Who Can Lead The Republicans?
Sarah Palin wants to run for president? Quick—get the butterfly net. Who in his—or her—right mind would want to strut into the economic Hiroshima that the Democratic Congress and White House seem bent on precipitating? What a fine mess!
Someone of course has to come along eventually and clean it all up: someone maybe with a little more experience than a former half-term governor of our most northerly state. At that, the job will be formidable and terrifying, unless the coalition of Frank, Waxman, Pelosi and Franken, with the president at the steering wheel, somehow fails to run the economy off the cliff.
Come to think of it, the whole national government appears out of its mind. There's probably never been such a collection of, shall we say, Gadarene politicians when it comes to economic policy. These people, unless they happen to be suicidal, show no sign of understanding what they're up to. Sarah Palin's touted talent for field-dressing a moose won't get her far when it comes to shoveling out the bits and pieces left from an experiment in turning over the world's greatest economy to politicians and bureaucrats. Which, one is sorry to say, is about what the Democrats are up to, without acknowledging the fact.
Energy, health care, banking, Wall Street, the automobile industry—the Democrats want to run it, tax it, or, preferably, both. This, during what's usually described as our biggest economic mess since World War II, with Medicare facing economic collapse around the time the Obama girls go to college (if not sooner). Sarah Palin has a lot of personal appeal, but nothing she's yet shown us suggests she has the aptitude for saying boo to Barney Frank, much less for giving him the political workover he deserves.
What do the Republicans do for leadership? Nothing is more unclear right now. John McCain, who didn't exactly clear the way for the Obama-Biden team, but didn't hinder it either, has shown signs of vitality in debate. John Boehner, the House majority leader, gave a terrific performance in fighting the "clean air" bill, which threatens to dirty the whole economy. Then there's Gov. Mark Sanford. Next subject, please.
I am asked all the time who will emerge as the next Reagan. I suspect nobody will. Our Ron was a different kind of man for a different kind of time than this. Both the economy and the Democrats were less problematical. Events and underlying trends hadn't played themselves out to the degree they now have. No one wanted to drive the oil companies out of business. Few wished Washington to lord it over Wall Street. Things certainly aren't like that now.
The Frank-Waxman-Obama policies, rooted as they are in fantasies about the way economies function and human incentives operate, could yet fall short of fulfillment. Already polls show Americans worried about the overdraft charges piling up as Congress writes one hot check after another. Nor are policies founded on government oversight of everything capable of producing and maintaining the prosperity that Americans regard as their entitlement. Either the economy rights itself without taxes rising or a lot of Democratic seats in Congress are going to have Republican occupants in 2011.
The Republican leader who can accurately limn the dangers while inspiring people to go out and meet them is a rare bird who possibly hasn't hatched yet. Though you never can tell. Already he could be readying himself for flight, without anyone's noticing.
Or, yes, she could be. Why not? Margaret Thatcher was the greatest European leader since Adenauer. Love that woman—her courage, her brains, her fortitude. Fortitude, yes—the attribute of which Gov. Palin showed so little in walking away from her day job. If there's more to the governor than right now seems the case, well, praise be, and if she's crazy enough to want the post-Obama presidency, fine. The proof's nonetheless in the pudding.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Entries(RSS)
After 8 years of Bush, the presidency has been permanently disgraced and dishonored. Choosing a new president is like deciding who will succeed Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko.
I believe poor Mr. Murchison is delusional. "Washington lording it over Wall Street?" That's a strange way of putting it. Does a marionette lord it over the puppeteer? Sure, the Democrats are incompetent and foolish, but didn't the Republicans pursue the same policies? The power grab last September can't be laid at the feet of Pelosi, Frank or Obama, but rather at the feet of Mr. Paulson--shall he lead the Republicans? And what nmatter, honestly, if he does?
For conservatives to worry about who can lead The Republicans is ultimately a waste of time. Since it's now little more than the democrat-lite party, why should anyone care who leads them? America doesn't need two parties fundamentally left-wing in their outlooks.
