Let’s just say it: The Democrats are the problem

posted at 8:56 pm on April 28, 2012 by Karl

Let’s just say it. After all, that’s what Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein did to the Republicans at the WaPo, apparently set off by this incident:

Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on videoasserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.

It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.

***

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

Although Ornstein and Mann claim to “have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted,” they provide no links to all the op-eds they did about the extreme statements about Republicans being Un-American, comparing them to fascists, Nazis, racists and so on made by Democratic Reps. Nancy Pelosi (on her own and with Steny Hoyer), George Miller, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler, Jesse Jackson Jr., Sam Gibbons, Tom Lantos, Keith Ellison, Baron Hill, Jared Polis, Steve Cohen, Sheila Jackson Lee, Eleanor Holmes Norton and Louise Slaughter. Or Senators Robert Byrd and Blanche Lincoln. Or current Califonia governor Jerry Brown. Or repeat offender Al Gore. People might be forgiven for thinking Democrats, not to mention Ornstein and Mann, take that extreme rhetoric for granted in their rush to condemn the GOP.

As for the supposed anti-science bent of the GOP, Ornstein and Mann probably should not have picked the week in which Gaia theorist James Lovelock announced he and others had been unduly alarmist about global warming to wheel out this particular trope. Moreover, O&M apparently have not noticed the degree to which Democrats are anti-vaccination, anti-nuclear, and anti-animal research. And they missed how Democrats ditch science whenever it threatens party dogma on race and gender issues.

Ornstein and Mann next trot out several GOP boogeymen to explain the current apocalypse. They spend the most venom on vilifying Newt Gingrich, who in their telling poisoned the well by building the first GOP House majority in 40 years by scandal-mongering and demonizing his opponents (Democrats never did this before 1994, you know). Gingrich certainly did shine a light on the corruption of the Democratic leadership of the time, including Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski, and the GOP did benefit on balance in 1994 from the House banking scandal. However, Ornstein and Mann certainly do not make the case that the Wrights and Rostenkowskis were clean and deserved to remain in powerful positions in the House.

Moreover, as self-proclaimed scholars of Congressional history, Ornstein and Mann surely know that the election of a GOP House in 1994 was the culmination of electoral trends stretching back to Eisenhower, accelerated by the rise of the New Left within the Democratic Party starting in the late 60s and early 70s, and turbo-charged by the first two years of the Clinton administration. The GOP has not held the House for most of the years since 1994 because of a few bounced checks. However, the notion that Republican majorities in Congress reflect public support for the GOP agenda conflicts with their narrative, so Ornstein and Mann play dumb about all of this.

Ornstein and Mann then move on to the supposed intransigence of the GOP during the Obama administration:

On financial stabilization and economic recovery, on deficits and debt, on climate change and health-care reform, Republicans have been the force behind the widening ideological gaps and the strategic use of partisanship.

What O&M leave out here is any consideration of whether the Democrats’ legislation on any of these issues was all that popular. They also skip over the fact that Democrats had large majorities in both houses of Congress for the first two years of the Obama administration, even enjoying a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for the period between the election of Al Franken and the death of Ted Kennedy. They further leave out the fact that Obama rejected a Republican suggestions on economic recovery with the in-your-face declaration “I Won” on his third day in office, and made a priority of cutting a campaign ad against the lone Republican who voted for Obamacare in the House. And O&M fail to acknowledge that it was Obama who torpedoed a bigger deal during negotiations over the debt ceiling, after the allegedly intransigent-on-taxes GOP leaders signaled willingness to accept $800 billion in revenue measures.

They also complain about the escalating use of the filibuster. They overlook the argument that the filibuster can be a way to promote compromise. They also overlook Ornstein’s past enthusiasm for the filibuster, coincidentally enough when Republicans were threatening the so-called “nuclear option” to end Democratic filibusters.

Ornstein and Mann then jump back in time again:

No doubt, Democrats were not exactly warm and fuzzy toward George W. Bush during his presidency. But recall that they worked hand in glove with the Republican president on the No Child Left Behind Act, provided crucial votes in the Senate for his tax cuts, joined with Republicans for all the steps taken after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and supplied the key votes for the Bush administration’s financial bailout at the height of the economic crisis in 2008. The difference is striking.

