All true, Astorian, but that’s when the Pubbies bargain with the Devil was in place, that’s when the leadership could count on turning out legions of true believers to work the phones, spread the word, do the grunt work, and then buy them off with promises. Some very smart people were predicting for years that, sooner or later, they would catch on. They did.
No: Mitt does not have sufficient integrity for that.
No, Romney has denounced Romneycare at the federal level: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzgyMzA1NWUwNjA5OTg2ZTUzMTliYzQyOTM1ZmIzNTI
Props to Brad DeLong for the excerpt. DeLong also quoted the conservative David Frum, shortly before he was fired from his post at AEI:
Emphasis added by me.
I hope you aren’t saying Opposed to Health Care Bill=Tea Party Crazy
But anyways a brief list:
John McCain
Meg Whitman
Scott Brown
George Will
David Petreaus
Robert Gates
Joseph Cao
George Voinovich
That is a damned good question. Maybe he’s been kidnapped and replaced with a double.
Sorry, but his choice of running mate alone invalidates any claim towards “sane” or “intellectual”.
Nobody’s said that.
McCain is the only one of those who has any claim toward being a leader of the Republican Party, and I think he’s been acting like a nut. Whitman is a candidate; Brown has been in the Senate only a few weeks and is known just for being their 41st vote; Will well respected but he’s from a different generation and I don’t think he has any influence; Petraeus is not politically active; Gates is part of Obama’s administration; Cao is newly elected; and Voinovich is leaving office in January.
George HW Bush picked Dan Quayle who is as intellectual as Palin and FDR picked Henry Wallace a Communist sympathizer.
Actually McCain hasn’t been up to much lately. Yes, he opposes UHC and all but he hasn’t been screaming “Hell No!” like Boehner or impliing secession like Governor Perry.
Dan Quayle was a mistake, but he was also a plausible choice, having served as Senator. Yes, he was a lightweight and subject to foot in mouth syndrome. But his remarks showed at least something going on upstairs: he wasn’t a mere talking point machine. So yeah, McCain should be barred from polite society, though he is not.
As for the rest of list, Meg Whitman is a plausible choice; David Petreaus and Robert Gates are sane, though they are not politicians. Joseph Cao is a soon-to-be-ex Congressman. I’m not sure about George Voinovich.
George Will is a dishonest commentator and should be stricken from the list. Here is a take-down of one of his columns on climate science. Now there is a case to be made that we should not spend too much on climate change disaster insurance. I’m not criticizing modern conservatism here: I’m questioning Will’s honesty. Those interested in informing their audience don’t say that, the UN’s World Meteorological Organization claims that, “…there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade…” when in fact they say no such thing.
Serial liar?
When called on this, Will makes no retraction or correction to his Feb 2009 column. He even follows it up with another whopper the next summer. He claims that global warming hasn’t happened for the past 29 years (or rather approvingly quotes somebody else saying that). Nice. Well: look at the chart: Skitch | Evernote
The trend there is pretty clear. The chart doesn’t show why temperatures are rising, only that they are. George Will does a disservice to his readers that wish to be informed of the debate.
Somebody may have objections to that particular dataset -there’s one in every crowd I guess. But my point here is narrower: to flat out state things that fly in the face of mainstream scientific evidence without commenting on the underlying controversy isn’t journalism or even opinion – it’s simple fantasy.
If that was directed to me, I was saying that “Overblown rhetoric about the end of US democracy following passage of a bill that had a lot in common with a Heritage Foundation proposal from the early 1990s” == Tea Party Crazy.
Mere opposition to the Affordable Care Act? That’s misguided, but not necessarily crazy.
What’s worse, Wallace was a registered Republican and later endorsed the re-election of Eisenhower in 1956.
I see from wikipedia that the commie accusation isn’t without merit though. But let’s get serious for a second. Wallace’s nuttiness didn’t come out until he was in the VP’s office. Once it did, he was shown the door and Truman took his place. What you would have to show is that Roosevelt did a piss-poor job of vetting the guy. That, after all, was McCain’s error. Even a set of casual interviews in Alaska would have shown bipartisan worries about Palin’s intelligence and character. Furthermore, I would also say that her cheerleaders on the far-right such as William Kristol deserve condemnation as well.
