GOP cave in

This article from PJM on global warming makes a great metaphor for the Republican party. James Lewis says that the scandalous scientific fraud has damaged real research for years to come.

But what worries me most is that the credibility of science may never recover — and perhaps it shouldn’t. Credibility has to be earned, and once it’s squandered may never be recovered. By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic fraud, one that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. We are seeing political larceny here on a truly planetary scale.

...
It's a great compilation of the non-science reasons to be skeptical of the claims of agw proponents. Lewis points to the Stalinist accusations against the rational arguments against agw, especially pointing out the threats.
Without meaning to, I'm sure, he's touched on my thoughts regarding the loss of vision and mission of the Republican party, due to their cowardice while holding the majority in congress. They lost because they caved on Iraq. Perhaps understandable given the times and violence in Iraq. But the media invisibility and silence is a t least shared between them and the presidency.
And I speak only of their loss of credibility. They blew it and it will take years for them to build it back in this environment of media "Obamessiah" hype and control of message by the Democratic Party.

Harry Reid Is "Lost"

Iraq is a war that we not only can win, but have to win. What will make that impossible is the same Kennedy/Kerry - esque creeps who demanded America lose in Viet Nam. This pair of articles found on Drudge . Iraq war is 'lost': US Democrat leader

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.
Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.
"I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear ... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

I can only wish someone will think to ask him
(a) "What 'wars' in the past have been "won diplomatically, politically and economically?" and
(b) Do you think the slaughter of millions of S Vietnamese had NOTHING to do with the fact that the Democrats cut funding and supplies to their U.S. allied Government?...

But Reid drew a parallel with former US president Lyndon Johnson who decided to deploy more troops in Vietnam some 40 years ago when 24,000 US troops had already been killed.
"Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam," Reid said.

This as moronic a statement from a John Lennon wannabee as I've ever encountered. Johnson "surged" with troops but considered the war an Allied operation of "containment" directed at the Soviet Union. The involvement of South Viet Nam was incidental until Nixon's "Vietnamization" program, that was somewhat successful in preparing the South's Army to take over the fighting. Neither Johnson nor Nixon, in decisions that only a Harvard/Stanford "whiz kid" could understand, would attack areas of neighboring countries harboring VC and NVA activity. The Soviets so cowed them that they wouldn't even allow the US Air Force to attack the lethal Soviet anti-aircraft batteries.
If the leader of the Senate had said we waited too long to regain control of Baghdad, he'd have found plenty of heads nodding in unison. But if the pitiful U.S. congress wants the U.S. military to fail in Iraq, then their allies are Al Queda and the Muslim insurgency, not the people of Iraq, or of the U.S. for that matter. The enemy and the Democratic party are both using the same talking points for pete's sake.
But there is hope still for the Democrats that the American people will never hear about the bloodbath that will follow their cut-and-run "strategy." That's is one comparison with Viet Nam that WILL hold true.
The press coverage on this minor exchange between the Senate Leader and the president is classic also. Reid makes a ridiculously inaccurate historical statement, no fact checking, no questions, and the president's party supposedly "struggles" to cope.
U.S. Republicans battle charge Iraq war is lost

Asked to compare Iraq to Vietnam, a war that still weighs on the American psyche three decades after it ended, Bush told an Ohio audience a premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could lead to chaos and death the same way war broke out between Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia after the fall of Saigon in 1975.
"After Vietnam, after we left, millions of people lost their life. My concern is there would be a parallel there," Bush said, adding that "This time around, the enemy wouldn't just be content to stay in the Middle East, they'd follow us here."

...

Many lawmakers believe serious talks toward a compromise will not take place until after a veto. Then, they say, there could be fresh legislation that would have "benchmarks" to gauge Iraq's progress instead of withdrawal timetables.

...

"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader in the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.

These are adequate responses, but Republicans are still in charge of our foreign policy. They ought to sound more like they understand that and assertively articulate their positions.

Republicans Were Different Then

I was going to call the article, "We Were Different Then." It was going to be my response to this Froma Harrop column. In using "we," I intended to mean the people of the U.S. She chides current Republicans for not being the way President Ford was, (of course Democrats and the press ridiculed Ford as stupid and uncoordinated back then) and targets Newt for being "radical" and a "street fighter" as opposed to the "sensible" Ford...

A street fighter like Gingrich didn't get Ford at all. The man from Grand Rapids, Mich., wasn't plotting for the next election. He wasn't into demonizing Democrats. He was only thinking about what was good for the country. Not running up debt was good for the country.
As Gingrich saw him, Ford was just too middle class. He was not slithering around all day, planning some sneak attack on reputations across the aisle, or peddling the free lunch of tax cuts to be balanced by unspecified spending reductions.
"One of the great weaknesses of the Republican Party is we recruit middle-class people," Gingrich lamented in his speech. "Middle-class people, as a group, are told you should not shout at the table, you should be nice, you should have respect for other people, which usually means giving way to them.

