The party of no
A Politico piece looking at the broad Republican strategy.
posted by mikevotes at
7:34 AM
About This Blog
This is not the America I was brought up to believe in. This blog seeks to highlight abuse of power, deception, corruption, and just plain bad ideas in government and corporations. Updated several times a day.
Previous Rantings
- CIA policy and other foreign bits
- Picture of the Day - Seriously?
- Jindal solidified
- Quote - FirstRead
- Picture of the Day
- Thought
- Quickhits
- Quote - On the losing end.....
- We're screwed.....
- It was supposed to be his big moment.....
6 Comments:
I love the title: "GOP at risk of becoming the party of 'no'." That's rich. Like, you know, there's only been a hint -- a mere whiff -- they might be a monolithic, borg-like, obstructionist, obstinate only party. Wow! What's next "Temperatures at risk of rising by summer." Duh. Thank god we have Politico to connect the dots that are invisible to others (he said, dripping with sarcasm).
Sorry. I didn't read the article in full.... just skimmed it.
The GOP is already the party of no. They're at risk of becoming the party of saboteurs of recovery. If the GOP is seen as actually throwing tacks in front of the recovery bus (refusing to take stimpak money, or being wasteful or willfully dragging their feet in it's deployment, etc) then even if the stimpak doesn't work it could be lain at the GOP's feet, not Obamas. Particularly if some regions recover better/quicker than others, you know.
Unlike the past 2 yrs, congressional Repubs don't have W in the White House to cover their asses. All those red asses will be fully exposed.
By
-epm, at 9:25 AM
I tend to agree with that more cautious wording because, although they've rejected with both feet so far, they could clearly turn the ship to claim more participation, or, more likely, they could start to suffer defections depending on members political climates.
They're acting rejectionist, but they're not fully locked in to that identityy yet.
By
mikevotes, at 10:47 AM
I don't know if I'd call it conflation, but I'm lumping governors, reps, senators and conservative pundits into the "GOP" bucket. After all this is the full collection of what is the GOP.
However, governors, reps and senators serve slightly different constituencies -- and pundits, none but ratings -- and each have to navigate slightly different political waters. This is why, of course, we see more extremes coming from congressional district reps than statewide senators, generally speaking. Also governors are executives rather than legislators. So all this means that there is an opportunity for some splitting off in the ranks, vis a vis absolute obstructionism and obstinacy.
The question remains, how will the GOP brand be identified? So far the Washington GOP has been locked into (or nearly so) the identity of oppositional reactionaries.... opposing for the sake of opposing. And if the Dems succeed in shaping the narrative that Limbaugh is the voice of Republicanism, well...
Still, it's important to note we're all making these grand visionary observations at a point when we're a whopping 2% into Obama's first term!
By
-epm, at 11:16 AM
A political cartoon about Republicans just wanting to use a different tool.
By
-epm, at 12:15 PM
I agree in principle, and there's certainly the inertial elements you discuss in play, but I'm hesitant to try and cast a permanance on the next two years in what you mention as 2% of a presidency.
I'm not really arguing, just expressing caution. We're barely into the game yet, you know?
By
mikevotes, at 2:04 PM
Agreed, and my point exactly. I'm just turning it around in my head as a thought exercise. That's all.
By
-epm, at 2:07 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home