Moving past the hilarious understatement of Bush Derangement Syndrome we all endured for eight years, what are Ornstein and Mann actually suggesting here? If their thesis is that the GOP has pursued a radical policy agenda, did Dems go along with these measures solely out of some moral obligation to bipartisanship? Or might it be that the GOP agenda is not as extreme as Ornstein and Mann suggest? Occam’s Razor suggests politicians tend to vote based on what will keep themselves in office, or in the case of unpopular measures based on what they judge to be truly in the national interest. In Ornstein’s and Mann’s world, when Dems vote for a Bush administration bill, it is solely Democratic noblesse oblige, as though the Bush administration allowed no input from the Ted Kennedys of the world on NCLB.

Ornstein and Mann trot out complaints about the GOP from people like former senator Chuck Hagel, but fail to note the complaint from former Senator Evan Bayh, made after Scott Brown’s Senate victory in the deep blue state of Massachusetts: “Whenever you have just the furthest left elements in the Democratic Party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country, that’s not going to work too well.”

O&M continue:

Shortly before Rep. West went off the rails with his accusations of communism in the Democratic Party, political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, who have long tracked historical trends in political polarization, said their studies of congressional votes found that Republicans are now more conservative than they have been in more than a century. Their data show a dramatic uptick in polarization, mostly caused by the sharp rightward move of the GOP.

For dudes bent on calling the GOP anti-science, you would think Ornstein and Mann would not only know, but also note that the use of the Poole-Rosenthal data to make these sort of claims is, er, not without controversy among political scientists. You would be wrong.

On a roll, Ornstein and Mann get egregious with this one:

In the House, some of the remaining centrist and conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats have been targeted for extinction by redistricting, while even ardent tea party Republicans, such as freshman Rep. Alan Nunnelee (Miss.), have faced primary challenges from the right for being too accommodationist.

O&M really hope you do not click on the link they provided, which reports:

On Tuesday Reps. Jason Altmire and Tim Holden, members of the moderate-to-conservative caucus of Democrats known as the Blue Dog Coalition, lost their primary battles to more liberal opponents who painted their centrism as apostasies that could no longer be tolerated.

These were the latest blows delivered to the Blue Dogs, whose membership ranks have been decimated the last two years by a perfect political storm that has driven the House Democratic caucus farther to the left than at any time in the last decade.

It’s increasingly unclear whether Democrats can ever reclaim the House majority unless they pick up ground in the conservative-leaning terrain that the Blue Dogs once represented. In addition, with so few moderates left, there are fewer House members in the political center to create the sort of bipartisan coalition that in the past has provided the bulwark of support for budget compromises.

In other words, Democratic moderates are “targeted for extinction” by Democrats (especially Big Labor), in the same way they accuse the right of doing to GOP officeholders. To be sure, The GOP has its Jeffordses, Specters and Snowes, but the switches of the Gramms and Shelbys and the departures of Democrats like Bayh and Ben Nelson, not to mention the primary defeat of Joe Lieberman by the left-wing “netroots,” demonstrates this is a bipartisan phenomenon.

Ornstein and Mann’s highly selective reading of history all builds to this:

Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?

Urging the press to be unfair and suggesting Republicans are hostage-takers is their recipe for bringing moderation bipartisanship into our political sphere. Extremism is the defense of center-left establishmentarianism is no vice!

What could possibly go wrong?

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Karl, thank you for this brilliant response. You da man!

itsnotaboutme on April 28, 2012 at 11:49 PM

I never understood why Ornstein work for AEI…he should work for Brookings or someone.

Aside from being humorless scolds, there must be another reason to write this claptrap. Let’s see.

First, the problem is not communism per se. It is what is properly called bourgeois socialism

This is where the ruling class ‘reform’ the system…but make sure that they keep their money/bling. This allows the elites to be rich, AND feel good about helping the peasants

Or, as Marx wrote:

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

So lets reframe what old Norm is saying. The peasants are getting unruly. The ruling class (like him) are Good Hearted people down with the ‘revolution’ and we’re doing just fine…so all you wingnuts out there just stfu while we lead you to the New Jerusalem

r keller on April 29, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Hey now, that’s totally disrespectful. Why can’t you use the correct name(s): That’s Demoncratic or Demonratic to you.

AZfederalist on April 28, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Works for me.

I have a feeling that Satan… I mean Bill Maher… would approve.

redridinghood on April 29, 2012 at 12:17 AM

What’s the difference between a communist and a progressive?

