Is the GOP dying?

I grew up in a politically-split household here in Washington. My father was a Barry Goldwater Republican, and my mom was a Democrat. When I was growing up, the most influential politician was our governor, Dan Evans. Evans was a moderate Republican who thought that in order to keep the federal government small, he should make the Washington state government as efficient and effective as possible. So he did. Because of Evans, my early political leanings were towards the Republicans. In 1968 I voted in my first election, and despite a lot of misgivings (later justified), I voted for another fairly moderate Republican, Richard Nixon.

All of which is a fairly long-winded way of saying that I've always held a soft spot for the GOP. In fact, I still vote for Republicans.

So it pains me a bit to see what's going on within today's party. Beginning in the late 60's and early 70's, the party started taking a turn to the right. As an ever-increasing number of very conservative Christians joined it, it began (slowly at first, and then with increasing speed) to turn further and further to the right, and to become something other than proponents of small government and fiscally conservative. Today, I doubt very much of Dan Evans (or Richard Nixon, for that matter) would be welcomed in the GOP.

Today, as I see it, there are three camps of Republicans, none of whom trust the others:

• The old-style small-government fiscal conservatives. The "Barry Goldwater Republicans" who would have counted my father among their members. This group includes "classical conservative" thinkers like William Buckley and George Will.
  
• The "neo-conservatives" who believe in big government, big spending, and are aggressively interventionist in their foreign policy. This group includes George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and a bunch of talk-show hosts.
  
• The Christians who are very socially conservative and want the federal government to enforce their policies. This group includes Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others.
  

Notice that moderates aren't included in that list. That's because moderates have been almost completely driven out of the GOP in an ideological purge lasting more than thirty years.

In 1972 and again in 1980, the Democrats suffered overwhelming losses. After those losses, the Dems did some soul-searching. As a result, the Democrats began a slow move towards the political center, which culminated in the election of the flawed but brilliant centrist, Bill Clinton in 1992.

In 2006 and 2008, the Republicans suffered similar overwhelming losses, and have done some soul-searching. But their response seems to be moving even further to the right. In the 2008 presidential election, John McCain turned down an opportunity to seize the political middle ground by nominating Joe Lieberman, and instead chose the unqualified, completely inexperienced Sarah Palin. This year the chairman of the party was forced to apologize to a radio talk-show host. In New York this month, a moderate Republican candidate ended up endorsing the Democratic candidate after conservatives endorsed a third-party candidate.

Want an example of what might happen if the GOP's ideological purge continues? Look no further than my home, Kitsap County, Washington. In the 2006 primary election, Republicans voted out an incumbent county commissioner because she - oh, the horrors! - compromised on a land-use issue. The result? Their ideologically more pure replacement candidate got his hat handed to him by a twenty-something who was running in his first political campaign.

The Republican party seems to be suffering from internecine warfare, and may be falling apart before our eyes, going the way of the Whigs and becoming politically irrelevant.

And they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Election results looking promising

Our election results are looking promising.

The voters firmly rejected (by double digits) Tim Me-Myself-and-I man's latest attempt to destroy state and local government. Of course, Eyman is crying all the way to the bank. He "earns" his money by skimming a percentage of the donations to his initiatives, so we shouldn't expect him to disappear from the scene because his livelihood depends on him introducing initiatives on a regular basis. He's a professional politician, just as much as those in Olympia that he derides.

Me-Myself-and-I man and his supports constantly complain that his initiatives are the only way to "control spending", but they ignore two key facts:

1. Washington ranks just 35th out of the 50 states in total state and local tax burden, according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation.
2. We already have an effective way of controlling spending. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called an "election". If you don't like the way your representative is voting on spending (or any other issue), then don't vote for them. If enough of your fellow citizens vote the same way, your representative will lose.

The other issue is a bit closer, but it looks like the voters have approved R-71, stymieing the latest attempt to legalize discrimination. While it unfortunately appears that legalizing gay marriage isn't in the cards for right now, this measure codified "everything but marriage", basically giving unmarried gay couples (and heterosexual couples over the age of 62) the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples. So in terms of gay rights, we've progressed from slavery to separate but equal. I hope legalized gay marriage isn't too far off.

Rush Limbaugh - siding with the terrorists

A startling admission from Rush Limbaugh on his radio show yesterday:

"Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban."

Q. What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and a terrorist?
A. 150 lbs, a Viagra prescription in someone else's name, and a cigar.

I love this cartoon

I found this Saturday morning. What a great response to those folks who say that the proposed public option in health care is bad!

If you don't see the whole thing, click on it.

George W. Bush - Communist?

Recently, conservatives here in the Pacific NW and elsewhere have been making a big deal out of a song about President Obama sung by some school kids.

Pam Dzama, the resident wrong-wing columnist in my local paper said, "Americans shouldn't idolize or deify their presidents". I wonder if she also advocates ending the President's Day holiday? I wonder if she thinks our state should change its name? I bet not.

