Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Libertarians At War (With Each Other) | Main | Truth Puts Its Boots On (Hitchens Helps) »

September 13, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d834b0b4bc53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ramesh Ponnuru Hefts The White Towel - And Likes It!:

Comments

Other Tom

I think the loss of the House would be quite a setback. For one thing, it's very hard to dislodge incumbents these days in the absence of a rather dramatic unease in the electorate, so if the Dems get it they're likely to hold it for a while. More important, I think the news for the next two years would be dominated by congressional hearings into manipulated intelligence, torture, Gitmo, NSA and all the predictable crap. By the way, GOP house majority is at 47.0 on tradesports; senate (following Chafee's win) is at 85.6.

boris

Win by losing ???

Republicans might benefit from another terrorist attack on NewYork. No thanks.

Jim K.

I tend to agree with the "win by losing" notion. Look what happened in '92 and '94.

Republican party support of Chafee in Rhode Island makes Republicans look like they are more interested in power than in principle (which is no doubt true, but still, it's best not to make it so obvious). Supporting Laffey would have demonstrated some spine, and conceivably could have increased national support for Republicans from the base, even if it cost them the one seat (which is by no means assured anyway).

TexasToast

" ... blaming the Dems will be trickier if the Reps control everything (but where there's a will there's a way!).

How very true.

For instance, it is obvious how the Democrats' attitudes are causing this (from your prior post) …

The senior Marine commander in Iraq said Tuesday that he had sufficient forces to carry out his mission but that the mission did not include defeating the insurgency.

… to somehow be the result of Bill and Monica just like 9/11 was! Somehow, I don’t think Bill (or Monica, for that matter) has any input into what this Marine general thinks his mission is. I actually thought that was supposed to be communicated to him by his commanders.

And you folks keep harping that the Democrats don’t want to defeat the enemy?

The Unbeliever

Hey, I'm always up for a little McCain bashing. I maintain my previous stance: John McCain is a great American, an average Republican, and a horrible Senator. I'd prefer it if he stuck to policy speeches or fund raising, and never held (higher) public office; I think the only way he'd ever get my vote would be if a Hillary was running against him.

Sue

It might not be such a bad thing if democrats took over the house, if they would get serious about terrorism.

And don't tell me they are, TT, if they were, they wouldn't freak everytime Bush says the word terrorist. They would proudly point out what they have done and what they stand for. Instead of sulking because Bush used the words bin Laden and Saddam in the same sentence.

lurker

"I think the loss of the House would be quite a setback. For one thing, it's very hard to dislodge incumbents these days in the absence of a rather dramatic unease in the electorate, so if the Dems get it they're likely to hold it for a while. More important, I think the news for the next two years would be dominated by congressional hearings into manipulated intelligence, torture, Gitmo, NSA and all the predictable crap. By the way, GOP house majority is at 47.0 on tradesports; senate (following Chafee's win) is at 85.6."

I think it will be far more of a setback. Why? Because the House under democrat majority will start the impeachment process as soon as possible. Using PlameGate as an example, this will end up being money, time, and effort taken away from Bush doing his job to combat terrorism.

Incidentally, one of AJStrata's post covered Feingold and his clear violation of the first amendment.

Think McCain is way too soft to be able to protect our own country.

lurker

"And you folks keep harping that the Democrats don’t want to defeat the enemy?"

Their idea of winning against terrorism is "cut and run", which Neville Chamberlain and Clinton proved appeasement does not work.

The Unbeliever

And you folks keep harping that the Democrats don’t want to defeat the enemy?

To be charitable, the wing of the Democratic party who literally do not want to defeat terrorists is a small but vocal segment. It might be unfair to extrapolate from the ultra-peaceniks that the entire Democratic party is unwilling to engage the enemy, but you certainly can't ignore the fact that those appeasers have definite clout within the party, which will be brought to bear if the Dems win the Presidency or any chamber of Congress.