Kjeil on April 29, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Baxter Greene on April 28, 2012 at 11:30 PM

…good post Baxter …I forgot about Indiana already.
You keep asking myself why there are so many clueless people in this country…but then I remember almost two years with the Congress and Senate with Republicans not being able to block anything, and the soundbites the media kept repeating constantly from the other side about the ‘Party of NO’…rarely bringing to the public’s attention how ridiculous that was.
Even now, with the way nothing comes out of the Senate…the press concentrates on the House. People are busy trying to survive and don’t take time to educate themselves, though they think they are well informed…from a group who has become politically partisan.

KOOLAID2 on April 29, 2012 at 12:25 AM

What’s the difference between a communist and a progressive?

Kjeil on April 29, 2012 at 12:20 AM

One is telling you who he is and the other one is hiding who he really is.

AZfederalist on April 29, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Well done dissection, but really, in the end, it won’t mean anything because they know they’re lying! They know not needing I.D. at a polling place is an open invitation for fraud. They know that global warming is a crock. They know any number of they’re agenda item’s are pure unadulterated B.S., and you know what else? They Don’t Care! And really, why should they. They’ll still get fawning network coverage, they’ll get pats on the back for infanticide, they’ll get bushel basket’s of vote’s for having a “D” behind their name’s. Whatta racket!

SMACKRUNNER on April 29, 2012 at 12:34 AM

Ridicule, its kyrptonite for liberals, they’re crybabies to begin with and pointing out their many failings and laughing at them is by far more powerful than cool, and it resonates with the public.

You can start small and when they respond with anger, they you can ramp it up, the angrier they get the more ridicule you can pile on.

Speakup on April 29, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Even now, with the way nothing comes out of the Senate…the press concentrates on the House. People are busy trying to survive and don’t take time to educate themselves, though they think they are well informed…

KOOLAID2 on April 29, 2012 at 12:25 AM

…exactly

…by their own standards…the democrats hold as much if not more of the responsibility for what “Obama inherited.”
If the Republicans holding just the House for a little over a year out of the last four are responsible for the “gridlock and failure” on the Hill…
…then the democrats holding both the House and the Senate years before Obama came into power are responsible for “the mess Obama inherited”……

“What liberal media????”//

Baxter Greene on April 29, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Saying this, and going back to the McCarthy playbook (perhaps dressed a little better this time) are the beginnings of results.

avgjo on April 29, 2012 at 1:54 AM

I guess the Democrat’s theme song is ’99 Problems(but a conscience ain’t one)’

Wolftech on April 29, 2012 at 2:03 AM

LOL. West colors the palate and the painted complain. But cannot deny the truth.
Next they will be asserting Obama is intelligent.

pat on April 29, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Yes, the Democrats and what they’ve done are the problem, but they couldn’t have done this harm without being elected to large majorities. It’s the ignorance and foolishness of Americans who fell for Obama’s hackneyed themes and promises that were too good to be true, who knew he had no experience, who with a little looking behind the headlines could have informed themselves about his radical background and influences. He had glamor. When will we ever learn to grow up and be the kind of citizens our founders hoped we would be, capable of governing ourselves responsibly? The closeness of this promised election should be a warning that we need more that just to defeat them this time around. Otherwise, when the required sacrifices come and the lavish handouts and government jobs and spending are cut, we will have to take the cure and stick to it and not listen to politicians appealing to our own greed and desire for ease. They’ll be back with appeals to self-pity and greed and we have to send them away when they do.

flataffect on April 29, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Excellent takedown of these two hacks, Karl!

UltimateBob on April 29, 2012 at 4:11 AM

It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.

Of course, in our hearts, we all know they only disallowed extremism today is telling the truth!

Don L on April 29, 2012 at 5:10 AM

Nice article Karl.

dogsoldier on April 29, 2012 at 6:23 AM

Ditto here. Very nicely done.

That O&M article induces so many eyerolls that my left eyeball is stuck looking at the ceiling…..

…and I haven’t scraped the popcorn texture off the one in the bedroom yet.

Thanks…..:-)

98ZJUSMC on April 29, 2012 at 6:49 AM

With so much criticism of our military and the media with their infinite wisdom printing those photos of our soldiers with the bodies of the enemy we have a President at the recent get together at the White House mocking our military, the death of Bin Laden, the open mike with a Russian, the Republicans and anything else that came to his juvenile sense of humor shows the world the maturity of our Country.

mixplix on April 29, 2012 at 6:53 AM

What’s the difference between a communist and a progressive?