No, but saying it “will destroy the country,” or that it “shreds the Constitution,” or any of that kind of preposterous hyperbole is either tea party crazy or pandering to it.
Refusing to do any more legislative work for the rest of the session does not demonstarte intellect or maturity either.
Yes he has. Most recently, he has been advocating the total Republican blockade of Senate business in retaliation for the HCR law.
And not a good bet to repeat, either.
And Quayle is widely seen as a terrible choice. Quayle, however, never made a serious run for president because Facebook hadn’t been invented at the time.
He’s currently advocating repealing the bill. I assume it’s empty bluster because he knows it’s never going to be possible, but it’s loopy. I agree it’s not as bad as what’s being said in other places.
McCain: GOP is the party of ‘hell, no!’
In case you hadn’t seen it.
To be fair, McCain is running a tough primary race against JD Hayworth, a far-right former congressman and talk radio host. So Senator McCain is tacking to the hard right.
Still, there are precious few sane Republican voices today. The GOP is a fundamentally different party than it was in the days of Eisenhower, Nixon or Bob Dole. The policy apparatus has more or less completely collapsed -to the point where 30 Senators voted against curbs on gang rape among military contractors last year without offering amendments of their own. What remains is talk radio and talk TV: a medium that advances stimulation and frankly phony posturing rather than reflection or even half-seriousness.
Americans deserve better, be they Republicans, Independents or Democrats. I’m an ultra-liberal by US standards (centrist by European ones), but I maintain that a party catering to conservative temperaments is necessary, even healthy. But what we have now is something else. The only refuge for sane conservatism in the US is in the Democratic party.
ETA: Put Arnold Schwartzneiger on the sanity list. He’s a special case though: he won the California governorship via a recall vote of Gray Davis. He never could have won a Republican primary on his own. So that’s it Dio: I’ve got 1 candidate for you.
Sarah Palin will not win the Republican nomination in 2012 any more than Pat Buchanan could in 1996. Mitt Romney seems to be the inevitable choice to me.
I can’t see how opposition to the current UHC Bill immediatly equals “loopy”. Also I wouldn’t completely rule out the possibility of repeal if the GOP gets the House back (relatively certain) and the Senate too (quite possible by 2012) and than the White House by '12 (while as of now it isn’t likely there’s still of 30-40% chance I’d say currently), it may get repealed.
Add Lindsey Graham to the List-the only GOP Senator currently willing to work on immigration reform.
I think you’re probably right, but Buchanan wasn’t the vice presidential nominee. And why have you selected 1996? He made a more credible challenge in 1992.
Very possible.
I didn’t say he opposed the bill, I said he’s in favor of repealing it, to the point where saying he will get the bill repealed is part of his re-election campaign strategy. I can see you’d like to believe otherwise but it’s not possible.
To add to what I said earlier: without disputing your estimations, by 2012 people will be used to the new laws. They’ll expect to be able to get insurance if they have pre-existing conditions, keep their children on their insurance policies for several additional years, and keep their insurance if they get sick instead of getting dropped. They’re not going to be begging Congress to get rid of those policies in 2012 and you’ll see few people this side of Michele Bachmann campaigning on a platform of undoing the bill.
I doubt whether any serious politician thinks there’s a good shot at appeal: this sounds like red meat for the plebes. For those interested though, here’s a discussion of the possibilities of repeal. It’s very hard, but admittedly not impossible.
Now firstly, implementation of health care reform will prove challenging and provide fodder for plenty of conservative pot shots. Nobody has claimed that the job will be easy, but that won’t stop conservatives from saying that “Health care reform was suppose to solve all our problems”. Cue David Gergen: “Democrats will wake up to realise we have not magically solved all our healthcare problems.” No we won’t Mr. Gergen, because we were never asleep to begin with.
Anyhoo, repeal will require a Republican majority in the House (very doable), A Republican majority in the Senate (highly unlikely in 2010, highly plausible in 2012), a Republican President (possible depending upon the economy in 2012), and 60 Republican votes in the Senate to deal with the filibuster (not bloody likely is it?). BUT, the Dems may relax the filibuster rules in the next congressional session, so perhaps there is hope for opponents of the Affordable Care Act. If the Republicans are serious about repealing health care reform, they will support efforts to end or diminish the filibuster.