Many of us already knew it, but Sen. Richard Lugar's defeat in the Indiana Republican primary puts things into stark relief: In 2012 any vote for a Republican is a vote for crazy. Any vote. Any Republican. No matter how sane the Republican, it's a vote for crazy.
Many commentators have observed that Lugar left himself vulnerable in many respects. Not even owning a house in Indiana did not help. But his opponent's attacks emphasized the greater problem that faces our nation today: Lugar was too pragmatic, too willing to negotiate, too -- well, not quite right-wing enough. In the wake of the election, Lugar's written statement said it all. His opponent "has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it."
Neither party is perfect, but Lugar has identified the major political obstacle to our national recovery. A rigid ideological orthodoxy has taken over the Republican party. No taxes. Free rein to corporations, but draconian control over people's domestic and reproductive lives. Reward the rich and blame the poor.
And we're talking crazy. It's legal to carry a loaded gun into a bar in some states because somehow that fulfills the Second Amendment -- and pleases the NRA. Women who desire abortions now face involuntary and invasive medical procedures as a deterrent. Police in several states find themselves saddled with investigating every person they might suspect of residing in the United States illegally. Bowing to the religious right, some states free their teachers to promote creationism in biology classes.
Crazy and crazier. We all have received those "Obama is an Islamic terrorist" emails from our nutty relatives and acquaintances -- but is it fair to believe the whole right wing has lost its tether to reason? Some Republican candidates in North Carolina are once again raising the "birther" issue. The Greene County (Virginia) party newsletter includes a call to "armed revolution" should President Obama win reelection. Florida Member of Congress Allen West claims he knows of about eighty members of the Communist Party in Congress -- and then defends his outrageous claim. Not long ago at all, Republicans in Wisconsin and other states even attacked public school teachers as greedy and overpaid "freeloaders."
Obviously, not all Republicans have gone crazy. The problem is, those who have abandoned logic for ideology have intimidated the majority. The basic ideas behind the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act came from the Republican-leaning Heritage Foundation in collaboration with Governor Mitt Romney. But when the Obama administration emphasized health care reform, the Tea Partiers sounded alarms, and sane Republicans ran from the issue like squirrels with their tails on fire. Eight Republicans dropped their previous support for reform in the face of the firestorm. Confronted by the crazies, the Republicans fled their own ideas.
This is why a vote for one Republican, even a sane one, amounts to a vote for crazy. Neither party is perfect, but unless and until election results force Republicans to stand up to their crazies, the crazy will continue. Years ago the radical Republican fringe began targeting RINOs (Republicans in name only) for extinction -- and by RINOs, they meant Republicans who might value the environment, education, and the general welfare over and above ideological rigidity.
Don't let sane Republicans fool you. They cannot withstand the surge of crazy from within their own party. Since when does a candidate for elected office describe himself as a "severe" anything? Pressed by crazies like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, that's exactly what Mitt Romney found himself doing back in February. Despite his relatively moderate record, Romney called himself a "severely conservative" governor. What exactly distinguishes a "severe" conservative from a "staunch" or "steadfast" one? Simple: the need to appeal to the crazies.
If you want to see how the crazies intimidate their own party, consider how one nutcase cowed the assured nominee, Romney, this week. A participant at a Cleveland town hall meeting told Romney she thinks the President of the United States should be tried for treason, and Romney did not -- could not -- counter her. Instead, Romney served up some pablum about his devotion to the Constitution. Only after the appearance, and in front of television cameras, did Romney acknowledge, "Obviously I don't agree that he should be tried."
And that's the point. Romney has a brain, and he knows the president is no traitor. But, like other usually reasonable Republicans, he lacks some other faculty that would allow him to confront the crazies in his own party. And that's why you should not vote for a Republican, no matter how sane or well-intentioned. A vote for a Republican, any Republican, is a vote for crazy.
Follow Greg Carey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GregC666
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Now, take those facts and start over. There may be a valid point buried in this, under all the bombastic emotion garnering words.
