complete disaster but Bush was willing to talk around that for months.

I'd bet Wal-mart has done more for low-priced prescriptions than the Medicare program.

Bush signing on to No Child Left Behind was a mistake too but it enabled the administration to take a breather from supporting Charter schools and vouchers. They really didn't seem to have the drive to do much more than do the tax cuts. After that it was slow going despite a plurality in both houses.

He got his SC choices eventually but not without a fairly typical stumble.

I wonder how tough the media will be on Obama if he's elected. Bush has been a mother lode for all types of critics, from the sincere to the ludicrous.

PS: this from Eugene Robinson is a more partisan spin on Noonan's discontent:

"The grinding occupation of Iraq is only partly responsible for the nation's discontent. Decades of government inattention have allowed chronic problems to grow and fester and putrefy and . . . well, we'll abandon that metaphor lest it turn into something that no one wants to read over breakfast, but you get the idea.

"It turns out that Americans don't want their leaders to simply shrug, as George Bush shrugs, at the fact that 47 million citizens do not have health insurance. It turns out that Americans don't want their leaders to simply tsk-tsk, as George Bush tsk-tsks, at the wrenching economic dislocations that stem from globalization.

"It turns out that if government declines to adequately regulate or even monitor the financial system, unfettered markets can make catastrophic blunders. When Joseph Schumpeter wrote admiringly of how capitalism was buffeted by the "perennial gale of creative destruction," I doubt he was talking about exotic mortgage-backed securities so complicated that nobody really understood how much risk was being undertaken, or by whom. I also doubt that families facing foreclosure are much comforted by being told that they're playing an essential role -- that of loser -- in classical free-market theory."

I think some of the liberal critics here are taking the Noonan column as a chance to say "I told you so". But Noonan is NOT saying that Bush has been a crazed right-wing war-monger. She's saying that he has not been conservative enough. Or at all. And it's hard to see that she's wrong on this. Bush's big ideas, in both foreign and domestic policy, have been pure liberalism.

Abroad, he's committed the US to spreading liberal democracy at gun-point. At home, he's presided over an almost unprecedented expansion in government, and the dissolution of Americas borders. We're not exactly talking Reagan here. Bush's failures have been liberal failures.

Actually, I think Alan Keyes is a joke, a laughingstock. He has zero credibility with anyone except, perhaps, Jerry F.

As for Jindal, frankly, the conservatives in the GOP love him. I suspect you would see him embraced wholeheartedly. Limbaugh, et al. love him. The supposition that conservatives would stay home with him on the ticket is part of the old, discredited conservative = racist meme.

As for experience, Jindal graduated from high school at 16 (a year older than Eugene, I believe, but still damn impressive). He was Rhodes Scholar and has a Masters from Oxford. He headed a Lousiana cabinet department at age 22. If the Democrats want to compare Obama's experience with Jindal's, be my guest.

Of course, since Keyes strongly opposes campaign-finance reform don't expect McCain to ever pick him.

Yeah, there's that, but there's also the little matter of Obama already having beaten Keyes 70% to 27%, the biggest victory in Illinois state history.

To Dave N, I think Jindal's youthful laurels match up fairly well to being (the first black) president of Harvard Law Review and writing two best-selling memoirs. BTW, nobody cares about high school after high school.

I agree no one cares a lot about what happened in high school after high school. The resume highlight isn't that he was President of the High School Chess Club but rather he managed to graduate 2 or 3 (in Eugene's case) years sooner than what is normally expected, I do think THAT is notable--and so is that Rhodes Scholar thing, regardless of whether the Masters went some guy named Clinton or some guy named Jindal.

[i]The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government – has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They're stuck.[/i]

Her op-ed goes far too easy on the party. The budget-busting farm bill in 2002 wasn't the President's idea, it was the Congressional party's, for example. I also disagree with her apparent claim that cracking down on immigration would have been the political answer-- though we see even on this thread as many people claiming that it's anti-immigration (including anti-illegal immigration) sentiment is a reason to vote against the GOP as people claiming that being too pro-amnesty broke the GOP like Ms. Noonan does.

[i]McCain can't seem to distinguish himself from Bush's thoroughly nasty human-rights record[/i]

Right, because even when he votes against them no one cares one way or the other.

[i]The U.S. doesn't have to be an asshole.[/i]

I consider Sen. Obama's strong support for the farm bill and opposition to free trade agreements as being an asshole to other countries. As do I consider his "Patriot Corporation Act" with Sen. Sherrod Brown as the move of an asshole. I really dislike his rhetoric on outsourcing, and his speech about "don't fear and hate immigrants who come to this country and are willing to work for lower wages, fear foreigners who are willing to work for lower wages." (Even though he wrapped the latter in talk about "greedy corporations" employing the foreigners, as though corporations aren't always greedy and trying to get the most from their wages, whether by employing natives, immigrants, or foreigners.)

