Articles

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

The Road to 2010

The press and the Democratic Party may be busy singing the funeral march for the GOP, but it's their own fate that should be concerning them instead.

With only 1 in 3 Nevada voters prepared to support Democratic Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid for reelection in 2010, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi caught lying and feuding with the CIA, the Democratic party doesn't look to be in very good shape.

And that isn't surprising because the Democratic party has invested everything in Obama, and now stands or falls with Obama. But despite the constant media barrage of pro-Obama propaganda, the general public finds Obama likable, but not very competent. The good news is it thought the same thing about Bush. The bad thing is that Obama has earned that rep in only a few months.

While Obama isn't up for reelection in 2010, his omnipresent media image has blanked out the rest of the party. And that is going to be painful for them in 2010.

To hold on to his credibility, the Democratic party needs to repeat Bush's trick of gaining seats during a midseason election. But the victories of 2006 and 2008 are likely to be rolled back in 2010, especially since the party shot its wad in 2008, stretching its lead Congress as far as it can. While the Republican party is flailing badly and Steele has gone from one mistake to another, as the opposition party, the GOP can profit by just showing up. Just showing up won't be enough to deal a serious setback to the Dems, but it showcases how precarious their position is.

Obama's endless world tour, the virtual dismantling of the American auto industry and the bailouts of his Wall Street backers have never been greeted by much enthusiasm, even by his own base. Obama has spent countless billions reward union members, bankers and terrorists-- not a combination to thrill anyone's heart.

Following the Rahm Model, Obama saw an economic crisis and began deficit spending like mad, promising Americans a solution, when he was in fact putting Americans deeply into debt to finance a socialist reconstruction of America. Most Americans won't understand that, but they will understand failure. Much as the media might try to put lipstick on a pig, the unemployment rates, closed storefronts on Main Street and all the other personal economic indicators that people relate to through experience and word of mouth, rather than media infotainment, will weigh against any fictional recovery.

2010 will be a shakedown for America and for Obama. It will be a chance for all those Americans dissatisfied or outraged by what is going on to register their vote of protest. To really make it count though, the Republican party will have to shake itself, get off the mat and begin to fight.

Obama's people and the press have worked to smear and marginalize the more active parts of the Republican party for precisely that reason. People who resist are "extremists". People who give in and let themselves be appointed ambassadors to China are "moderates". And if the GOP actually lets itself buy into that phony dichotomy, becoming the party of Meghan McCain and David Frum , then we will be in serious trouble.

A neutered Republican party would be almost worse than no opposition party at all. Headed for failure, the Obama knows his best bet is to negate public outrage by co-opting Republicans and making them complicit in his abuse of power. Charges directed against Obama driving two generations of Americans deep into debt to fund his own special interests and the socialist reconstruction of America have one best defense, and that is to make sure the Republicans were with him there all the way.

In "The End of Liberalism" by Theodore J. Lowi, the author argued that the beginning of the Second American Republic came about not simply because Social Liberals hijacked the United States government, but because Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon not only failed to undo what had been done, but actually expanded it. By accepting and participating in the growth of socialism in America, Republicans dealt a decisive blow to Constitutional government.

In 2010 and 2012, if Republicans play to Obama instead of taking him on, the result will not simply be disastrous at an electoral level, but for the long term political future of America. It will mean giving up on opposing Obama's policies and surrendering the last vestiges of the Constitution. It will mean participating and taking the blame for his actions.

The Road to 2010 has to be paved by Obama's broken promises, by his wasteful deficit spending and by the fact that most Americans will be worse off then, than they were in 07 and 08. America let a celebrity be foisted on the oval office, but every TV show must sooner or later go off the air. And based on cable ratings alone, a steady diet of shows about Obama buying a burger or smiling at the camera, isn't playing nearly as well as the story of Obama's corruption and incompetence.

In 2010 Americans will have to choose between those two stories, between insipid rhetoric from a failed party, no longer able to run on a platform of change, and having very little hope left in its arsenal, and the exposure of the greed, corruption and irresponsible spending of the Democratic party from Obama on down.

It's the story that should have been told in 2008. In 2010 we'll have a chance to tell the story again, and this time get it... right.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Republicans are saying that of all the things that destroyed their party they need to get rid of two urgently, to win the next election

1. The Christian Right influence, (abortion, stem cell, and other religious dogma, that inteferes in a secular constitution)

2. The Neo Cons. Zionist Jews and Christian Jews.

How then do you think that a Republican win in 2010 (unlikely) would be of benefit?

Asume they did, they won't attack Iran, they will continue Dhiimyifying America, and will insist on a "palestine" coming into being. In fact they even be more Democratic than the Democrats.

steve klein said...

While you were correct in your assessment of Obama's latent or inherent hostility toward Israel and the Jews, nonetheless the GOP (my party) offers no coherent alternate vision on this war against the global jihad. The inability to provide a realistic alternative vision led to the decline and failure of the (American) Federalist party and later the Whig party.