Best for real conservatives to work at having the GOP put down like a sick, old dog and to clear the field for a rising third party that still has conservative values to replace it.
"John Boehner, the House majority leader..."
Is this a Freudian slip by Murchison based on delusional wishful thinking?
No matter. As for Sarah Palin, this past week, she accomplished her biggest feat ever--something she will never in the future equal, let alone surpass: By resigning, she actually put a serious dent in the uninterrupted and unanimous news media's fixation with Michael Jackson's death. From this day forward, henceforth and forever, she has nothing bigger or better to offer.
What is the matter with you panelists at Chronicles? It is always the same thing! Obama is wonderful and Bush sucks. You are neither conservative, paleo or otherwise, nor Republican. YOu are bunch of spoon fed malcontents, a clutter whose aim is to neutralize anyone that is against Obama and socialism. Haven't the Chronicles managment caught on yet?
Mr. Bailey, I read this website almost daily and I have yet to see any of the enthusiasm for Obama that you mention. Before the election, some ventured that he (Obama) might be more conservative than McCain, but I believe they have been shamed into silence since. Let’s not forget that it was Bush and the failed policies of the Neocons that paved the way for the loon that now occupies the White House. If we accept the moniker of ‘conservative’, then we should adhere to the principles that define it. The Trotskyites that rule the Republican Party are the antithesis. Mere party loyalty will gain us nothing; just it has in the past.
Thank you MAP. My sentiments are yours. In this life we don't always we get what we deserve but sometimes we do deserve what we get. "Let me introduce you to President Obama."
"The Trotskyites that rule the Republican Party are the antithesis. Mere party loyalty will gain us nothing; just as it has in the past."
Bill Murchison is one of the most common-sensible men I've ever met, which is why I've wondered for some years why he puts any hope in the Republican party, which is not now and never has been conservative. Mr. Reagan was slightly less progressive than General Eisenhower, but they had in common a rather enthusiastic willingness to sign on to the New Deal. Limited government is the ONLY American conservative political position. Who has been for it since Robert Taft?
With the exception of comment #5, the comments here restore my trust in Chronicles readers, somewhat. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to the so-called paleoconservative commentators such as Mr. Murchison, and more particularly, Pat Buchanan. Their infatuation with Bill Kristol's discovery and creation, Sarah Palin, have completely convinced me that anyone who calls themself "conservative," paleo or otherwise, are completely full of crap. These Palin-infatuated "paleos" don't seem to be bothered whatsoever that Palin simply channels Bill Kristol's neoconservatism, whether imperialism or an Israel first foreign policy. With that, there is no distinction to be made anymore between paleo and neo conservatives. So why read Chronicles?
With that, there is no distinction to be made anymore between paleo and neo conservatives. So why read Chronicles?
Because it is still better, even during its worst month, than any of the alternative publications. Also , there is no one in national politics today that we paleos support. We don't like national figures and especially national figures we don't know and can't know except through the lens of reporters and journalists we don't trust. Anybody wishing for our support should apologise for offering their public service without a request for it, quit politics, learn some Latin or Greek, teach something they love to the younger generation, watch the Robert Duvall movie, Secong Hand Lions, and quit trying to sell us anything, including a Republican victory. It has always been more honorable in our tradition to be a defeated and humble bum than a victorious liar like Mr. Frum.
The GOP could jst as easily be led by a kindergarten teacher as it is by the hapless Michael Steele, who seems to be have chosen for reasons of diversity and equal opportunity. The GOP is nothing more that Jackass Party Lite. The only thing they seem to offer is that they will manage the welfare state more effectively.
It's gotten so bad that I'd opt for the leadership of the regular Howard Stern guest, Daniel Carver.
Mr Gervaise,
I have never had the pleasure of making your acquaintance but it is high on my "things to do" list. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Thanks for your always hillarious and quite honest posts.
"After 8 years of Bush, the presidency has been permanently disgraced and dishonored. "
In my own view, the office of president was permanently disgraced and dishonored after the first year of Lincoln's administration.