I think many of you are making this a lot more complicated than it is. The seeds for the GOP's current dismal state were laid back in the 90s. After '94, Clinton claimed the center. Genuine American liberalism was abandoned as an actively practiced brand of politics. With so little left to run against - no tax hikes, no crazy socialized healthcare, and most importantly, no welfare - the conservative movement ran out of steam. Impeachment was a huge failure, '98 was the worst performance in a midterm election for a party that didn't hold the White House since 1934, and the de facto party leader was forced to step down. Fortunately for us, Gore was one of the worst presidential candidates ever, but Bush's win just papered over the huge problems the party faced. Then he compounded the mess with Iraq. 9/11 kept him on life support for a while, and Kerry was as bad a candidate as Gore. But for twelve years, the party hasn't had a real reason for being. The differences between the two parties on domestic policy are minimal and a huge majority opposes the party's foreign policy. All they've got is the opposition's ostensible softness on terrorism, which they use in the same transparently cynical way that the Dems used to use the imaginary Republican threat to Social Security and Medicare. They may win the presidential election, but only because once again the Democrats screwed up and picked an unelectable candidate. And whatever happens there, they're going to get gored in the congressional elections. There are, however, a few ways the party could come back to life:

1) Obama could be an incredibly incompetent President in the mold of a Jimmy Carter, and/or the economy could stay in the tank (this, however, wouldn't solve the underlying problems the party faces)

2) Obama interprets his win as a mandate to go way left, allowing the GOP to take back the center

3) Or, they reframe the debate entirely. Instead of essentially ignoring the problems of the poor, black, uninsured, mired in bad schools, etc., and always just hoping to win elections with the base and some swing voters swayed by attacks on Democrat X's toughness in the war on the Soviets/terror/drugs/crime/whatever, we say that we want to fix all the same problems the Democrats do, but that we have solutions that work - for example, Swedish-style education reform - while the Democrats just want to build bigger bureaucracies and throw money at everything. The conservative party across the water's already going in this direction. I'm pretty confident we will too, but it'll probably take a few more crushing defeats before it happens.

Kirk:

I suggest you see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_Project for one part of what he's talking about.

I used to read National Review because it made me think. But during the Bush Administration, it became more of a mouthpiece for Bush talking points.

Oppose Bush's handling of the war (torture, Iraq strategy, etc.), you favor surrender.

Oppose extending tax breaks, your socialistic class-envy is coming to the surface.

Support using government power in any way they disagree with, you are a fascist.

Heck, they even started seriously debating evolution. Next, question, is the world flat?

Etc., etc., etc.

Thoughtful conservative though migrated to the libertarian-leaning conservatives, like most of the people on this blog, and sites like Andrew Sullivans.

Race-baiting and gay-baiting started to lose its effectiveness, and Obama co-opted Reagan-style big picture hopefulness, and the transformation was complete.

And here's Public Defender, to tell us that less military action, higher taxes, more gun control and economic regulation, and less religion in the schools are the true, "thoughtful" conservative program. I think that words and meaning have parted company here.

I find it a little weird that there are self-identified libertarians who plan to vote for Obama due to their disdain for the Republicans and what they' have done over the last 8 years or more.

What is that about? He is as statist/collectivist and un-libertarian as they come. Is this an example of hastening the plunge into the abyss and hope the voters "wake up" in 2010 and 2012?

Admittedly, the choices suck - from my perspective, McCain is the least noxious collectivist running, but, he too, is one.

The only thing I think is true is the McCain might appoint SCOTUS justices who turn into Souter, but Obama or Clinton will appoint Ginsburg-Breyer clones.

The lesser evil sucks, but Obama? Talk about giving the car keys to Thelma and Louise

Justin:

Republicans are going to spend a lot of time disassociating themselves from their failed policies, but in the end they'll do what they always do - create a mythology about how their plans would have succeeded except for liberal treachery.

SIG357:

We're not exactly talking Reagan here. Bush's failures have been liberal failures.

Didn't take long.

All this business about Bush not being conservative or pure enough or whatever is total BS. Conservatives backed him to the hilt for years. Now he's a flop and they scurry off in all directions. Rats. Ship.

Republican Solutions and a Positive Agenda
Posted By: Tom Cole, May 16, 2008 - 9:52 AM

http://blog.nrcc.org/comment.cfm?entry_id=400

Read the responses (about a thousand of them).

The NRCC gets dressed down, correctly and too late, IMO.

typical:

"So let me get this straight - I have a choice between McCain or Hillary or Obama? Did I just say I have a choice? I think I just had a 52 yr-old brain cramp. I do not vote for RINOs. None of these 3 are qualified to run this country. If the Repubs are not different than the Demoncrats then what is the use? We speak with our votes - we vote for someone else. Vote for a spoiler? No, we vote our conscience. If the MSM or the NRCC want to consider them a spoiler - so be it. Get a clue already!. Abandoning conservatism means no money, no support, no vote from me."