Kjeil on April 29, 2012 at 12:20 AM

A progressive does not want to share his property with the unwashed masses, but just like the communists he believes human progress is achieved by moving in the direction of communism, not by defending individual liberty.

In other words, there is no practical difference, since communists have no intention of being materially equal to the masses either.

fadetogray on April 29, 2012 at 6:56 AM

No doubt, Democrats were not exactly warm and fuzzy toward George W. Bush during his presidency. But recall that they worked hand in glove with the Republican president on the No Child Left Behind Act, provided crucial votes in the Senate for his tax cuts, joined with Republicans for all the steps taken after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and supplied the key votes for the Bush administration’s financial bailout at the height of the economic crisis in 2008. The difference is striking.

I seem to remember Democrats cheering on the floor of the House when Bush’s attempt to fix Social Security went down in flames. Where were these paragons of bipartisanship then?

Odysseus on April 29, 2012 at 7:26 AM

What’s the difference between a communist and a progressive?

Kjeil on April 29, 2012 at 12:20 AM

The latter lives in America where it’s political suicide to call yourself a communist.

Odysseus on April 29, 2012 at 7:33 AM

Let’s just say it: The Democrats are the problem

Actually, it’s the fact that the Republicans won’t fight as hard for their principles as the Democrats fight for theirs is the REAL problem.

Cleombrotus on April 29, 2012 at 7:36 AM

When you keep getting your senators elected with vote fraud and keep ignoring or trashing the Constitution, no, your power is not legitimate.

WannabeAnglican on April 29, 2012 at 7:48 AM

What’s the difference between a communist and a progressive?

Kjeil on April 29, 2012 at 12:20 AM

1. A Communist does not believe in God. A Progressive thinks he is God.

2. A Progressive talks a lot about the “common good”. A Communist doesn’t generally bother with that, he just talks about “the good of the Party“. Of the two, the Communist is actually more honest.

3. A Communist is all in favor of using technology to further the aims of the Party. A Progressive hates technology in any form except that which he uses himself (Ipad, etc.), and has no understanding of the concept of “infrastructure”. In this respect, the average Communist is actually somewhat more intelligent than the average Progressive. (Or at least slightly more in contact with reality.)

4. A Communist keeps his racism a secret. A Progressive calls his “Multiculturalism” and wears it like a medal.

4. A Communist secretly dreams of exterminating everyone on Earth who isn’t exactly like him. A Progressive doesn’t bother to keep his dreams of genocide a secret. (Cf the “No Pressure” AGW ad.)

There are other differences, but these are the principal ones.

clear ether

eon

eon on April 29, 2012 at 8:29 AM

If anyone doesn’t think that Democrats are the problem, they need to refocus their particular attention on California…

The Democrats have had control of the state Assembly and Senate since the districts were gerrymandered after the 1960 (yes, 1960) census…

Khun Joe on April 29, 2012 at 8:30 AM

And where are those moderates going? To the “big tent” Republican Party. It was obvious in the 2010 midterm elections that Nancy Pelosi did not mind the Blue Dogs losing. It was the moderates Democrats who gave her problems passing Obamacare. The Republican Party is doing the same thing to conservatives, which is why so many have become Independents. I wish the Republican Party was being lead by conservatives like Allen West who, as a Senator, has the courage to expose the truth and stand up for conservative principles.

lea on April 29, 2012 at 8:39 AM

When you keep getting your senators elected with vote fraud and keep ignoring or trashing the Constitution, no, your power is not legitimate.

WannabeAnglican on April 29, 2012 at 7:48 AM

I doubt the Democrats could win an honest election based on principles alone, but we’ll never find out.

lea on April 29, 2012 at 8:41 AM

They are mental midgets, so your response to them has to be in line with something they comprehend.

It is as simple as this when they start with their drivel–”Tell me libtard, when was the last time the Republicans had majority control” and when they give you their usual clueless glare, you tell them “we are approaching 6 years. Now, explain to me who is the issue”.

It ends the conversation rather quickly.

hillsoftx on April 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Don’t kid yoursel, they have principles. They simply obscure them for public consumption.

