Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt
The key difference between Reagan and Obama is that for Obama it is just the script put in front of him.... other than that he has the same "intellectual laziness". He doesn't exactly have original thoughts to things.
We can't possibly be talking about Sarah Palin, are we? The same one that has been getting hits from the Bush alcolytes (Fleischer, Rove) amongst many others? The one we've seen nonsensical shots for all kinds of reasons over the past 2 years? Its almost become mandatory amongst some folks that we go through the recitation of how "awful" she is.
The problem for conservatives is that, right now, Palin is the only one who will take the mantle of conservatism. This is why, imo, she has taken most of the hits and criticism. The professional left believe that they can kill conservatism by killing her because they KNOW the rest of the Republicans won't stand up for conservatism as an idea and they feel they can marginalize the rest of the conservatives.
In the end, they may be right. I don't know of anybody who has exactly stood up for the conservative mantle... and the rest of the Republicans climb all over themselves to show how non-evil/conservative they are... to show that they're really not all that bad. Sure, this never actually works... but hey, let's go with it.
I'm only favoring Palin because nobody else is standing up for the conservative movement.... and even then Palin is a good candidate who would make a very good president. A whole lot of them think they can somehow use the tools of government better in a more moral way... functionally they become no different than Democrats... all leads to the same problems which we observe today.
Personally, I think the conservative movement dies with Palin's failure, should it occur... who else is going to not be a coward and stand up for principles? Who else has stood up for principles? The thing is, none of them want to be Palin... none of them wants to be the target and the scorn... nobody wants to stand up and be called evil for not believing things that just aren't true. So, what exactly are we going to celebrate if Palin fails? What wins? I think its fairly ignorant to think the current direction is a good one even if its borne out of the people of the "correct" cultural stock. Bad ideas promoted to the top because they're bleated from somebody with a shiny degree is worse than good ideas from somebody who went to the wrong school.
I think we'll find in the end that we're screwing ourselves with these culture wars... we aren't even fighting over principles in some of these cases... we're fighting over tribes of people. This is nonsense. "Thinking the right way" is probably great for the Soviets... we don't have that system here. Ideas over culture.
edit: The funny thing is... I'd expect a Palin administration to likely be that thoughtful moderate group that many were fooled to believe about Obama. Generally, you look at her record and its one of a pragmatist. Do we want that in our nation or just one that plays it on TV when its convenient to his agenda?
I believe I've established my conservative street cred around here, and I respectfully disagree. The conservative movement was supposed to be dead after Barry Goldwater lost--that analysis proved to be a trifle premature. And even though I'm not as convinced as you are about Palin's significance, it is beyond dispute that this woman has been the recipient of more scorn, angry meretricious media coverage and out and out libels (see this past week) than any potential national candidate SINCE Goldwater. I mean for cripes sake we had a "comedian" announce a few days ago that henceforth Palin's 16-year old daughter would be the focus of her smarmy lewd "humor." Has that ever happened before? So the question in my mind is why? I can only conclude the left wants to destroy Palin because they're afraid of her. Read what the tiny number of Americans who post here say. Some of them are absolutely monomaniacal on the subject: like the worst pro-lifers or civil rights types. Anything, anywhere is linked to their mania.
That may seem to weaken my argument. But all I'm saying is, vast swaths of liberal America are, uh, insane on the subject of Sarah Palin. And that madness has, I feared, weakened her as potential candidate. But your post is different. You talk about the end of the conservative movement. I don't think anyone is irreplaceable, although Reagan comes the closest (Creedence called him "Ronnie the popular"). Conservatism and Republicans took a horrible beating in '64. And after Watergate, America elected the worst president of the 20th Century in response. Things were looking pretty grim for conservatives and Republicans then, too. But along came Reagan and the first Vice President elected in his own right since Martin Van Buren and Republican majorities in the Senate and then the House.
Frankly, I just don't put Ms. Palin on the same plane as Goldwater or Reagan and if she gets taken down by the left, someone else will emerge. Herman Cain? Don't laugh. History shows us the first Governor Brown in California smirked about "give me Reagan." Well, he got Reagan and lost by a million votes in a state where even then Democrats had a two to one margin over Republicans in registration. Later, the newqueler engineer, Jimmy Carter expressed the same sentiments and encountered the same results, on his journey to becoming the most annoying ex-President of the century in addition to being the worst while in office. Singular success. The point is that Reagan up to the point he became governor of California was an actor, union leader, spokesman for GE, etc. None of that was exactly predictive of what he actually accomplished. So there's somebody out there who can accomplish what Reagan did, we just have to find him (or her).
Movement conservatives (of which you may or not be one) give me the red a*s, as I'm sure movement liberals cause agita for Democrats. Look at Obama, the most liberal president we're ever likely to see, yet the hard left is collectively beating its breast. What was it Reagan used to say, somebody who's against me 20% of the time is for me 80% of the time. I've always believed America moves forward with minor calibrations to the left and right, but with politics that are generally in the middle. This is why Obama is in trouble and why he's brought Billy Daley to town, to save his a*s. When I hear some conservative boob someplace say "I'm going to sit this one out," it makes me want to scream. Would you prefer Henry Waxman? Or Dick Durbin? Are their views on the social issues more consistent with yours?
I try to be pragmatic, the person I want nominated is the person who can win in November. The Tea Party movement made several mistakes in this area last fall and it significantly decreased the odds of Republicans capturing the Senate. These were bad candidates, not because the Tea Party backed them, but because they were bad candidates and the Tea Party placed ideological purity above qualifications that lead to victory. I have no interest in the Battle of Little Big Horn, "glorious defeats" or "sending messages." I want to win. The rest will sort itself out.
The Democrats got badly off the track during the Vietnam war, and that lead to McGovern, Dukakis and Mondale. I believe they're still off track on matters of national defense and foreign affairs. Bill Clinton tried to move the party back to the center and now we've got Obama. Elected in a year when we had no president or vice president running for the first time in 50 or so years, two wars and the undeniable fact of his race, which appealed to millions of Americans who felt like it was time to make this break from our past. I ask, is Obama an anomaly or an avatar of a change in American politics? Too early to tell, of course, put I'm pulling for the former.
Sorry to be rambling on here, but I think the conservative movement can survive Sarah Paln's exit from or failure to succeed in national politics. After all, how many of us had even heard of her before McCain plucked her from obscurity? So in a little more than two years she goes from being an unknown to indispensable? Put me down as unconvinced.