Posted: PEPPER on May 16, 2008 at 1:49 PM

"I'll vote Libertarian, or Bloomberg"

limit your trips to McDonalds and you'll accomplish the same thing... oh, and pay a negligent mother to take her children to the dentist.

What's Bush been pushing all these years? tax cuts in good times, tax cuts in bad times, tax cuts in war, tax cuts in peace, massive expansion of state power in the name of "security", and war, war, war, war, war. The fact is that that's what self-identified conservatives have been defending for the past seven years, because it's really what conservatism is.

Bush's big ideas, in both foreign and domestic policy, have been pure liberalism. . . . Bush's failures have been liberal failures.

Oh, that explains why Bush is so popular over at Democratic Underground.

Bush's big ideas, in both foreign and domestic policy, have been pure liberalism. . . . Bush's failures have been liberal failures.

What you're really saying is that the republicans who voted for him lacked the intelligence or judgment to know they were being taken for a ride. No real surprise there.

Anton is an idiot.

Since McCain is even more "un-libertarian" than Obama (unless you've got some definition of "libertarian" under which Hermann Goering qualifies), you've answered your own question. As for SCOTUS appointments, for myself and most other lower-case "l" libertarians I've spoken to about the subject, those are the second biggest reason we're supporting Obama. (McCain's war-lust being number one) Obama's likely court appointments will almost certainly be better on civil liberties than McCain's likely court appointments, while McCain's appointees will most likely not give a fig about civil or economic liberties. I will happily pay an extra $6000 in taxes (which is what calculations show Obama's tax proposals will cost me) for saving what's left of the exclusionary rule.

• Mistake #1 is violating Godwin's Law
• Mistake #2 is not recognizing Mistake #1
• Mistake #3 is not acknowledging Obama's collectivist's philosophy
• Mistake #4 is not recognizing Mistake #3
• Mistake #5 is not understanding that economic liberties are the last thing on Obama's mind, let alone those of the people he might appoint to the Court
• Mistake #6 is a complete lack of understanding that the loss of civil liberties will be exacerbated regardless of who is in office if there is another 9/11 type of attack
• Mistake #7 is not sending a check to the US Treasury for $6000.00 in order to put your money where your mouth is.
• Mistake #8 is not recognizing Mistake #7

Take a cue from M5

Mike said:

And I don't remember too much right-wing hackery here; so while you are usually very insightful and credible, the burden of proof rests on you show the pro-Bush hackery present here.

I didn’t say there was pro-Bush hackery; I said there was little critical examination of Bush’s handling of the war and at least some of the conspirators seem to uncritically accept Bush’s claims about how easy the war in Iraq is going to be. In other words, while none of them were calling everyone who disagreed with Bush a traitor, they did little to critical examine Bush’s policies. I’m not going to expend the effort to meet my burden of proof, but here is one post from Eugene that perhaps demonstrates the attitude of at least some (although obviously not all) of the conspirators at least with respect to the war:

Once the war is over, the public will know a lot more. I suspect, for instance, that we'll uncover lots of powerful evidence of Iraqi chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear programs. We'll uncover lots of powerful evidence of Iraqi atrocities against Iraqi civilians that will put the admittedly regrettable loss of civilian life to allied bombs into perspective. We will, I think, find that the reason for the Iraqi opposition was in fact primarily the threat of death from their own security forces, and not the average soldier's patriotic zeal. Likewise, once the privations of the war are over, even those Iraqis who are unhappy with it now will be considerably more happy.

Of course, it's also possible that once the war is over, we'll find ourselves with an impossible task of reconstructing Iraq in the face of continuing seething hostility and a culture that's unsuited to democracy -- I doubt either of those elements will be the case, but it's possible. We may find ourselves facing increased terrorist attacks. We may lose vastly more of our own soldiers, and end up inadvertently killing vastly more Iraqi civilians, than seems likely right now. We might find that Saddam really didn't have any weapons of mass destruction (highly doubtful, but theoretically conceivable).

I guess I should be content that Eugene granted that it was “theoretically conceivable” that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

My point, not explicitly made, is that it’s frustrating that before the war, so many conservatives either viciously attacked liberals for opposing the war or stood by and said nothing, as Bush made mistake after mistake. It wasn’t until 2005 or 2006 when conservative intellectuals really started to admit that perhaps Bush had made some really, really bad mistakes with respect to the war, the economy, and his general handling of the country.

Bottom line is that I’d like to think that stories like the linked one will help conservative academics perhaps be more critical of government, even when the party in power is not your own, even when it is not popular to do so.

