Mobile? Click HERE for m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr 

Tuesday, February 9, 2010 |  Madison, WI: 25.0° F  
The Daily
Category From: To:

BLASKA BLOG

Blaska's Blog celebrates a comeback



Article Tools: Read moreRead more Blaska Blog items
Email this articleEmail this article
Print this articlePrint This Article
Email the authorEmail the author
Recommend This ArticleRecommend This Article Add to DiggShare this item

What a difference a year makes in American politics!

As Tommy G. Thompson would say, "Isn't it great to be a Republican!"

And you know what, kids? It really is! You should try it some time.

I never despaired over Barack Obama's victory a year ago. He did not even get 53 percent of the national vote. I am just old enough to remember the 1964 drubbing that Barry Goldwater took. The Republican party was dead, dead except that four years later it took the White House.

But I was very wrong in assuming that he would govern from the center. He has not. The fact is that the United States is a center-right country.

While the Republican brand is in some difficulty nationwide, more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal; 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. [Gallup Poll, June 2009]

By now we know that Republicans regained the governorships in Virginia — by a 17 percentage point margin — and in solid blue New Jersey, which Obama had won by 15 percentage points in 2008. The President had expended a fair amount of political capital in both races.

Obama now faces a much tougher challenge persuading these mostly moderate Democrats to put themselves further at risk by backing such liberal priorities as expanding government's role in heath care or limiting greenhouse gases. [Politico: Democrats, incumbents get wake-up call]

True, the (big C) Conservative third-party candidate lost in a three-way race in New York's upstate congressional district after the nominally Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava threw her support to the Democrat. That act of betrayal only confirmed conservatives' view that Scozzafava was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The party bigwigs screwed the pooch by nominating poor Dede, whose legislative voting record was to the left of most Democrats. In other words, the Republican wing of the Republican party spoke up, as Dr. Dean might say.

Nationally, Republicans from Sarah Palin to Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said, in essence, where's the beef?

This has former Republicans like Bill Kraus bewailing the GOP they once knew and loved: the toothless pre-Reagan brand of incremental Republicanism exemplified by the Gerry Ford/Charlie Halleck show — "we'll have what the Democrats are having," but a little bit less and a little bit later.

Bill Kraus has spent the last 30 years bemoaning the Reagan Revolution. He actually refers to the people opposed to Scozzafava as "anarchists."

As recently as last week the unholy combination got rid of a moderate who was running for an open congressional seat because she would split the Republican vote in this once-safe district and cost the coalition's troglodytic candidate a special election. [Kraus: Death by Wedgie]

Um, Bill, think long, think hard. "Got rid of a moderate?"

Question: What did the Democrats do to Joe Lieberman?

John Nichols has gone from blaming the radio talkers to crediting "tea party and town hall activists" with being "the new GOP." I don't think he meant that as a compliment but it is, because he is finally acknowledging that the real conservative base consists of wage earners, trades people, and small business owners. True to form, he cannot resist a little conspiracy mongering. He faults "their mentors and funders such as former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas ..." [John Nichols: ... The New GOP]

"Former majority leader?"

That would also suggest a man who knows how to make a governing majority.

One might think that Kraus, having once worked for Lee Dreyfus, Nichols and Ed Garvey might applaud the sacking of this Republican nominee. She was, after all, the hand-picked maiden of the party bosses. Where are the references to Old Fighting Bob's battle with the party poobahs, open primaries, will of the people, etc.? (Cue crickets.)

Bill's reference to anarchists could be merely coincidental but how to explain Paul Soglin's use of the term as well?

There is an unholy alliance between moderate business leaders and extremists from both the religious right and the libertarians who border on anarchy. [Soglin: Republicans Continue to Divide]

Anarchy? Voting against union card check, government-run health care, and trillion-dollar bailouts for big corporations is "anarchy?" Of course, "moderation" is only for the other guys, right Paul. That's how you can say:

"It does not mean that compromises need to be made on national health care or rights for gays."

Tell that to the voters in Maine, who on Tuesday undid their state legislature's recognition of same.

If only the Republicans would follow the advice of John Nichols, Ed Garvey, and Havana Paul they would be so much better off!

As the worm turns

In that vein, Stuart Rassmussen offers this expert analysis:

As a result, the New York 23rd Congressional District race will end up being between a Conservative Party candidate and a Democrat. In many ways, that pairing reflects the reality of national match-ups more than the typical partisan competition. There are more conservatives than Democrats in America, and there are more Democrats than Republicans.

One reason for this is that while Republican voters overwhelmingly consider themselves conservative, only 56% of conservative voters consider themselves to be Republicans. In other words, nearly half of all conservatives nationwide reject the Republican Party label. This means that Republicans looking to broaden their party's outreach cannot ignore the need to attract a large number of conservative voters along with some political moderates.