THEY know what they are even though they try to keep the general public ignorant of them and when the time comes the mask will come off.

Count on it.

Cleombrotus on April 29, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Florid liars or florid morons.
Tough call.

justltl on April 29, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Democrats are the problem mainly cause’ they dont stand up to and take back their party from the Radical Leftists …..

The radical left in this country is maybe 20%, bout’ the same percentage the Commies were in Russia, pre revolution. Both countries radical leftists are and were despised by the general population as was the Black Plauge.

In a nutshell, radical Liberalism is the single overriding problem in this country………the rest of the stuff is day to day b.s that people would’ve taken care of on their own when the problem was small.

Liberalism has now made many of these problems so systemic and generational, it will now take a historic event to clear our country of them…..

The real question that should be debated…..with all that Liberalism has done to this country…….why does it still have any political existence at all……

sbark on April 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Yet another example of an ad that could show the truth of the Democrats and Obama and his regime.

We have a news layer of ammunition that typical (msm eating) Americans are just not seeing.

Get it through.

so-notbuyingit on April 29, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I posted a comment on another thread comparing the written positions of the Democratic Progressive Caucus and the American Communist Party. From their own websites.

Any Democrat is welcome to point out any significant difference.

Communist, socialist, new leftist, progressive, whatever. They change the name as often as someone who writes bad checks for a living, and for much the same reason.

tbrosz on April 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Karl, thank you for this brilliant response. You da man!

itsnotaboutme on April 28, 2012 at 11:49 PM

i agree, but O&M will never read this…

their cognitive disonance will only be exposed by a tumultuous event, for example… if owe’bama care is overturned… it will be tumultuous to the left bc in their echo chamber, they never fathomed that it could happen…

Dr. Demento on April 29, 2012 at 12:52 PM

“Secular elites prophesy a doomsday without redemption.”

Apocalyptic Daze

Music by The Church

Resist We Much on April 29, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Sarah Palin remains exceptional when it comes to handing the 0bamaGanda Media their lunches, but Mitt will never be able to rise to the occasion because there is so much more they can TRUTHFULLY publish about the liberal, thus he dares not risk their ire.

DannoJyd on April 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM

It’s unbelievable that WaPo allows them to start a piece like this with a blatant lie: they have to know that they were “Sherrod-ing” the Allen West quote. They also completely gloss over the fact that the GOP ran in 2010 on the exact platform that they are urging them to now abandon for the good of the country, without asking the basic question of why they would do so when it resulted in their greatest midterm election victory in decades (ever?). They also utterly fail to address the unwillingness of the Democrats to sit down and work through issues like adults, rather than continually whining about how unfair the negotiators across the table are being. Ornstein should be fired from AEI for this; his association with them is the only thing conferring a piece of dung like this with even a shred of legitimacy.

Progressive Heretic on April 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM

cpusa.org today’s frontpage headline links- tax billionaire’s to keep student tuition rates low.
People with Dream Act on t shirts at rally- with signs saying liberazion on them-
delegates to the CPUSA convention noted as being young or at least college age.
link 1 in their slideshow-”Defeating the rightwing on the road to socialism.”
Link #2 (this is priceless) “We are the real uniters.”
Link #3 A United People’s Crusade for Truth, Worker’s Rights, Human Rights and Social Justice.
Link #4 Racism underpins entire GOP agenda.
Listen to Democrats this week and see if they have different talking points.

My question is, “Name one good thing that the Democrats stand for that is also good for taxpayers.”?

mdetlh on April 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM

So, as we continually see, leftists are simply partisan, biased pieces of unreliable excrement. It’s not necessary to deconstruct every POS they write.

Next,

Midas on April 29, 2012 at 8:09 PM

It’s unbelievable that WaPo allows them to start a piece like this with a blatant lie:

Progressive Heretic on April 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Sorry but it is more than believable. The WaPo has always been a liberal rag. My parents switched to the Washington Star (the PM paper) over the WaPo Watergate coverage. Sadly such options are limited now.