As for Jindal, frankly, the conservatives in the GOP love him. I suspect you would see him embraced wholeheartedly. Limbaugh, et al. love him. The supposition that conservatives would stay home with him on the ticket is part of the old, discredited conservative = racist meme.
How is it controversial to state plainly that the Republican Party does indeed get the bigot vote compared to Democrats? Similarly, Democrats will get the socialist vote over Republicans. It doesn't mean that all Republicans are racist or all Democrats are socialist.

Frankly, Jindal's two runs for governor show the impact a non-white candidate can have on southern republican-leaning whites. Jindal lost in 2003 because white conservatives sat out the election in massive numbers. Even in 2007 after 4 years of Democratic incompetence, Jindal could only pull 54% of the vote. Heck, there is a reason that Jindal uses the made-up name of "Bobby" rather than his real name, "Piyush." There are an awful lot of white conservatives who would just never vote for a Piyush Jindal.

Ooops, sorry Dave N

Coming from the left, I'm probably not the best guy to figure out what's going wrong with the Republican party. But it seems to me that they've slipped on all of their policies that have wide appeal to moderates (and some liberals)... decreased government spending, smaller government, leaving social policies to the states, and now push policies that are much further to the right and have far less appeal to moderates- deporting illegal aliens, stopping gay marriage, an aggressive foreign policy, and a view that anyone opposed to any of these ideas is something that borders on traitorous... it's very alienating to those who don't share these ideas. It's like Republicans ignored the ideas that put them in power to push an agenda that most of the US doesn't share. And of course a poorly managed (an understatement in my opinion) "war on terror" as icing on the cake. Plus people compare that to the eight prosperous recession free years we've had with a democratic president.

AntonK writes:

When Noonan describes the state of the GOP as, to put it politely, circling the bowl, her work is described as powerful. I doubt "powerful" would've been used to describe her essay if it had predicted, for example, impending doom for the Obama's campaign.

AntonK, at this point I can't tell whether this is parody or the real thing. In case you mean to be serious, though, why do you imagine that I would want the GOP to fail? I've heard of self-hating Jews, but self-hating Gops is a new one

samuil,

Anton is an idiot.

I'm essentially on your side of your feud with AntonK, but you resort too often to incivility, sometimes, as here, dispensing with the argument part altogether. Please cut it out.

I just had an exchange with a former Reagan speechwriter who is not Noonan, who said:

"It's not about ideology, it's about delivery; it's not about bigger or smaller government, it's about better government. Especially since Iraq and Katrina.

I said the former to Ken Mehlman at a Grover Norquist vast-right-wing-conspiracy meeting, and the room booed. They don't get it. They deserve whatever happens to them."

BZ,

Peter Robinson?

Baby vs. bath water, and there is ample supplies of the latter, undeniably. Still, in throwing out the latter you don't also place a knife in the hand of the enemy of the former, it's unhelpful.

The General,

Same with the Iraq War. They rarely respond to liberal criticism. They just let is stand as if it is true.

I'm at a loss for words, because I don't want to be snarky, but I also don't know how to say respectfully how far from reality that is.

No wonder people are pissed. Liberals never liked Bush, but his approval rating fell because conservatives became disenchanted with him. Why no one realizes that is beyond me?

Maybe because it's belied by the evidence? Bush's approval between 9/11 and the run-up to Iraq was at or near 90%. It's safe to say his slide to the current level had to do with more than just Conservative disenchantment.

Let me clarify that. If she knew enough to recognize that the Administration was misleading the public, then yes for #2.

Sid Finkel is right in his diagnosis, but I would take his thoughts further. Conservative politicians became successful because, like all politicians, they had to build alliances with groups that did not necessarily share their core beliefs, amply summarized by Prof. Finkel. The libertarian or small government conservatives did not get to power by themselves, but by allying themselves with disenchanted white voters in the South, and later with evangelicals and others alarmed over the Supreme Court's Roe decision and decisions concerning religion in schools. These alliances had a kernel of principle--Southern whites were alarmed at the expansion of federal power for the protection of civil rights; evangelicals believed the majority, rather than the courts should decide social issues. These partners to the rise of Republican Conservatism did not necessarily share the overall goals of small government conservatives. But they wanted political power to achieve their ends, and were not interested in limiting power once they had it, or thought they did.

Michael B.- I love it, we needed to "realign our strategic assets"... nice term, it sounds real professional. A whole ridiculous war, when all we needed to do to avoid this was beef up our airport security, something we should have realized well before the Clinton years... yet you want to blame it on him when it happened on a Republican watch. Michael, your party needs to stop blaming the democrats for their own failings and get back to the core values that have broad appeal, namely fiscal conservativism &tax breaks, these will win you elections.