Get it, Bill? Want to broaden the base? Go conservative. A political party should stand for something. But what do you expect of a guy who blogs on Ed Garvey's web site?

If Havana Paul Soglin thinks you're a swell Republican, you better examine your platform for termites.

Health care update

  • The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week costs $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Barack Obama as a price tag for his reform plan. Read it and weep!

  • How about 230 pages instead of 1,990? House Republicans have produced a draft proposal of their own. It's much shorter and focuses on bringing down costs rather than extending coverage to nearly all Americans. ... The Republican plan increases incentives for people to use health savings accounts, caps non-economic jury awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, provides various incentives to states with the aim of driving down premium costs and allows health insurance to be sold across state lines. Read it and rejoice!

  • What Washington doesn't want you to know, Rep. Paul Ryan.

Platinum Subscriber Bonus Content:

Justice David Prosser's smackdown of Fighting Bobfest entertainer Mike McCabe is recounted by the Illusory Tenant.

Today's Chuckle:

Five rules for a happy man's life:

  1. It's important to have a woman who helps at home, who cooks from time to time, cleans up and has a paying job.

  2. It's important to have a woman who can make you laugh.

  3. It's important to have a woman who you can trust and who doesn't lie to you.

  4. It's important to have a woman who is good in bed and who likes to be with you.

  5. It's very, very important that these four women do not know each other.

Comments (13)

From Matt Logan on 11/04/09 at 9:10 pm

"The Republican party was dead, dead except that four years later it took the White House.

Ahh yes, Richard Nixon.  My favorite interview with Nixon was the one where he pointed out that the fall of the Soviet Union would have happened without Ronald Wilson Reagan (Whose name I recently discovered can be anagrammed into "Insane Anglo Warlord")

Speaking of Reagan, It is my belief that what currently the biggest roadblock for republicans is their mindless clinging to Ronald Reagan's antiquated policies.  Reagan was not elected because of his policies; he was elected because the voters believed Reagan would solve the nation’s problems in 1980 better than Carter would have.  The next republican president, if there will ever be one, will be a person who has stepped back from Reagan, looked at the nation's problems, and derived a new set of policies by going back to first principles.

This person will most certainly not be Sarah Palin, whose tenacious clinging to the rotting buttocks of Ronald Reagan’s corpse is impossible to miss.

From Scott Colson on 11/05/09 at 9:36 am

howd those national elections turn out?

 

blaskafail.

From Steve Peterson on 11/05/09 at 10:23 am

<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

believe most of us conservatives are looking for a politician that is honest. The reason why we don't subscribe to a party is that they both have their pockets lined. Matt likes to think that the Reagan policies are failed policies. Not that I agree with that assessment but I can say that the Soviet style policies being considered today also have failed.

 

Really it boils down to honest government that we lack today. I think as a conservative, I would be willing to spend some money on social projects if I thought it was being spent wisely and without waste. ( hmm not that it would every happen.)

 

The reason why we want less government is that government is inherently corrupt. Less government equals less corruption. While I understand Blaska's celebration, I only have limited hope that we will ever get to a place where our elected officials truly reflect our values.

 

 

From Jeremy Midthun on 11/05/09 at 11:43 am

 ...government is inherently corrupt.

 Less government equals less corruption

So, add Steve to the anarchist list?

From David Blaska on 11/05/09 at 12:46 pm

An anarchist believes in no government, not less government. Don't they teach civics in school any more?

From Jeremy Midthun on 11/05/09 at 1:03 pm

Correction:

Add Steve to the "those who border on anarchy" list...

 

In my defense:

So, if (1)government is inherently corrupt and (2)less government equals less corruption, wouldn't "no government" result in the greatest reduction of corruption? Sorry Dave, just trying to follow a logical argument here. (I understand if the concept is lost on you. I have yet to see anything but false logic employed in your responses.)

Don't they teach logic in school anymore?


Last edited: 2009-11-05 13:04:27
From Jeremy Midthun on 11/05/09 at 1:22 pm

He actually refers to the people opposed to Scozzafava as "anarchists."

Pretty liberal paraphrasing, don't you think? It seems to me that he refers to the "coalition" that includes "the anarchists who had always been there" and "one-issue zealots" that had been added. So, I ask, did he actually refer to the people opposed to Scozzafova as anarchists?

From Steve Peterson on 11/05/09 at 2:38 pm

Ok, so you want to summarize my views with a single talking point. 

I believe Government should be small manageable units and accountable to the people.  I don't believe centralizing power in Washington is the answer.  I do believe the founding fathers understood the problems with centralized government.