The Washington Post is nothing but a propaganda arm of the DNC. I only maintain my subscription for two reasons. First, I like doing crossword puzzles in ink and not online. Secondly, the plastic sleeve the paper comes in is ideal for collecting my dog’s poop. Other than that, I’d not give these bastards a dime.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2012 at 8:31 PM

The Washington Post has not exactly covered itself in glory today on a number of fronts … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

ombdz on April 29, 2012 at 8:37 PM

GIGO

insidiator on April 30, 2012 at 7:37 AM

Does HA have a Hall of Fame to enshrine this post in? A suitable trophy case?This is truly a post for the ages.

rogaineguy on April 30, 2012 at 9:37 AM

If we are talking about the extreme wing of the democrat party I am stunned the name Henry Waxman has not come up!

Lcsulla on April 30, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Lets just say it: the GOPe is the problem!

http://markamerica.com/2012/04/29/do-you-fear-obama/

The only thing that makes a guy like Obama dangerous are the people ostensibly on our side who seek to collaborate with him. It’s the moderates who undo us each and every time. I offer the debt ceiling debate of last July to any who doubt me. No, I don’t fear Obama, bad as he may be, nearly so much as I live in terror at the prospects of the next surrender of the Republican establishment. That’s what makes our situation seem hopeless. Who among you harbors the delusion of John Boehner riding in to save us? Mitch McConnell? Mitt Romney? That’s what demoralizes our conservative activism. That’s what cuts the heart out of the resistance. We won’t be delivered into communistic despotism by Barack Obama, but instead by some gutless cabal of establishment Republicans hurriedly cutting a deal to save their own necks, thereby damning the rest of us into servitude. It is ever the betrayers, the surrendering class, clamoring to hold onto some vestige of what they see as their rightful place, or even merely to save their own hides. I see this as the most pressing issue we face. Barack Obama is only possible because of the sell-outs.

For all appearances, Mitt Romney seems to be part of that class of Republicans, and if you ask me what it is that I fear, it is that once again, we will be saddled with a nominee who is not one of us, doesn’t understand us, and doesn’t see the world from the point of view we mostly share, out here, where the country is made to work by the choices, the goals, and the devotion of millions of individual Americans, each working to better his or her own life, and the life of their families, but actions that also redound to the benefit of the nation at large. When I listen to Romney, I am left with the unmistakable impression that I am hearing a man who wants to rule over me, the same as Obama, but with slightly different aims. I hear a man who is speaking to collectivized notions of American greatness that defy 250 years of the history of individual achievements linked by the consent and volition of the achievers. What I hear is: “New boss, same as the old boss.” If you tell me you fear Obama more, I can’t help but wonder why. Nothing is more terrifying to me than the thought that Mitt Romney is the best we could do in the face of Barack Obama’s four years of rampant destruction. If true, it may mean we’ve already lost the country, and there is nothing about Barack Obama so frightening as that possibility.

No Etch-a-sketch!

Nope to the GOPe!

Jayrae on April 30, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Jayrae on April 30, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Wow. Well said.

And I submit that we’re already too far gone. Does anyone here believe for a second that either party will stop the overspending, or even significantly slow it down? Look at the Ryan plan. Not even he is suggesting this.

And even if he was, and even if he was able to do it, it’s just a matter of time (2 to 4 years) before the leftists get back in charge and make the current spending binge look like a lesson in frugality.

Populism works to get leftists elected every time it’s tried. It wins elections by promising things it could never deliver, but by the time the promises are ash, the leftists have caused so much damage and managed to credibly blame it on others that it simply doesn’t matter anymore. This is the path we’ve been on for decades, and no one in power or running to take power has any intention of fixing it. Telling yourself different is naive at best.

runawayyyy on April 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Jennifer Rubin had a good response to this op-ed:

When I read their op-ed in Sunday’s Post, I concluded that Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein had written a clever parody: How would two shopworn founts of conventional wisdom let on that they are Democratic hacks and not serious pundits, let alone scholars?

Why, they would write a piece saying the GOP alone is to blame for what’s wrong in D.C. They’d disregard that the Democrats had control of the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress for the first two years of the Obama administration, and that the Democratic majority in the Senate hadn’t passed a budget in three years.

They’d omit mention that President Obama nixed the “grand bargain,” as The Post reported. They’d overlook that not only had the Republican House Budget Committee chairman put forth tax reform and Medicare and Medicaid reform (which the entire GOP passed) but that the Republican nominee for president did all that plus offer his formula for Social Security reform. They would leave out the hyperpartisan war on opponents, run out of the White House against everyone from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the Supreme Court to Fox News.

