R.I.P - G.O.P - 1856 - 2009
The Republican Party isn't quite dead yet, but it lay there in the ICU on life-support; in a persistent vegetative state, with one foot in the grave and the other on the proverbial banana peel.
Neutered last November, Republicans are now incapable of stopping Democrats from walking all over them, legislatively speaking. Though it is far too soon to pen the GOP obituary, the prognosis is grave, indeed. The systemic problems that inflict the modern-day Republican party are many and they are severe. So sever, that if the GOP can't resolve its differences - and unite soon, it will be swept onto History's Dung Heap of Irrelevance.
Besides John McCain and the other military veterans in Congress, I doubt a single Republican has ever had his nose bloodied in a fight. Many are the beneficiaries of nepotism and most have never held a real job outside of lawyering. Far too often, they have allowed Democrats to define them without fighting back, George W. Bush's biggest mistake. They have successfully allowed themselves to be branded as the "Party of No" and have yet to counter that label. Simply making a strong, principled argument that the "Party of 'No'" label is based on the absurd notion that government is the solution to every social, political and economic problem would tear off that label.
Republicans have repeatedly checked their principles at the cloak room. Before George W. Bush, they were the party that once stood for personal responsibility, small government, strong defense and low taxes. Suddenly, when Bush turned his back on conservatives and spent like there was no tomorrow, it became OK to run large deficits. Today, the smell of pork, the fear of not getting a place at the trough and re-election seem to be the only things that influence Republicans in their decision-making.
Although many conservatives were screaming for years that Iraq was descending into civil war and that something needed to be done to win, Republicans remained silent until they faced re-election and were forced to take a stand . Only then, did many of them call for a "surge", while others facing the prospect of unemployment chucked their remaining principles and called for immediate withdrawal.
Republicans fiercely resisted Bill Clinton's immigration reform efforts, but bent over backwards just a few years ago to offer their support for amnesty, simply because a Republican was then-president. How quickly they forget... I don't.
Many Republican governors congressmen senators hold contemptibly weak convictions on the economic policies of Barack Obama, indeed the entire Obama agenda. They seem to think it's OK to publicly criticize stimulus programs and TARP legislation, but then vote for it...
- Or they vote against it, yet take the money anyway...
- Or they take the money and criticize after the fact...
- Or they take some, but not all of the money...
- Or when they realize their state would simply be left behind, they hitch a free ride on the Obama gravy train.
The battle over Obama's first Supreme Court nomination further illustrates the difficulty that so-called moderate Republicanism presents. Thus far, dozens of Republican Senators have commented on nominee Sonia Sotomayor, but only one has the ideological courage to say that he will oppose her.
Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn have completely sidestepped the issue of race that colors this nomination. In response to Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich's charges of racism, Cornyn said: "I think it's terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set."
if you stand for nothing, then no one will stand for you
And when characterizing the fight over Sotomayor and Jeff Session's response to Republican charges of racism, the AP wrote:
"Alabama's Jeff Sessions said Sunday that he would prefer fellow Republicans stop attacking Sotomayor over remarks about her background as a daughter of Puerto Rican parents."
The AP has some explaining to do. I challenge anyone to locate a published or verbal attack on Sotomayor's parents or Puerto Rican heritage. Not one Conservative has said a word about her upbringing or ancestry, yet Cornyn, Sessions and the other RiNOs in Congress let those shameful public mis-characterizations stand, damaging their party and leading to phony charges of racism against conservatives that somehow stick. You know the rest...
If this nominee harbors feelings of Latina superiority (and her membership in La Raza and her very own racially-charged comments seem to indicate she does) then that is a legitimate issue, although not the primary one. There has already been a mountain of evidence introduced that her fitness to serve impartially on the High Court is highly questionable. Some Republicans have expressed serious reservations, deep concerns; but the fact remains; they will likely vote to confirm her just to attract Latino votes and appear more inclusive.
Even Republican strategists, far too willing to sell their souls for Latino votes are trying to sabotage the efforts of Conservatives to reclaim their party. They posit that Obama is a popular president and he has the votes to confirm Sotomayor, so this is not a fight Republicans want to have, lest they appear more hateful than Democrats have already portrayed them. My question to those who believe that nonsense is this:
If this is not the right fight, then which one is?
- The economy?
- Abortion?
- Illegal immigration?
- National Security and Defense?
- Torture?
The GOP will be the impotent minority for at least another year and a half. If they keep ignoring their base, it will be a lot longer than that. Does that mean they'll just roll over whenever the odds aren't in their favor?
Moderate Republicans argue further that attacking Sotomayor will alienate Hispanics. But what could be more stereotypical, patronizing and inherently racist than that line of thinking? Those comments show that Republicans wrongly assume that Hispanics can't think for themselves and march in lockstep with Sotomayor, a racist notion in itself.
For years, Republicans have been opposing any and all forms of government-run, government-sponsored or government-managed health care reform. Along comes Barack Obama pushing what appears to be an overly-aggressive health care agenda that will put government squarely in control, and lo' and behold, Republicans have an alternate proposal. They don't oppose government-run health care, only Obama's proposal.
Fifteen years ago, I disavowed the Republican Party because they no longer stood for anything but their own personal enrichment and continued re-election. In that fifteen years, the only thing that's changed is that, as the party has drifted ever-leftward, more and more Republicans have fled.
The biggest mistake that the Republican Party can make is to further moderate its views. The thinking of the leadership holds that opposition to illegal immigration and entitlement spending is costing them votes. Therefore if the party moderates some of their social positions, they'll gain more Hispanics and young voters and compete with Democrats. The problem with that logic is that they have been losing their base for years. In fact, the Republican Party began shrinking drastically only after George Bush pushed amnesty, grew the deficit and otherwise strayed from conservative principles, not the other way around as the dishonest moderates claim.
Why would America need or even want another party to be just like Democrats? Like today's moderate Republican, if you stand for nothing, then no one will stand for you.