Bush was simply a puppet whose strings were clearly visible the whole time he was onstage.
My point is being that we need to stop supporting commentators who are as bad, or ignorant, as those frauds who gave us a Madoff economy and endless, unwinnable wars, while at the same time demanding a Constitutional interpretation that would give all power to a unitary executive. Whatever is said about the current occupant of the Presidency, with his Argentine economic scheme, etc.; it was his predecessor who "conditioned" the political landscape. And now we have so-called paleo commentators like Buchanan, who is obviously senile with his best years behind him, cheering on another neocon sock puppet. Let them do so but get them off the pages of Chronicles before they bring Chronicles down to the same level of the Republican party.
The Republican party has already been "led"---into well-deserved oblivion. The beginning of all wisdom is to cease thinking that the Republican party is good for anything (or ever has been or ever will be).
A modernist Republican ticket of Lindsey Graham and Liz Cheney would suit me fine. A "convinced bachelor" lacking the manliness to marry and raise a family, Graham is proud to prostrate himself before the Council of La Raza while betraying conservatives in the most dismissive manner. Graham is a supporter of the imperial state, one of the most important prerequisites of the Republican machine. Miss Cheney not only is as firm a supporter of the American Empire as is her father, she adds a modernist twist. Married with children, she shames her husband by refusing his last name, and, it would appear, supports the worldview of her radical lesbian sister who is "married" and the mother of an artifically created child.
Todd:
Pat Buchanan is a friend of Chronicles and a friend of mine. Far from being "obviously senile," Pat remains one of the best commentators in print or on television. Your juvenile attack on him tells us far more about you than it does about him, and what it tells us about you is not flattering.
Buchanan's one of the good guys. Don't forget that unlike almost all tradish conservatives, he writes for a fairly mainstream readership.
Calling Pat Buchanan "senile" combines the sensibilities of the brats who comment over at Free Republic with the analytical ability of someone like Barbara Streisand, Sean Hannity or Senator Al Franken. Not only does Pat Buchanan write columns that are trenchant and true, he churns out books about every other year addressing issues vital to conservativism. For one, I wish he would make one more presidential run in 2012 just for the shear pleasure of it. A debate between Pat Buchanan and Barack Hussein Obama would actually make American politics interesting again rather than the focus group/ethnic pandering swill that is the American political scene today.
@19 Derek
I'll campaign for him again, even if it's only to hear the shrill, screeching voices of the gutter press denouncing an intelligent man.
Me too Mr. Gervaise but only with the total understanding that if nominated he would never be allowed to run by the powers that are the republican party, and if elected, he would never be allowed to serve by the powers that rule now rule "America". Other than that known reality, I would saddle up and ride to the sound of his guns at first light in the morning if he were to attempt another uprising.
Having lived in the USA for a mere 40 years, I've reached the conclusion that the 2 major parties select the worst possible candidate. Whether this occurs by happenstance or is manipulated in smoke-filled by the ruling magisterium, I cannot tell. Then on the first Tuesday anfter the first monday in November the voters will choose the more stupid of the two.
I know this is true because only 1% of the voting population avoids both the Evil and the Stupid Parties on election day.
And furthermore, every 4 years I'll be told I wasted my vote, this time around I hear it from McCain voters as if they'd voted for a winner.
The upshot is that we're ready to be ruled by the cruelest Rehoboam the World can conjure up, and even he will have a loud amen corner in the gutter press.
I was a very loyal Buchananite for years. His books have been some of the most important and insightful analyses of the self-inflicted harm that the Empire is bringing us. Thus, my gentle criticism of him, for what else but senility would bring someone of that sensibility to support Sarah palin, a neocon who stands against everything that Pat Buchanan proclaimed over the last 18 years. His many defenses of Dick Cheney, the neocon decider, would also appear to be explained only by senility. Sarah Palin is the perfect litmus test for "conservatives." If you're for her, then you're a neoconservative; otherwise, why did Bill Kristol promote her?