Finally, on compromise, who lacks the strength of their convictions? Is it those holding up compromise as virtue no matter what, or is it those standing on their convictions, unbending and unwilling to dilute their core values in the name of this new millennial value called “reaching across the aisle”
Sorry, I want my guys to expressly not compromise. Under the circumstances compromise is a bit like letting children run the household because it makes everyone feel new age-y and free range-y, organic and homeopathic and balanced. There are facts, there are words, words mean specific things, put together they mean complicated things, the words strung together in the article mean things that are not true, and this has been shown to be the strategy of the left, while claiming to be the intellectual party, hyperbolic empty rhetoric spews even from learned academics in multiple disciplines. Deflecting and dissembling are done so well I’ve stopped believing its clever and started believing its either instinct, or its lazy.
Finally I have to ask for the data, the proof texts. I need to see comments by prominent Republicans that show a desire for “draconian control over people’s reproductive lives”. This is the very best example to unpack because it will easily prove both my assertions, which are that the claim that Republicans are insane because we are led by our extremists, and that the extremism actually resides on the left, part and parcel of which manifests in absurd claims like this entire article.
The republican desire is for anyone who WANTS or NEEDS birth control to not have any government involvement in them getting it, or not getting it. I cannot wait to see a logical retort that shows how that is draconian control, when it expressly seeks ZERO control, impact, influence, support, or resistance in the private acquisition and use of birth control. Since when is government not paying for something considered a draconian level of controlling said thing? By this flawed thinking, in my own life I testify to a government draconian control of portable digital lifestyle in the form of my not having, and government not providing me an iPad.
Compare what you claim (and I can disprove) are the assertions of the Republican Party to the myriad bold unambiguous statements that actually have been made by Obama and Pelosi and the dunderhead VP Biden, along with the things that most left wing advocacy groups unequivocally proclaim as goals and values, and the pot and the kettle and black cannot construct a sentence to adequately convey the cognitive dissonance one must embrace to NOT see the kookery of the left. You are projecting that onto the right.
A vote for Republicans is a vote for crazy….I can let that one slide, it’s more a personal value judgment and not intended as unequivocal truth stated. I cannot refute what YOU think is crazy, in other words.
However, “No taxes, free rein to corporations, and draconian controls over people’s reproductive lives simply is disingenuous, maybe even dishonest. It’s a statement that has tangible implications, and they do not stand up under even the weakest scrutiny. They mislead, sadly, they mislead the easily mislead, and if you believe them as stated, you ARE the easily mislead. Hyperbolic statements like those are what pass for academic level discourse on the left, facts be damned.
Another one, which is a lie…..women face involuntary and INVASIVE procedures when seeking an abortion. Please check Webster on “evasive”, if I can be that cheap. Blame the poor? Please substantiate that….you cannot.
He then writes that RINOS "meant Republicans who might value the environment, education, and the general welfare over and above ideological rigidity". Naturally it goes without saying that support of these wonderful things will require massive spending by the federal government; after all, how can you "value" these issues if you won't throw huge amounts of money at them?!? Of course this completely overlooks insane budget deficiet we're already running, the fact that our debt is over 100% of our GDP, and the illegal failure of the Democrats to pass a budget for the past three years.
And why no budget? Because the current situation is such that you could take ALL the money away from the rich and it wouldn't even come close to solving the problem. No, you need either tremendous tax increases on EVERYONE, gargantuan budget cuts targeting the military, Social Security and Medicare, or both. Since these positions are absolutely anathema to the Left's entire polticial philosphy and would cost them hugely in an election, the left has no choice but to punt. Treasury Secretary Geithner said it best, in response to the Paul Ryan budget: "“We don’t have a definite solution to the long-term problem. What we do know is that we don’t like your’s.”
It would be useful if perhaps instead of a soundbite you might toss out some facts showing the post to be nonsense. You do not because they do not exist.
Instead you chose "head in sand", add a dollop of baseless hope, a pinch of song and a leaf of dance. Whisk it well and tell us that if well baked all the underlying problems will disappear and a golden goose will emerge from the oven topped with a garnish of utopian dreams of course.
Perhaps the Rhino and Blue Dog can found a third party. I will be among the first to join.