One reader of her column compared the event to "the Hitler Youth Camps".

Another reader claimed that "a few radical teachers [are trying] to push their politics on kids."

One reader went way over the top, saying, "B.Hussein is literally worshipped by the blind sheople" and calling the song "O-Worship, indoctrination, brain-washing, mind-numbing SEDUCTION." Wow, what overblown hyperbole. I can just see the spittle flying from his lips as he wrote that.

RNC chairman Michael Steele actually had the nerve to stand up and say, "this is the type of propaganda you would see in Stalin's Russia or Kim Jong Il's North Korea. I never thought the day would come when I'd see it here in America."

I wonder how many of these folks complained about the school kids who sang hosannas to then-president Bush at the White House Easter Egg roll in 2006, praising him for the federal response to Hurricane Katrina?

Notice what also happened at that event. Before the song was sung, the first lady read the assembled children a book ("Will You Be My Friend: A Bunny and Bird Story" by Nancy Tafuri). When she was done reading, the President asked the kids "Did you like this book? Does it tell you about what people can do to help other people, what bird did to help bunny? Be kind to him and give him shelter."

"Give him shelter." There you have it, plain as day: President Bush advocating redistribution of wealth.

Clearly, George W. Bush is a Communist.

Saturday matinee - Sarah Palin

The leader of Alaska's "I-quit-arod" sings!



Thanks, Steve.

Palintology

Sarah Palin announced that she's resigning as governor of Alaska. Doesn't that automatically make her a leading competitor in the I-quit-a-rod?

Another GOP scandal

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, just back from a secret trip to Argentina unknown to his staff or his wife, admitted today he has carried on an extramarital affair.

The big news is that unlike many of his fellow Republican cheaters, he had an affair with a woman.

A question of character

Would you vote for someone who:

1. Was fired by a local newspaper he worked for as a columnist for plagiarism
2. Ran for mayor, using the business newspaper that he owns and edits to promote his own candidacy.
3. Had to move into the town he was running for office in, because he didn't live there.
4. After winning the election, continued to edit his newspaper, despite accusations that it was a conflict of interest.
5. As mayor, lied about commercial development to make it look like he was attracting more developers than he really was.
6. As mayor, used sockpuppets on the local newspaper blog (the same paper he was fired by) to praise his performance as mayor and to attack his detractors.
7. After being in office for a few months, demanding a pay raise, using a scheme that was found to have violated the law.

Would you vote for someone like that? If you live in Port Orchard, Washington you'll have a chance. He's the mayor.

Enough said.

Fitting tribute?

He was such a heel.

The myth of liberal bias in the news media

During the last election (and in fact, for the last forty years, ever since Spiro Agnew complained about the “nattering nabobs of negativism”), we’ve all been inundated with what I call the myth of liberal bias in the news media. Conservatives have complained bitterly that the news media is biased to the left and they aren’t getting a fair deal. This myth has been propagated to the point where many people accept it as fact, when in fact it has never been proven.

This constant complaint tells us more about the complainers than it does about the news media.

I’m old enough to remember the paranoid leftist ideologues from the 60’s. To them, the world was black and white; there was no middle ground. In their zealotry, everyone in the world was (as Eldridge Cleaver famously said) either “part of the solution or part of the problem.”

Fast forward to today. Today, we have equally paranoid right-wing ideologues who also have a black-and-white-with-no-possibility-of-a-middle-ground view of the world. They're just as paranoid as the leftists from the sixties. Former president Bush summarized the neo-conservative view of the world when he said “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.


What does this have to do with the news media? Journalists are trained to avoid bias and remain neutral. But the paranoid ideologues (of both extremes of the political spectrum) don’t allow for neutrality, and since they view everyone as either with them or against them, they view the press as against them. Hence the complaints.

Make no mistake - the complaints are coming from both ends of the political spectrum. For every right-wing ideologue who whines about “liberal bias”, there’s a left-wing ideologue complaining about right-wing bias. We don't hear about the left-wing complaints because the right wing gets all the press these days. As a communications professor of mine said once, when you’re getting complaints from both end of the political spectrum that you’re biased against them, it’s a pretty good clue that you’re doing a good job of remaining neutral.

Let's be clear. The ideologues aren't complaining that the news media is biased against them - they're complaining that the news media isn't biased in their favor. That's not the same thing at all. The next time someone complains about "liberal bias" in the media (or "conservative bias" for that matter), ask them how they know. I'll bet you they won't be able to answer - they'll just say that it's obvious. And I'll also bet that if they do answer, what they'll complain about is an example of the news media not having the bias the complainer wants it to have.

Ideologues like bias. They want bias. They just want to make sure it's their bias.

The Onion predicts the future

Looks like The Onion was able to predict the future. Just after his 2001 inauguration, they ran an article titled "Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'"

I think they pretty much nailed that one! Check out the link above.

Happy birthday, Dr. King

You'll get your real present tomorrow, on Inauguration Day.

It's about time.