Dennis W Smith,

If Peggy Noonan considers herself a journalist, I stand corrected. As to your more general point about the responsibilities of journalists and other public opinionaters, I neither underestimate their influence nor absolve them globally of responsibility for their written and spoken words. Obviously, journalists have a substantial canon of ethical responsibility, and as I mentioned to Mark, as a group they appear to have breached some important ones in their handling of the Iraq debate. As for Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk, I absolutely hold them responsible for poisoning the public discourse with broad smears, distortions and partisan hostility. And I hold anyone who lies responsible for the consequences of being believed. But as I said to Mark, I don't believe in attributing dishonesty or bad motives without evidence, or demonizing anyone for their bona fide opinions.

Rupert Murdoch owns stock in Halliburton and for that reason Peggy Noonan bears responsibility at some small level for the the Iraq War. Because I strive for civility I won't write what I was thinking and originally going to post. Rather, to quote Mr. Spock from Star Trek, "That is illogical."

"I love it, we needed to "realign our strategic assets"... nice term, it sounds real professional. ... all we needed to do to avoid this was beef up our airport security, something we should have realized well before the Clinton years..." Adam J., emphasis added

Glad to see, apparently as a Democrat, you have a keen interest in our security, AJ.

Feel free to "love it," but I did not simply "blame it" on him (Clinton) in some categorical sense. I took note of the appreciable fact that WTC '93 took place within one month after he took office, in February of '93. I might have highlighted other items, such as the fact that one or two of the perps managed to escape to Saddam & Sons' Iraq. Other items still come to mind, such as Kenya, such as Kobar Towers. Still, I wasn't categorically blaming it all upon the prior president.

As to realigning our strategic assets, I'm referring to the aftermath of the bi-polar Cold War. During that era the so-called "peace dividend" was in fact exploited for political gain. Nonetheless, in taking note of historic facts, I was not blaming anyone in a categorical sense, to the exclusion of others. Similarly, in taking note of Fukuyama's "End of History" thesis, I'm obviously recalling an entire set of contemporaneous critiques and policy interests, which further illustrates the fact I wasn't simply or categorically blaming Clinton.

Here's a thought. Perhaps "your party" needs to quit blaming someone and, first and foremost, admit your own partisan purity is a figment of your imagination and a laughable one at that, given politicos ranging from Kerry to Dean to Kennedy to Edwards, to name a few. Bush/Blair=Stalin/Hitler along with a surfeit of smarm and facile arrogations may still win you votes in Berkeley and other spots on the east and west coasts, a couple places between as well, but it's not likely to win you Peoria. Obama as savior is a safer route, but that too may end up being revealed for what it is, a house of cards put together by a single fancy shuffler.

Finally, what we did "well before the Clinton years" was to depose the Soviet hegemon along with the proxy wars and conflicts that hegemon sponsored. That began right at the outset of Reagan's term and it occurred despite Jimmy Carter's indulgences, Carter being another fancy shuffler, or so it seemed for an all too brief period of time.

Noonan is a good writer--if she is writing what you think.
Otherwise....

If the Republicans had broken with the admin on the war, they'd have turned into democrats. Whether that would be a good thing in some cosmic sense, it doesn't demonstrate a unique brand.

The lib opposition to the war was supposedly because it was going badly, although now that it's going well, we still have opposition. Not a word has changed, although, as somebody said, our crushing defeats come at longer intervals and against different enemies.

Talk to libs--if you must--but when you do, poke around the edges of BDS. He's responsible for everthing bad. The idea that opposition to anything he does is principled is nonsense, unless it comes from conservatives.

The lib opposition to the war was supposedly because it was going badly, although now that it's going well, we still have opposition.

Really, it's going well? So why isn't Bush pulling out?

Victory's just six months away, right? Last throes of the insurgency? Mission accomplished? We've heard that nonsense before.

Imagine that, people (vast majorities of the country, unless you believe 2/3 of Americans are "libs") are opposed to a war without end, fought on false pretenses, and with ever-shifting objectives. Probably to Chalabi the point of the war was to install an ethnically cleansed Iranian client state, but I don't remember that being sold to the American public in 2002-03.

MMM.
Why would Bush pull out? The point is to have a strategic presence in the area. And about two dozen other reasons spelled out before the war.
As you know.
Two thirds of the American people believe the NYT. That and a connection with reality is...what?

Why would Bush pull out?

So we can stop wasting $330M a day? So we can rebuild our international standing? So Iraqis can get on with taking responsibility for rebuilding their own country? How mysterious!

And about two dozen other reasons spelled out before the war.

And where are those WMDs? How close did we find Iraq to making that atomic bomb they were going to drop on America? Has the Middle East become a beacon of freedom and light as a result of our Iraq adventure? How many other rogue states have we toppled? BTW, those who were saying that Iraq would become a permanent military client state of the U.S., part of an American Empire, were... the "lib opposition." (Quiz: Who said this: "I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting"?)

Two thirds of the American people believe the NYT. That and a connection with reality is...what?