We are all painfully aware of words being politicized. "Middle class" meant something entirely different back then, from what it means today. In '74, it was possible to call a war a "police action." You could even declare "war" on poverty or drugs, and the middle class thought that meant that politicians actually would fight those real concerns with sincerity. All these "wars" ever "won" was a bitterly divided class structure, a country of "two Americas," as John Edwards would call it. Heck, you could promise a "Middle Class Tax Cut Plan" and lie your way to the White House with no reason to believe that the Middle Class might actually EXPECT the tax cut - right up to 1992!!!
But it (my first choice title)just isn't true. The "we" is not right. Republicans were different, Democrats and academia and the Big Journalism (BJ)Industry haven't changed a bit.
During Mr Ford's presidency, republicans were supposed to be 80%'ers. They wanted everything the Democrats wanted, from the "New Deal" to the "Great Society" - they just didn't want to spend so much money getting there. (yup - republicans ARE the party of fiscal responsibility...wait till the democrats get their hands on our tax receipts!) They never expected to win either house of congress, and had no defining agenda for a majority if they ever won it. Newt of course, was different. Ms Harrop doesn't even start with Reagan, another "good" Republican, now deceased - coincidence?
Big Journalism still refuses to get Republicans, and doesn't even want to know who they are. Just read the first line from this AP story from the WISH-TV website.

WASHINGTON - The nation honored Gerald R. Ford on Tuesday in a high-powered fanfare for the common man who was summoned to the presidency in the Watergate crisis. He was remembered for what he didn't have - pretensions, a scheming agenda,a great golf game - as much as for the small-town authenticity he brought to high office.

Maybe AP was thinking of Chevy Chase.
I liked President Ford. Everybody knew his "WIN" campaign was an admission that nobody knew what to do about inflation. I can argue either way on the pardon of Nixon, but am certain he thought it right, with or without extra political pressures. I can't remember who I voted for in '76, but it was the Carter administration that convinced me that no matter how "sensible" the democrat candidate seems during the campaign, the other democrats in their administrations will still be socialists.
And that's why I vote republican.

In My House, Newt Has 50% Of The Vote

I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. My wife thinks he's mean and his divorce(es?) disqualify him. Still, I can't help but wondering when the Boston Globe ever opened a story about a Democrat this way...

Gingrich: GOP needs new kind of campaign
By Beverley Wang, Associated Press Writer | December 15, 2006
MANCHESTER, N.H. --Even Republicans are impressed with the reception of Democratic superstar Barack Obama.

I guess you'll just have to trust me, the story really is about Newt.

The Conservative Bean Is Frugal!

1) all the earmark and "bridge to nowhere" nonsense.

The '94 elections were successfully "nationalized" by Newt, to the Republicans advantage, ending the Tip O'Neil dictum, "all politics is local." It was supposed to be the end of the "bring home the bacon" advantage that was Democrat largesse. In '06, Senator Ted Stevens "Bridge to Nowhere" was deadly. It may be that the country is belatedly getting around to intuitively understanding de'Toqueville's warning that democracy survives only until the people discover that they can vote for themselves funds from the largesse of the treasury - and that politicians can bribe their constituents into keeping them in office. The problem with Tip's perspective is, of course, that bringing home the bacon for one district costs money that neighboring districts think could have been better used to buy more coffee. That, at least, is what my district thinks!
And obviously the neighboring districts are correct.
No one expects good reviews of anything Republican from The Comedy Channel, but we shouldn't be giving them such easy targets.

It's likely that you don't live in Alaska, so your district probably disapproves as well. Alaska's Senator Stevens ignored the steaming contempt that his bridge was brewing because he could. He is, til January, in charge of the transportation bean counters.
To the old timers in the GOP, this represents the widespead betrayal of failure to deal with rampant use of earmarks. The youngers, who voted in record numbers this cycle, have no memory of what a war that is run from DC really looks like. They haven't even heard of the results of raising minimum wages, or why Democrats enjoy interfering with successful businesses like Wal-mart. (Not to get results, but to remind business who they must pay off.) To anyone who has entered political arena in the last fifteen years, the Republican party is the party of Big Government.

Weak Is Coffee Quickly Brewed

In the attempt to feel like they are on the forward edge of conservative thought, I think many bright folks are running too quickly from shock and dismay to
planning for the next election cycle. More discussion, research is needed. Many, many pounds of beans still separate us from the time decisions need to be made regarding candidates! Let's aggressively remind folks who we are after we've figured out what went wrong...'cause it's not just about losing our conservative voice!

In a previous post I listed some of what I thought were the important reasons the GOP lost the elections. I have some more. To keep each article short, click the bold or scroll for my thoughts. If conservatives have any smarts, we'll have a lot more ideas, because the last elections were bad, folks.

First the previous...

But I think the loss is a direct result of (in no particular order):

1) all the earmark and "bridge to nowhere" nonsense.
2) Abramoff
3) lack of leadership on the border/immigration issues
4) lack of perceived progress in Iraq.

To those I'd add...

5) Lack of any movement toward a market based health plan
6) The Republicans still cannot deal effectively and consistantly with the media