Wouldn’t it be funnier if the photo was of the politician holding a veteran’s hand and shaking a baby?
That seems to be the example you prefer, since you bring it up at every opportunity. Nothing like cherry-picking that sorry example to fit your preconceived notions of humorless conservatives.
Jonah Goldberg, Ben Stein, and P.J. O’Rourke are tons funnier, which is why you won’t mention them.
I could ask the same. What do you think turned the country so steadfastly against the left in the 1960’s and 1970’s, a period when the country was ruled by liberal Republicans and even more liberal Democrats? It could be nothing but their sorry performance in office, especially on matters like crime, foreign policy, economic policy, taxation, and national defense.
In that environment, a successful former governor of California starts to look good.
Liberals now are in the position conservatives were in in the late 1960’s, when we couldn’t get elected dogcatcher. Even among the Democrats, the only one who’s won on a national level lately is the most moderate one. That kind of record has to be a wake up call, an indication that stuff needs to change.
Only when discussing topics other than politics are they funnier. The agenda they stand for otherwise is not funny at all. But suit yourself.
Ancient history, friend, akin to giving today’s Republicans credit for being “the party of Lincoln”. What’s the world like today? Who’s in control today? How good a job are they doing today? No wonder you’re ducking the subject.
To be fair, Dick Cheney has an excellent self-deprecating wit, and uses it to good effect in his speeches. But, Mr Moto and others, I think that RT’s point is well put and worth answering. In general, I see little wit and humor and virtually no willingness to compromise from Mr. Bush or from the Congressional Republican leadership. They seem as purblindly convinced of the essential rightness of their cause and the wrongheadedness of anyone who might have the temerity to disagree with them as any of Cromwell’s Roundheads.
I submit to you that, when faced with that attitude, the proper course for the Democrat leadership is not “willingness to compromise” but “stand in opposition, providing a free and clear choice.”
And to address the OP, yes, there are proper venues for meeting with and enheartening the party faithful. That’s been a time-honored part of politics. But elected officials are also supposed to be getting a feel for the views of their constituents, and selected-invitation meetings where only those with the proper shibboleths are granted audience with the Lord High Legislator are no way to run a country.
Just let the Republican majority blind itself, in this way, on one key issue that seriously matters to the voters, and your supposed “mandate” will go down the tubes like grass through a goose. (Although why I’m warning you about this, I don’t know. But I do have the vague perception that elected representatives are supposed to be responsible to their constituents, not merely to that group of them who actively supported and support them.)
Yup. There’s not much point in trying to compromise when the party of compassionate fiscal conservatives is willing to inflate the deficit in order to support the right of older Americans to starve, or freeze on the streets:
George W. Bush has yet to veto a single piece of legislation offered up for his signature. The last president who went a full term without exercising the veto was John Quincy Adams.
Compare to his predecessors:
Cite.
Frankly, I’d like to see a little less compromise on the part of the administration, especially with respect to corpulent farm bills and prescription drug boondoggles.
Isn’t that a little disingenous? Clinton, Reagan and Bush, at least, faced hostile Congresses (with special note of the fact that both houses were in opposition) for most of their terms. Given that for the two years that Bush faced a hostile Senate, Republicans had a majority in the House, Bush has never faced a completely hostile Congress. Furthermore given the almost-parliamentary levels of party discipline exhibited by Congressional Republicans, I don’t think it’s surprising that he hasn’t faced many bills with which he disagreed.
And might I remind you that faced with a real crisis in Social Security, Reagan appointed a truly bipartisan commission to fix the problem, and didn’t start to rant about tax increases when that was what it took. Bush briefly mentioned raising the cap, and backed off when the Republicans in Congress objected.
Reagan had three times the brains and ten times the courage of Bush. And about 100 times the compassion. Maybe it was because he didn’t start off with a silver spoon in his mouth, and made it on his own.
First, I’ll point out that none of these guys hold political office, nor can they get their calls returned in a hurry by those that do.
Can’t say anything about Ben Stein, who I’m familiar with only by reputation. While P.J. O’Rourke was once very funny, and I have several of his books from those days (Parliament of Whores is my favorite), everything or his I’ve read in over a decade has been the work of a guy who’s lost sight of both humor and balance to his belief in the truth of what he espouses. Kinda like what Polycarp was saying.
And Jonah Goldberg…are you sure you want to put him forward as a spokesperson for your side?? That’s treacherous ground, my friend.
And what happened to conservatives after the late 1960s? Did they move towards the center?
Not exactly. While the analogy between Clinton and Nixon is far from exact, the fact is that Nixon won his narrow 1968 victory by co-opting Democratic ideas, and doing his best to look like a centrist. (I was a member of Youth for Nixon that year, but you gotta remember I was only fourteen. :o) But after that, did the GOP conclude that the way to win was by doing more of that?
Of course not: they moved to the right, staked out clear positions that had heretofore been well out of the mainstream, and started their generation-long winning streak.
So if there’s a wake-up call for liberals in your analogy, I don’t think it’s what you think it is.
Feel free to dismiss this b/c there won’t be any cites.
But FWIW…
My dad got a call from a friend this week who attended one of George W. Bush’s theater events.
Seems a young woman in the audience stood up, was recognized, and asked an unscripted question about Social Security.
She was escorted from the room.
Disgusting.
Odd that you cut off your analysis with the Reagan administration. Carter had Democratic majorities of the type that James Carville has wet dreams over, yet he still picked up the veto pen 31 times. Ditto for other post-WWII Democratic presidents, all of whom had Democratic Congresses to work with. Even LBJ, the most successful president in modern history in terms of pushing his agenda through Congress, vetoed more than the current White House occupant.
Well, obviously, a congressman is going to worry about hurting his constituents. The congressman from Detroit isn’t going to vote for higher emissions standards, the congressman from Alaska isn’t going to vote for a tax on snow. This is why I said “Of course they listen to their constituents”
However, congressmen do have pressures of party on them, and while a “maverick” politician can get really good press, he can forget about support from the party when he needs it.
And if one particular ex-maverick fires up the “Straight Talk Express” in the run-up to the 2008 primaries, there will be much derisive laughter.