And here I thought America-hating elitists were "libs" who opposed to the war! Who needs democracy?

Rebuild our international standing? So the Syrians and the Iranians will think we're nice?
Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and several others have gone conservative in recent elections, which has and will mean mor pro-American actions.
Wasting the money?? Only if it's a waste. That means demonstrating the war is a bad idea.
Pelosi said, recently, sotto voce, that the surge seems to have worked.
Anyway, MM, you are smart enough to know better than your assertions and implications.
Point is, you're not fooling anybody. That's probably what you don't know.
Now you do.

To start, attacking Noonan is shooting the messenger. Pessimism about the “Republican brand” is widespread among Republican leaders. Even if McCain wins, it’s expected that the Dems will make significant gains in 2008, and the MS-01 race has to be dispiriting to Republicans.

How did the “Republican brand”/conservatism get tarnished? Different types of “conservatives” and Republicans sometimes disagree significantly on principles. Let’s take them one by one.

First, VC/libertarian conservatives don’t represent a significant political movement. Federalism isn’t a guiding principle for any large group. Few voters who feel strongly about, say, abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, or legalizing marijuana would fight hard for the principle that individual states should be able to decide its own policy within wide ranges of banning and permitting freely. States rights, for most Americans, is for the *less* important stuff.

Similarly, while most Americans (including liberal Dems) would say they favor “small government” on principle, few favor of abolishing enough things that they like to make this even vaguely realistic. This gets translated into “lower taxes,” which has been a political winner for Repubs, but Repubs haven’t made government smaller, and indeed, like Reagan, they have put government finances in the red in troubling ways (look at the value of the dollar).

And for those calling Bush (and Congressional Republicans) “liberals” for high spending, that’s not liberal in itself. It’s what you spend on that shows the ideology. More broadly, it’s simply wrong to call the Bush administration “liberal”; on so many issues, they have been the furthest right of any modern administration (I know labor and employment law, and this bunch is significantly to the right of Reagan on that).

Of course the economic/business elite conservatives and the religious right differ over various issues, notably immigration. The religious right has claimed credit for Republican victories, but their role in the Schaivo mess turned a lot of people off; the anti-gay-marriage stuff is wearing thin; and I’m guessing the constant attacks on teaching evolution in the public schools bug other Republicans. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Republican move of pushing Social Security privatization have proved massively unpopular, and even though they got through the Bankruptcy Bill, it’s not like there’s a mass movement out there calling for more protections for creditors.

Indeed, it seems as if more “populist” economic policies have more support – note the passage of minimum wage bills in states, polls supporting some sort of national health policy, etc. And most people think the economy is doing relatively poorly.

Also, the issue of competence: Katrina, Iraq . . . look, if you think the Bush administration distinguished itself in those and some other big issues, just understand you are in the distinct minority (Aubrey and others can insert blame on evil liberal MSM here, but even if their fantasy was true, it wouldn't change the political reality).

Specifically as to Iraq, the Republicans got the political benefit of this in 2002 and 2004 in a big way. People really should remember the constant attacks on the patriotism of liberals, Democrats, or anyone opposing the Bush administration. Bush’s popularity wasn’t great before 9/11, it shot up after that, the Repubs got the benefit of that in two elections, and now they are being blamed for the failures there. Whether the Iraq war is actually a conservative political policy or not, it certainly was a critically important part of Republican political strategy. Now it isn’t working anymore, and the general derision in response to Bush’s recent “appeasement” remark indicates that dog won’t hunt anymore.

New York City, New York -- Rumors have been circulating for days saying that Sean Hannity, of the Fox TV Network, has enlisted in the US Army. Late yesterday, a recruiter in Hannity's hometown of Franklin Square, New York confirmed the rumors were true.

The recruiter was quoted by an AP reporter as saying, "Sean will be leaving for basic training at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina toward the end of May." He declined to give a definite date due to security concerns.

This morning Hannity met with reporters outside the Fox Studio. When asked why he had enlisted, Hannity stated: "Look, my two heroes are Vice President Cheney and my colleague, Bill O'Reilly. These two men fought valiantly in Vietnam as did President Bush. I feel I can do no less for my country in Iraq.I have requested to be sent directly to Sadr City immediately after basic training. I will do my best to make sure those (expletive deleted) Iraqis rue the day they rammed those planes into The World Trade Center towers."

When a reporter mentioned that no Iraqis were involved in 9-11, Hannity retorted, "There's the problem, you people are always ready to believe the facts over the truth."

None of the reporters made any further comment because no one knew what that meant.

Dennis,

Thanks. That's very kind.