The real concern is the rest of the party, even though they might honestly wish to defeat terrorism, is demonstrably incapable of doing the job. The last time they held the Presidency, we had 8 years of letting the vicious acts of war against our nation go unanswered, to the point that bin Laden was emboldened to undertake larger attacks. Since 9/11, they've had plenty of time to come up with an alternative to Bush, but the best they could do is Kerry, Murtha, and Lamont. Even when they act in good faith to combat terrorism (and there are many times when their "alternatives" have not been submitted in a serious good faith effort), they come up short in the post-9/11 world. Trusting them with national security would be like blaming a cop for failing to stop a robbery, then giving his gun and badge to a newly deputized 5 year old.

This is no longer the party of Kennedy and Roosevelt; they do not share the same solid, fundamentally sound framework which made those past leaders great. Their post-modern, radically "progressive" worldview has warped so badly that they are incapable of dealing seriously with an existential threat, and cannot see past the short-term goal of regaining domestic political power.

Maybe you think knocking the Republicans out of power will return them to core principles. Perhaps--but in doing so you're knowingly turning over policy power to a group who is not ready to handle it. Call me stubbornly pragmatic, but gambling our national policy on the hopes that the Dems won't screw things up too badly while the Republicans wander in the wilderness--without assurances that it will even do them any good, given the proclivity to protect incumbents against more conservative challengers--doesn't seem like such a good idea.

azredneck

I would hate to ever vote for McCain again. If my choice is a Democrat, tho, I'll get over it!
(We would have to figure out a way to isolate him from Kennedy, Feingold, Graham and maybe even Warner.)

noah

Lame searches for silver linings in advance of hypothetical disasters is a silly way for grown men to spend their time. Ah, such is the lot of the puditocracy!

Bob Wright and Mickey Kaus do the same thing over at bloggingheads.tv with respect to the same issue, ruminating as if the Dems might actually throw the election for the same reason that Ponnuru posits!! Only Rove could be so diabolical! LOL!

clarice

NRO gets sillier by the day. But I suppose that's one way to get the NYT to print what you scribble.

Specter

Bush jumps another point to 45% at Rasmussen. 4 points in two days. Even with all the Demo whining.....LOL

Bob from Ohio

What about immigration? Does a Dem controlled House mean an immigration bill pretty similar to the President's current plan being passed and signed into law?

lurker

Good question. My guess would be "no action".

cathyf

You have to understand the whole moral logic of John McCain's universe. You see, in order to keep his senate seat, he jusy had to take bribes from Keating. So we are the evildoers -- because we didn't protect his seat from competitors, we forced him to take bribes that he "needed" to win elections.

In McCain's moral universe, the only way that McCain can not take bribes is if he doesn't need the money, so anybody who is against McCain-Feingold is in favor of bribe-taking.

Terrye

This is stupid and it reminds me why I rarely read the NRO anymore. If the Democrats win they will not try to defeat terror, they don't even think it is for real...all their efforts will be on impeachment and investigations of Bush [the real enemy] and all manner of partisan nonsense.

What is more I am tired of the far right acting as if the party might as well hang it up if they do not get everything they personally want. To hell with the rest of us.

I am not a big fan of McCain but apparently his constituents are and that is the real problem here. The folks at NRO are not a majority and they can not win without the support of the kind of people who vote for McCain.

Imagine two years of Pelosi running an impeachment investigation. Any Republican or conservative who could actually wish for such a thing has no business complaining about McCain, whatever he is he would not want that.

Terrye

Bob:

Two thirds of the American people support Bush's plan. And the truth is every now and then Bush needs to do something that has majority support if he is to remain politicall viable.

Syl

There's an irony here I think and that is the people, such as those at NRO, who believe the Democrats have lost viability do not realize that it's the Reps who are NOT 100% beholden to the NRO types who have made this happen.

For a Democrat or Democrat-leaning Independent to vote Republican it's not the NRO types who bring them over, it's the others. And every time an NRO type swings his/her weight around and demands candidates be MORE conservative, the movement, such as it is, will reverse.

In order for there to be two viable parties in America instead of one strong one and one disorganized hysterical one, the stronger one has to open its arms to the 'less pure' and embrace them.

Then and only then, when all that's left on one side is hysteria, that side will put its foot down, grow up, throw the loonies to the Greens and welcome the others back.

This means at some point the Dems become only the Left vs Everybody Else.

Unfortunately the NRO types don't wish for Everybody Else to even come near them.