I am not an anarchist.  I am a realist and understand that large organizations are inefficient and breeds corruption.  This includes Government, Churches, and Corporations.

Government is a necessary evil, and this is how we should treat it.

From Jeremy Midthun on 11/05/09 at 3:01 pm

My intent was to make a statement based on your premises and the logical conclusions that followed. It is not my place to summarize your views.

I'm not a fan of talking points either ("Soviet style"??), just no-nonsense debate and discussion. By the way, I agree with many aspects of your earlier post wholeheartedly.

I, personally, don't think your conservatism dictates some of beliefs you state. Do you think moderates or liberals want crooked politicians? Should we throw money at poorly-managed social programs? Shouldn't we fight government waste? The answers to these questions should be based on common sense, not dictated by party lines. Rather than point fingers, why can't we (the American public) set aside differences and attempt to work together to solve these problems?

I am confident (foolishly optimistic?) that it COULD HAPPEN- money could be wisely spent on social projects with little waste. ("without waste" is not possible, I agree)

From Mitchell Nussbaum on 11/05/09 at 11:35 pm

"House Republicans have produced a draft proposal of their own. It's much shorter and focuses on bringing down costs rather than extending coverage to nearly all Americans."


The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed the Republicans' bill and found that it would reduce premiums for some people who already have insurance, but it would increase premiums for others -- in particular, people with health problems, the ones who really need health care.  And it would do essentially nothing to make insurance available to those who are uninsured now.

Which means it's a perfect example of Republican legislation -- it helps the fortunate, while hurting the people who need help.

And the best part of all: it reduces the deficit by just $61 billion, while the Democratic bill is projected to reduce it by $1.1 trillion.  But this won't bother Blaska and his Republican friends; they're always happy to spend huge amounts of Government money as long as ordinary people don't benefit.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/budget-monitor-questions-impact-of-gop-health-bill/

From Dennis Jenks on 11/06/09 at 8:25 am

But this won't bother Blaska and his Republican friends; they're always happy to spend huge amounts of Government money as long as ordinary people don't benefit.

Define ordinary people.  To me ordinary people are those who go out and get a job and pay taxes. 

People who have diabilities should be allowed to get benefits just like ordinary people and I have no problem with that.

People who are capable to get a job, but won't are called slackers or POS.  They are not ordinary people. 

I don't want to pay for slackers taking advantage of the system.  And I am afraid that any type of healthcare bill will create just that.

Our government is way to big and it should be controlled and reigned in and be told to slow down.  We are spending money on dumb wars when we can have those same people here defending our borders so illegal immigration doesn't keep happening. 

Now before you go ranting on this, let me be clear that I love immigration.  It is what made this country what it is.  But I also want to be able to know who is coming across our borders as well.  But Obama, who is only worried about getting votes for the next election will most certainly legalize all those who are here illegally just to get their vote. 

Obama is not and never will be a man of principle and nor was Bush.  Both Presidents are/were more concerned about appeasing special interest groups rather than be an effective leader. By catering to special interest groups, our government will do nothing but destroy this country financially and socially.

From Jason Joyce on 11/06/09 at 10:35 am

Dennis, I don't think anyone would tell you your fears are unjustified. But take a look at the system as is. It's being taken advantage of big-time... by huge insurance companies, among others. And if you don't think you're paying through the nose for that, you're mistaken.

From Mitchell Nussbaum on 11/06/09 at 5:40 pm

Define ordinary people.  To me ordinary people are those who go out and get a job and pay taxes. 

A lot of jobs don't provide health insurance, so a lot of "ordinary people," by Dennis' definition can't get insured through their employers.  They can trying buying individual coverage, but if you have a low-paying job (a lot of ordinary people work hard but don't pull down cushy salaries) you might not be able to pay the premiums.  And even if you have a good salary, you might not be able to get coverage if you have a pre-existing condition, which is not the same thing as a "disability."  The Republican plan won't do much to give these people access to coverage.

Ironically, though, people on welfare -- POS/slackers in Dennis' worldview -- can get pretty good coverage through Medicaid.  But the system punishes people who work hard and get off welfare, by taking away their benefits.  The Republicans will continue this arrangement -- kind of odd for a party that claims to value hard work and family values.

You should also remember that a lot of people who desperately wan't to work can't find anyone who will hire them.  There are always some people who can't find work; in a recession there are a lot of them.  In Rock County, for example, the unemployment rate went from 8.1% last December to 11.6% last January.   Does this mean that thousands of people were magially transformed from Ordinary People to POS slackers in the course of a month?

Log in or register to comment

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater
PluggedcommentsViewedForum
Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs RSS
Collapse Photo Bar