Interesting conversation here. Noonan is right. The Republican party is screwed this November for following, against its better judgment, instead of leading based on its principles. McCain's chances of winning are weak for a number of reasons: his stance on Iraq; statements indicating a chance he'll go into Iran; his age; his support for torture; lack of a health care plan; and inattention to the economy, among others. But the greatest burden for him to overcome is his association with the party of DeLay and G.W. Bush. The Republican Party needs some serious soul searching and new trustworthy leadership. Voters will still be there (last I heard, the Democratic party also retains a negative reputation) but the votes will need to be earned again.

The Republican party will need to rebuild itself to overcome many of the issues Joseph Slater (a few comments up) mentioned. He is right on the mark. The place to start is the economy. Get back to the basics. By that, I don't mean tax cuts; the Bush tax cuts were a horrible mistake to make during a war. A deficit today is a tax tomorrow. The deficit needs to be corrected and we need to not be a borrower nation if we wish to have a strong economy. Tax cuts to the wealthiest among us won't make friends with voters if those voters will be expected to pay the bill later.

For what its worth, I'm an independent voter with a history of voting for folks in both major parties based on who I think will do the better job representing me and managing the government. I will vote for Obama (or Hillary) come November.

Joeseph Slater

And for those calling Bush (and Congressional Republicans) “liberals” for high spending, that’s not liberal in itself. It’s what you spend on that shows the ideology.


I agree with much of that you say, but not this. Spending is up across the board. It's not as if it's all going to oil companies and defense contractors.

So called "journalists" who cheered this war on at the start,such as Noonan,must bear at least some responsibility for all the needless deaths.



Absurd. You have a grudge against the war, fine. Take it up with the Congress who voted for it, not some journalist. The liberal fantasy that the press got us into Iraq is just a joke. Our system of separation of powers does not include a seat for the media.

Sig357

Talk about your absurd statements--A grudge against the war?? Yes,I have a grudge against the war. I have a grudge against anything that costs the lives of 4,000 Americans(and growing) and countless other innocents as well including women and children all for greed and money.All for Halliburton CEO Cheney and his stockholders which include Murdoch and his minions and his "guest journalists"-
The press has been called the 4th branch of government.A free press is supposed to keep us as well informed as it possibly can on our government's doings--They're not supposed to be on some joke program that calls itself a "news" show cheering on the government. This goes for the left and the right.That's why our Founding Fathers gave us a free press.Noonan may be a fine person but she lost all credibility as a journalist the night she visibly swooned and gushed over Bush's scam carrier landing. A grudge against this sham "war"and those who perpetrated and cheered it on --Yeah...Damn Right I do--BIG TIME.

SIG357,

Our system of separation of powers does not include a seat for the media.

"No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free, no one ever will." Jefferson

SIG357,

The case for war was a pretty good one. That's the reason Congress voted for it, after all.

Does Congress only approves things for which there's a pretty good case?

LM can speak for him/herself, but it's absurd to suggest that LM saying that there was no good case for war is some sort of endorsement of Saddam. To buy that, you would have to buy the idea that there is a good case for war against any country with a bad, tyrannical government.

Then there's the whole, "executing the war competently" issue, which gets us back to why the Republicans are in trouble in November.

Decisions, and actions implementing them, have consequences. Republicans are facing those consequences now.

And good luck with that whole, "hey, we were no more incompetent than in WWII!" argument.

Joseph Slater,

Pathetic. Instead of facing the ramifications stemming from the reasoning and logic being advanced (and Richard's comment only begins to delve into the matter), you opt for commonplace partisanship and hackery.

There are spambots capable of more probative thinking.

Michael B (mail):

SIG357,

The case for war was a pretty good one. That's the reason Congress voted for it, after all.

Does Congress only approves things for which there's a pretty good case?

LM,

Are you saying Saddam &Sons were good for Iraq, the region, the future?

How does pointing out the circularity of SIG357's argument suggest I approved of Saddam?

FWIW, in 2003 I thought there was a moral case for invading Iraq, but the only Americans who heard it were the ones listening to Tony Blair. Though Bush made various strands of the argument here and there, coming closest to a single coherent statement in his 2003 SOTU, his presentation in toto was insufficient to inform the national debate, much less challenge our resolve to endure the kind of contingencies we encountered. And if Viet Nam taught us anything, I thought it was that we shouldn't get into any conflicts we're not prepared to do whatever's necessary to win decisively.

Thus my ordinary objection to logical slight of hand like SIG's is magnified when applied to this question.

Michael and Richard:

Ignoring your insults, the truth is that most people think the Iraq war was handled incompetently and that's a problem for Republicans. That was my point. I don't need to debate either of you about how well the war really has been handled. We wouldn't agree and it wouldn't be productive, but fortunately that is not the point of this thread.

Again, the point is to discuss why so many Republicans and conservatives are feeling pessimistic about Republican prospects in November. Whether you two think the war is going swimmingly or not, public opinion about the war plays a significant role in current problems with the "Republican brand."

