Chicagoist: Swine Flu Flashback

Navin

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:38:55 -0600

GOP as "Fiscally Conservative", That's a good joke Ward, let us know when a GOP President ends a term with a budget surplus rather than massive deficits and inflated defense spending. Ike and Goldwater would be attacked as godless communists by the GOP today.

JessNevins

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:31:53 -0600

While it is regaining its strength, the GOP should not compromise its positions on spending Ok, cut military spending by 20%. We'll still have a larger defense budget than all the other nations on earth. Combined. I don't see many GOP hands going up on that one. bailouts, Like the 700 billion dollar hand out no-strings-attached sweaty wad that Bush handed off the Wall St. back in the fall? immigration, You mean the deeply anti-hispanic, racist sloganeering that lost the Republicans the house and senate and a generation of young latino voters? or defense You mean the war fought under false pretenses or the mismanaged conflict that has left Afghanistan little more than a hollow state while Pakistan harbors militants? in order to survive. Sticking to its positions on these issues will increase---not decrease---GOP voters. Clapping for tinkerbell ain't gonna bring her back boss. The place where the GOP should--and will--slowly change is on some "social" issues. These include gay marriage, "Don't ask don't tell," stem cell research, and some other issues. But who will all the bigots, homophobes and religious nutters vote for? Who will speak for the morons? GOP: This party's over.

ljpljpljp

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:23:42 -0600

Stupid bitch, Carter was elected in 1976. I remember then president Ford gamely getting his swine flu shot, but he didn't fool me.

Ward Up

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:12:12 -0600

The future of the GOP is not so bleak. The main reason? The fiscal conservative movement among middle-class Americans is only going to grow. The GOP will be the beneficiary of that movement. While it is regaining its strength, the GOP should not compromise its positions on spending, bailouts, immigration, or defense in order to survive. Sticking to its positions on these issues will increase---not decrease---GOP voters. The place where the GOP should--and will--slowly change is on some "social" issues. These include gay marriage, "Don't ask don't tell," stem cell research, and some other issues. Anyway, just wait until 2010. You will see that the Republicans are doing just fine.

ReverendSlappy

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:33:38 -0600

Hah, I hear ya. I am optimistic, though. I'm sure it's somewhat to the chagrin of Democrats to my left, but the moderating/"pragmatizing" of the Democratic Party is starting to pay real dividends, I think. If nothing else, the GOP has proven that it more or less doesn't know how to beat reasonable, pragmatic, moderate-to-mainstream liberals in wide elections anyplace other than the South. And their realization that this is the case and that it's an electoral death sentence is really causing them to panic, flail, and implode; just when you think they can't possibly lose any more credibility, they find new ways to embarrass themselves. So yeah, I'm generally optimistic; assuming no major developments (like, say, the GOP getting a map and a flashlight with which it could find its own ass), I think 2010 is going to be a fair-to-good election year for Democrats, with similar results in 2012. After that, though, is when it gets murky, IMO.

matilda

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:18:32 -0600

Again, good points, though you seem much more optimistic than I am. What can I say? It's "spring" in Chicago and I am freezing :), which does not make one optimistic.

ReverendSlappy

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:15:50 -0600

As well, never, ever underestimate the ability of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the feet, or for the party in power to recklessly overreach. In the former case, I'm really not *too* worried about that. At least not in the near future. They really seem to be coalescing around a moderate, center-left, "big tent" platform and it'd be hard for them to screw that up. Especially considering that so many of the newly elected Democrats in Congress are from historically moderate or even recently Republican districts/states, I don't think they're at risk of going too liberal, which is really the only big way they could shoot themselves in the foot at this point. These new folks are gonna dance with the dates that brung 'em; they're not going to move to the left knowing they'd have to go back and campaign on that in 2 or 6 years or whatever. So overall, I'm optimistic that we're at the start of a good, fairly long Democratic run. As for the latter, that's just kind of the natural life-cycle, IMO, and assuming Democrats are able to hold on to the reins for a significant period, it's almost inevitable at some point. A party is in power for too long and gets bloated and complacent, ideologically entrenched, in a dogmatic rut. Then somebody comes along and hands their electoral ass to them before they can figure out how they screwed up, but once they do, the whole cycle starts all over again. Hakunamatada or whatever.

matilda

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:03:09 -0600

All good points, and it will be interesting to unfold, especially for those of us fascinated by the Federalists, the Whigs, the (short-lived) Bull Moose, etc. As well, never, ever underestimate the ability of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the feet, or for the party in power to recklessly overreach.

