Werthless wrote:Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as limousine liberal, I must say. Needs alliteration, or a rhyme, or something.

TenuredVulture wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125115669365555171.html

Nothing shocking here, other than to say that the Republicans need more than simply Obama's troubles if they are going to rebuild the party.

One interesting thing is that part of Obama's troubles are the difficulties in Afghanistan and new violence in Iraq. But it seems to me that the only option the Republicans have on those issues is to run on sending more troops to both places, and I don't really see that as a winning issue.

And on the other big thing--health care, it seems to me that it's one thing to work to defeat Obama's plan, it's quite another to win an election based on "we stopped health care reform in its tracks."

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125115669365555171.html

Nothing shocking here, other than to say that the Republicans need more than simply Obama's troubles if they are going to rebuild the party.

One interesting thing is that part of Obama's troubles are the difficulties in Afghanistan and new violence in Iraq. But it seems to me that the only option the Republicans have on those issues is to run on sending more troops to both places, and I don't really see that as a winning issue.

And on the other big thing--health care, it seems to me that it's one thing to work to defeat Obama's plan, it's quite another to win an election based on "we stopped health care reform in its tracks."

Why is that? This is exactly the type of issue where the "traditional" position that Republicans have taken (more money for more troops) may have grown stale with voters. Additionally, such a message would be cohesive with the resurgent emphasis on fiscal responsibility that is one of their favorite criticisms of Democrats and Obama. Jerseyhoya, or anyone else, I'm sure there's a recent poll at your fingertips to show I'm wrong. However, if Republican political leadership shifted track to a "fewer troops makes sense" position, I'm sure public support for the position among conservatives would move. This is doubly true if the conservative media (Beck, Rush, etc) supported the positions.

Of course, I don't see it happening in the near future.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125115669365555171.html

Nothing shocking here, other than to say that the Republicans need more than simply Obama's troubles if they are going to rebuild the party.

One interesting thing is that part of Obama's troubles are the difficulties in Afghanistan and new violence in Iraq. But it seems to me that the only option the Republicans have on those issues is to run on sending more troops to both places, and I don't really see that as a winning issue.

And on the other big thing--health care, it seems to me that it's one thing to work to defeat Obama's plan, it's quite another to win an election based on "we stopped health care reform in its tracks."

Why is that? This is exactly the type of issue where the "traditional" position that Republicans have taken (more money for more troops) may have grown stale with voters. Additionally, such a message would be cohesive with the resurgent emphasis on fiscal responsibility that is one of their favorite criticisms of Democrats and Obama. Jerseyhoya, or anyone else, I'm sure there's a recent poll at your fingertips to show I'm wrong. However, if Republican political leadership shifted track to a "fewer troops makes sense" position, I'm sure public support for the position among conservatives would move. This is doubly true if the conservative media (Beck, Rush, etc) supported the positions.

Of course, I don't see it happening in the near future.

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:At least we shower

Have you been to rural America recently? The limousine conservatives shower, but not so much the rednecks.

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as limousine liberal, I must say. Needs alliteration, or a rhyme, or something.

dajafi wrote:Good stuff there, I agree.

Meanwhile, Nancy Reagan's statement on Ted's death was very classy. Jimmy Carter's was, I believe, non-existent...

Kennedy’s life yields several important lessons. One is about the nature of political leadership. We have been taught since, well, since the days of Camelot to admire a particular sort of politician: the epic, charismatic Mount Rushmore candidate who sits atop his charger leading transformational change.

But the founders of this country designed the Constitution to frustrate that kind of leader. The Constitution diffuses power, requires compromise and encourages incrementalism. The founders created a government that was cautious so that society might be dynamic.

Ted Kennedy was raised to prize one set of leadership skills and matured to find that he possessed another. He possessed the skills of the legislator, and if you ask 99 senators who was the best craftsman among them, they all will say Kennedy.

dajafi wrote:Really insightful David Brooks columnon Kennedy.

Though it's possible-to-likely that I'm so fond of it because it pretty well comports with how I've come to see policymaking.

Kennedy’s life yields several important lessons. One is about the nature of political leadership. We have been taught since, well, since the days of Camelot to admire a particular sort of politician: the epic, charismatic Mount Rushmore candidate who sits atop his charger leading transformational change.

But the founders of this country designed the Constitution to frustrate that kind of leader. The Constitution diffuses power, requires compromise and encourages incrementalism. The founders created a government that was cautious so that society might be dynamic.

Ted Kennedy was raised to prize one set of leadership skills and matured to find that he possessed another. He possessed the skills of the legislator, and if you ask 99 senators who was the best craftsman among them, they all will say Kennedy.

TenuredVulture wrote:I used to hope Hillary Clinton would become that type of leader. I wonder if when he's finished being Governor, Mike Beebe might not try his had at Senator from Arkansas. Blanche might be ready to retire then.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I used to hope Hillary Clinton would become that type of leader. I wonder if when he's finished being Governor, Mike Beebe might not try his had at Senator from Arkansas. Blanche might be ready to retire then.

If you accept the established wisdom about Kennedy, he had to renounce his presidential ambitions before he could grow into a legislative titan. Hillary Clinton has never done that--the entirety of her Senate career was nothing more or less than positioning for a presidential run--and it's almost unimaginable that she would. (I think she took her current job to avoid the appearance of cooling her heels in the Senate and having to go on record with tough votes over the next four to eight years, and unless her health declines, I believe it's a near-certainty that she'll run again in 2016.) It's the difference between genuine compromise and mere triangulation.