But hey, feel free to encourage Republicans to run on the platform, "everything's going well and if you think differently you've just been lied to by the MSM."

Joseph Slater.
The reason the war is seen as handled incompetently is that people like you pretend it is. And, due to historical ignorance, many people believe you. Not a surprise to you.

If you were honest--cough--you might compare it to Truman getting blindsided twice, when the Norks came south, and when the CCF showed up.

But you're not honest. However, as you say, your dishonesty does have legs. That's one of the infuriating things.

I had a discussion of such with some educated friends, which is to say they know very little, and they were concerned about the armored HUMVEES. I said there is a tradeoff between mobility and protection. The most mobile tank in WW II was the Sherman. The tradeoff led the Germans to refer to it as "Ronson" after the cigarette lighter guaranteed to light first time, every time, and the "Tommycooker" when the Brits had it. Plus a few details about why it was so bad. It was pathetic about how much of an eye-opener that was. The guy had even read "761" and thought it was all about discrimination. Oh, well. They were, at least, educable. That concept probably scares hell out of Slater.

Yeah, it didn't take us this long to win WW II, but, then we didn't have the democratic party and its sympathizers in the media, and such as Slater, trying to lose it.

Joseph Slater,

The fact an accurate description is considered insulting makes it no less accurate. Further, it wasn't intended personally, it was a description of your summary description of events and the politics surrounding those events. Did you expect applause to ensue, for your penetrating "insights"? And again, I have in fact received spambot generated email that reflected more insight, so it was an accurate description, without any exaggeration. If you want applause for that b.s., there are others in this thread who are willing to comply. Otherwise, stop whining.

By way of John McCain, this commentary by Ed Morissey further illuminates the types of deceits that are inveighed by the Left when it comes to Iraq or the war against Islamofascism more broadly conceived. The specific issue in question, in this instance, is Hamas and the Middle East, an excerpt reflecting the opening graphs, emphasis added:

The Left has had a field day with an expertly-clipped YouTube excerpt from a John McCain interview in January 2006, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority election. Former Clinton official James Rubin uses it for a dishonest attack on McCain, calling him a hypocrite for tying Barack Obama to Hamas while McCain supposedly supported diplomatic contact with the terrorist group. In doing so, Rubin and McCain’s opponents misrepresent both the Hamas issue and the larger context of McCain’s remarks:

If the recent exchanges between President Bush, Barack Obama and John McCain on Hamas and terrorism are a preview of the general election, we are in for an ugly six months. Despite his reputation in the media as a charming maverick, McCain has shown that he is also happy to use Nixon-style dirty campaign tactics. By charging recently that Hamas is rooting for an Obama victory, McCain tried to use guilt by association to suggest that Obama is weak on national security and won’t stand up to terrorist organizations, or that, as Richard Nixon might have put it, Obama is soft on Israel.

Charging? Hamas came out and stated its support for an Obama victory. It’s not a matter of charging anything, although the relevancy of the comments are certainly debatable. Not only did Hamas endorse Obama, but his chief strategist proclaimed himself “flattered” by the statement from Ahmed Yousef. Obama’s church reproduced pro-Hamas propaganda in its newsletter, and his foreign-policy adviser Robert Malley met with Hamas on several occasions. Malley recently left the campaign, but his pro-Palestinian bent has been noted for months.

One particularly pathetic quality of note here is that that former official, James Rubin, is willing to distort the Hamas issue itself. It's one thing to "play politics" with a domestic issue such as illegal immigration or health care, it's another thing entirely to consciously employ distortions concerning Israel and the Middle East for purposes of domestic political gain.

JosephSlater,

Yet again, sell it elsewhere. Firstly, your overt and more tacit points have been several. Likewise, while anyone can play this grade school, or perhaps middle school level game you're playing, it's boorish in the extreme. It does illustrate something, but that something is ubiquitous, nearly pervasive, in politically inclined forums hence needs no further illustration. If you're going to respond with childish gotchas ...

And no one has denied the issue related to perceptions as such, the points made have concerned the basis for and the origins of those perceptions.

Richard and Michael:

Thanks for being better examples than anything I could have invented to demonstrate a couple of reasons why the Republicans are having troubles.

Michael,

By the way, though your comments to Joseph are a lot less rude than Richard's, they're still not civil. Saying something like I have in fact received spambot generated email that reflected more insight contradicts your assurance that the criticism isn't intended personally.

Michael,

Not that I completely agree, but fair enough.

And I didn't take it personally, but thanks.

Ryan.
You forget that Saddaam's 99% was considered legit by dems. Obama hasn't done that well.
However, the PRI in Mexico could plan on winning with a smaller percentage than Obama gets.
I have some friends there who said that the PRI didn't bother to change the vote totals per precinct from one election to the next.

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big
enough to take away everything you have.' .... Thomas Jefferson