Republicans have a golden opportunity to distinguish themselves from the Democrats in the face of a great moral evil - namely Obama's anti-Israel stance along with his servile appeasement of Iran and his pro-Muslim world policy in general; this at the expense of our only reliable ally in the Middle East.

Other than a few squabbles about the treatment of jihadist detainees, we hear little, if anything, from Republican leaders on foreign policy differences.

Take the Netanyahu - Obama White House meeting Monday. There was much in Israel's media, yet there was very little coverage here in the U.S.

Why? Republicans have yet to take issue with Obama on his bankrupt Mideast policy because, though official Republican party policy may be less pernicious and less demonstrably hostile toward Israel, it is little different from Obama's anti-Israel policy. Like chattel (black) slaves in the early to mid-nineteenth century, Israel's Jews and their security do not appear to count much.

Keli Ata said...

Already cracks are starting to form in the Democratic party--senators are refusing to give Obama $50 million to close Gitmo until he provides details on what will happen to the detainees and assurances that they won't be released into the US.

It's these sorts of cracks in the Democratic party that can help the Republicans.

All is not well in the Democratic party.

Gani said...

Sultan, I have to agree with the first two comments above.

Do you have figures or links that demonstrate most Americans are pro Israel? Please write a report with links, as you make a good case but the facts point elsewhere.

As far as I know even Republicans are calling for a two state solution and want to have a more "balanced" relation with Israel. They don't want the dominionists (Evangelical Armeggedonites, Zionists) dictating US foreign policy (read pro-Israel)I've seen normally pro-Israel groups do a turn, and Steven Walt and Meirsheimer the anti israeli's are being lauded over and over, as those who "get it".

I also see many Americans are turning to Europe for guidance and are becoming left wing.

I'd welcome some data or links from you or anyone else here that shows Americans want a pro-Israel foreign policy.

Times have changed. Most see Israel as a liability. Neither the Dems or Republicans can ignore that.

What solution do you suggest? Please write an encouraging report with links that show an alternative we can hope for.

Cheers.

Sultan Knish said...

Gani,

I'm really not sure what your comments have to do with my post, which is a discussion of what the Republican party needs to do to take back America.

This was not an Israel themed post.

There's no question that Republican Presidents have been part of the problem when it comes to Israel. No party is going to be the solution, so long as Arab oil money does the talking.

But there's a clear difference between how bad someone like Obama is, vs how bad Bush was. Pro-Israel is relative and so is Anti-Israel.

The only alternative for Israel is through self-reliance. As long as Muslim power is dominant, it would take a heroic administration to stop pressuring Israel to make concessions to terrorists. It is up to Israel to break that cycle by rejecting foreign aid, reducing its reliance on US military hardware and moving on, or at the very least playing hard to get.

The American public does sympathize more with Israel, you can google numerous polls and surveys like that yourself. But the American public believes lots of things that have no sway in D.C.

Gani said...

Sultan,

"I'm really not sure what your comments have to do with my post, which is a discussion of what the Republican party needs to do to take back America."

The Republican party can only take back America, by appealing to a broad base and winning over the other dominant parties.

Since Foreign policy plays a large part in this, Israel has a lot to do with it. Or rather Middle East policy has a lot to do with it.

Sultan Knish said...

Foreign policy has a limited interest and appeal for most Americans, aside from bread and butter national defense stuff.

It's why most Presidents have enjoyed a relatively free hand to do just about anything, including fighting undeclared wars.

Americans are primarily focused on their own welfare and needs. Arguments over foreign policy in the Middle East relate to only a small percentage of Americans, usually the portion of Jews who care about Israel, some lefties and a few conservatives.

Compared to an issue like abortion or gun control, it barely shows up on most American's radar.

steve klein said...

That Americans are primarily focused on their own welfare and needs goes without saying.

I am looking at the moral and the spiritual implications of this immoral U.S. policy.

Like I wrote above, chattel (black) slaves in the early nineteenth century did not count to most Americans. Americans were primarily focused on their own welfare and needs. But within a generation or so the situation changed markedly.

Immoral policy has spiritual implications. We are witnessing the fruit of this immoral policy. That Americans are largely unconcerned about our leader's immoral pressure on an ally speaks ill of the American people, just as German unconcern about the persecution of the Jews spoke ill of the German people in the nineteen thirties and early nineteen forties.

Keli Ata said...

Right. And most of the coverage I've seen of the Obama/Netanyahu meeting in the US media has been pretty superficial and slanted to Obama favor.

I agree with the comments about the need for reform in the Republican party. I'm not saying they need to totally abandon their principles but focus more on other issues to draw in moderates.

Lemon said...

All nations and all religions are focused on their own.
So what else is new?


Both parties are deeply flawed and most politicians seem to be in it for the money and the power.
I see the Republicans most certainly playing to Obama with the pushing of Bobby Jindal.
There is no backbone or strong thinking anymore.

Post a Comment