They’d slide by the gender- and class-baiting that Obama and the Democrats are relying on in lieu of agenda, and forget the shameless Mediscare gambit in response to Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) effort at Medicare reform. They wouldn’t mention the Democrats’ refusal to respond to the supercommittee proposal (which included new revenue) from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

If Ornstein and Mann were really shameless, they’d ignore the president’s partisan attacks on Republicans (accusing them of putting party above country, wanting us to breath dirty air and drink dirty water) and his failure to propose comprehensive immigration reform, preferring to use it as a wedge issue to inflame ethnic antagonisms. If they cared not a fig for their professional reputations, they’d throw around adjectives (”extreme” is always an easy one) with no factual support and cite intemperate House Republicans rather than the legions of deal-making Republicans in both Houses. They would cite fringe cranks like former senator Chuck Hagel.

They’d ignore that President Obama threw the Simpson-Bowles commission under the bus. They would underplay the fact that Democratic primary voters have systematically removed Blue Dog Democrats from office and that House Democrats chose to reelect the flame-thrower Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) as their leader, rather than the more practical Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.)

And by gosh, what courage! They risked writing something — tongue in cheek, right? — that people would think was actually sincere analysis, and then roll their eyes in disgust, wondering if they’ve given an in-kind donation to the DNC. They had no fear that the reaction (of all but the Democratic shills) would be to take them seriously and feel a pang of pity that has-been pundits would throw themselves at the feet of the Daily Kos crowd. Hats off to them, yessiree! You don’t see intellectual courage like that in D.C. every day.

P.S. Yes, this is the parody; theirs is the result of what happens when you’ve been in D.C. too long.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 1:53 PM

For all appearances, Mitt Romney seems to be part of that class of Republicans, and if you ask me what it is that I fear, it is that once again, we will be saddled with a nominee who is not one of us, doesn’t understand us, and doesn’t see the world from the point of view we mostly share, out here, where the country is made to work by the choices, the goals, and the devotion of millions of individual Americans, each working to better his or her own life, and the life of their families, but actions that also redound to the benefit of the nation at large. When I listen to Romney, I am left with the unmistakable impression that I am hearing a man who wants to rule over me, the same as Obama, but with slightly different aims

Jayrae, I do not get that impression at all.

But I do get the impression that there are people out there who like to complain about Romney but do not feel any responsibility at all to come up with a viable alternative who is actually electable. Believe it or not, it is not Mitt Romney’s fault that people like Sarah Palin did not have the guts to run or that people like Santorum could not get it together to win the nomination.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 1:58 PM

For all appearances, Mitt Romney seems to be part of that class of Republicans, and if you ask me what it is that I fear, it is that once again, we will be saddled with a nominee who is not one of us, doesn’t understand us, and doesn’t see the world from the point of view we mostly share, out here, where the country is made to work by the choices, the goals, and the devotion of millions of individual Americans, each working to better his or her own life, and the life of their families, but actions that also redound to the benefit of the nation at large. When I listen to Romney, I am left with the unmistakable impression that I am hearing a man who wants to rule over me, the same as Obama, but with slightly different aims

Jayrae, I do not get that impression at all.

But I do get the impression that there are people out there who like to complain about Romney but do not feel any responsibility at all to come up with a viable alternative who is actually electable. Believe it or not, it is not Mitt Romney’s fault that people like Sarah Palin did not have the guts to run or that people like Santorum could not get it together to win the nomination.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 1:58 PM

No, Jayrae has it exactly right. A Republican Congress would stand up to and resist President Obama, if we could just get conservatives in control of the Senate. The same Congress would go along with a President Romney, because he’s “our guy.”

We’re already seeing the House try to agree with Obama on student loan rate extension, because Romney tried to align himself with Obama’s position.

When your own “team leader” is playing for the other side whenever he thinks it will help him, you can expect to see a lot of “own goals.”

And it’s just going to get worse.

tom on April 30, 2012 at 2:50 PM

When your own “team leader” is playing for the other side whenever he thinks it will help him, you can expect to see a lot of “own goals.”

And it’s just going to get worse.
tom on April 30, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Anyone who did the research on Sketchy expected this sort of bowing before the liberals, but the MittBots MUST stick by their candidate until they get instructions to do otherwise. You see, much like the liberals they too refuse to think for themselves.

While there are still a few die hard supporters for Willard in the TEA Party Patriots, most are disgusted with him today.

DannoJyd on April 30, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2