ReverendSlappy

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:58:44 -0600

We'll see, but I think you're right and the GOP will have the same kind of "come to Jesus" moment the Democrats did when the DLC was started after Mondale's trouncing. They can't keep squeezing moderates out and expect to win state-wide elections anywhere other than the Deep South, and certainly not a nation election. But as it stands now, they're still completely in "get more insular and ideologically doctrinaire" mode, and I bet they will be for a while. If they keep it up for too long, they really run the risk of causing a real, final schism, splitting the party into two really unelectable groups; the whole marriage of fiscally conservative libertarian intellectuals and socially conservative Christian Coalition-types is really on the rocks at the moment. It'll be interesting to see where the GOP leadership decides to go with that.

JessNevins

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:47:26 -0600

Bachmann has crazy eyes. Bright with fever and nonsense. I find her, Michael Steele, Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck fascinating creatures. Like the legends of the mad roman emperors (which were largely legends) except these nutters are for real. They can't accept that after nearly thirty years of drifting ever rightward the country might shuffle (slightly) in the other direction. They're uneducated on history, reactionary by nature and speaking to largely graying audience. Yeah, if it weren't sad, it would be funny.

Navin

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:45:24 -0600

Agreed, As a history fan, those kind of factual/historical omissions irk me more from a purely historically point of view. That and people being so cavalier about something they don't even have a cursory understanding of.

matilda

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:41:59 -0600

One good thing that will come of this, I hope, is the emergence of a moderate conservative party--god knows we need one. We are long past due for a new party to emerge in this country. Funny: The GOP started as a (rapidly rising) regional party (in the North) and will end its days as a (rapidly declining) regional party (this time in the angry, all-but useless parts of the South that still mourn for Dixie and who think Lee was a great general and patriot). The Southerners, the enemy of the GOP so many years and decades ago, will be the last ones standing inside the party. History works in interesting ways.

ReverendSlappy

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:36:24 -0600

I can't really tell if she's crazy, an idiot, or the kind of demagogic scum (seemingly more and more common among GOPpers) that'd misrepresent historical fact to further their political ideology. Maybe all of the above. Also... Argue ideology over factual reality and I will call you fool. This.

matilda

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:31:38 -0600

Thanks for making me even more depressed. Frankly, I don't care whether one is conservative, lib, whatever so much as I do about factual reality and its offshoot, pragmatism. Argue ideology over factual reality and I will call you fool.

Navin

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:20:37 -0600

Yep, She basically parrots all the usual talking points about FDR prolonging the depression and every other right wing talking point against FDR but she did not know what the WPA was. Hardly surprising, I was listening to BBC world service this morning and they interviewed a "teabagger" in Atlanta who was praising the low tax policies and huge (celtic tiger) success of Ireland. Unfortunately the BBC dude had to break her the bad news...lol.

matilda

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:04:24 -0600

Seriously? Dear god.

Navin

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:01:29 -0600

Bachmann would be a kindred spirit with a *far* right wing FDR (socialism!) hating lady who was telling me how she loved all those pretty old murals in the post office....lol.

matilda

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:01:26 -0600

I saw that too and laughed so hard before I realized I should cry that people probably believe her. I don't think she is crazy, by the way. Cynical and willfully ignorant, but not crazy.

dopplerd

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:56:18 -0600

Batshit crazy Minnesota Republican Michelle Bachmann has insinuated that lack of leadership from Democratic presidents has led to swine flu outbreaks, both today and in 1976. Her proof: Obama is pres now and Carter was pres "in the seventies," the same decade when swine flu broke out. She fails to mention that the swine flu in the seventies broke out a year before Carter was president. Master of timelines Bachmann went on later the same day to blame FDR for the "Hoot-Smalley" tariff that was a leading cause the depression. Smoot-Hawley (as it is know to most people) was signed into law in 1930 by Hoover. FDR became president in 1933. Smoot, Hawley, and Hoover were all Republicans.

dopplerd

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:50:54 -0600

Batshit crazy Minnesota Republican Michelle Bachmann has insinuated that lack of leadership from Democratic presidents has led to swine flu outbreaks, both today and in 1976. Her proof: Obama is pres now and Carter was pres "in the seventies" when swine flu broke out. She fails to mention that the swine flu in the seventies broke out a year before Carter was president. Self appointed historian Bachmann went on later the same day to blame FDR for the "Hoot-Smalley" tariff that was a leading cause the depression. Smoot-Hawley was signed into law in 1930 by Hoover. FDR became president in 1933. Also Smoot, Hawley, and Hoover were all Republicans.