Terrye

Syl:

This is true.

JM Hanes

Republicans from the Republican wing of the Republican party like me, have had to swallow more than their share of compromises to sustain a party with Conservatives at the helm. If those same folks screw the pooch on this one, all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. I'm as indispensible to Republican victories as the putative "base" and I'm pretty fed up with my vote being taken for granted. In fact, I'm so sick of conservative arrogance, I could positively scream. They'd have lost the reins already if the Democrats could manage to launch a half decent centrist.

Wish I could remember and credit whoever posted this Medved piece on a previous thread, but it speaks to this point from yet another perspective worth contemplating.

JM Hanes

If Perlosi/Reid/Dean remain at the Democratic helm and the Republicans can't bring themselves to field Rudi Giuliani, I'm ready to start taking the idea of a third party seriously.

Rick Ballard

JMH,

Hardline conservatives feel about the same way as you do about the level of compromise but from the other direction. Rove and Bush are keeping the ball in the middle of the fairway - as are the fellows doing the actual electoral work.

NRO has been completely ineffectual in pushing the party and Ponnuru's column is a perfect example of why they are ineffectual. Shoddy thinking declaimed in a loud voice is being given the weight it deserves.

I stopped reading NRO after their collective pants wetting on election day in '04. They missed the fact that AP was push polling on the exit polls and panicked. Not a particularly trustworthy group.

I anticipate that there will be a new party within ten years but I don't think it will be a third party. A loss or two more and the Dems are going to have to hive off the left and head for the middle.

JM Hanes

I expect you're right about a new vs. a third party down the road, or at least I hope so. I don't worry about the NRO crowd as much as I do the folks who are willing to put the Senate majority at risk in order to mount a challenge to Chafee -- when a conservative doesn't have a prayer of winning the actual R.I. election. The fact that what some commentator called the most Democratic state in the Union even has a RINO in the Senate is a demographic miracle.

TexasToast

is the rest of the party, even though they might honestly wish to defeat terrorism, is demonstrably incapable of doing the job.

Bold words! Bold words indeed! Considering that your side had done such a bang up job of it. The Democrats have not had the opportunity to "demonstrably" prove whether they are "incapable" or not - while your side has "demonstrably" created a disaster. In fact, several disasters.

You guys hit the bee's nest with a stick - and blame the democrats for the resulting bee stings.

PS

Can we lay the Chaimberlain analogy to rest? These idiots are not near the threat to us that Hitler was. The hyperbole is getting a bit tedious.

Syl

TT

You guys hit the bee's nest with a stick - and blame the democrats for the resulting bee stings.

Wrong. We blame you for complaining about the itch and pretending the hive didn't need to be hit.

Un-Unbeliever

Unbeliever, right now Democrats are saying the same things about you that you say about them.

While you've been busy convincing yourself that Democrats (and now a huge swath of Republicans) are incapable of recognizing and engaging an 'existential threat', you've lost sight of the real goal: actually making our country safer.

It's not about how many people you kill, bombs you drop, countries you invade, or 'vicious attacks' you answer. This will shock you, but those things, while emotionally soothing, aren't actually the end goal we're all seeking. At least, they're not the goals that serious people are seeking. What serious people want is no more September 11ths. What serious people want is for the number of dead civilians in Iraq to stop growing, and the same for the number of dead and maimed American soldiers to stop where it is(that would be around 60k by the way.)

Unlike you, serious people are willing to do whatever it takes to acheive these goals, and if more bombing is the prescription, then load em up, let's go. But unlike you, serious people aren't chained to military action, they don't HAVE to have that body count to feel like they've achieved something.

And the funny thing is, most of the world, and most of the country is agreeing with the people you see as so incompetent, spineless, or not acting in good faith. The president's foreign policy is seen as a disaster by the majority of Americans. The president's approval rating on Iraq is in the 30's. Thankfully the number of people like you...who can do nothing but retreat into your little partisan cave...is dwindling.

Because sometimes, Ubeliever, it's actually not the media's fault, nor is it Clinton's or Jimmy Carter's. Sometimes the guy you voted for, the guy you root for...sometimes he just turns out to be wrong.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame