Political Animal
Blog
Nothing quite so nicely illustrates the rightward lurch of the Republican Party than the demonization of GOP candidates for the 2012 nomination on grounds they supported the domestic policy agenda of the 2000-2004 nominee, a guy named George W. Bush. Check out the anathema hurled today at Rick Santorum by conservative opinion-leader Erick Erickson:
Rick Santorum participated in raiding the federal treasury as an earmarxist, perfectly happy to pork away on Pennsylvania’s behalf. He did not join conservatives who fought against No Child Left Behind. He did not join conservatives who fought against the prescription drug benefit.
Rick Santorum was part of the problem in Washington. He was one of the Republicans the public rejected in 2006. The voters in Pennsylvania rejected him in 2006 because of his and the Republicans’ profligate ways. Along with Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum led the K Street Project, which traded perks for lobbyists for money for the GOP funded with your tax dollars through earmarks and pork projects.
Sure, you can say 2006 was a bad year for Republicans, but in 2006 Rick Santorum fell 18 percentage points behind his Democratic rival and his defeat and terrible campaign can be linked to the loss of four Pennsylvania house seats.
That was not a defeat for Rick Santorum. It was punishment. He is a pro-life statist and I see nothing in his career since leaving Washington that shows he has changed his ways.
It’s interesting that Erickson doesn’t object to the K Street Project on grounds that it involved the use of power to reinforce one-party government in Washington—but because it involved unnecessary expenditures.
Moreover, his assumption that no conservative could possibly have supported No Child Left Behind and the Rx Drug Benefit is quite revealing. These weren’t just any old domestic policy initiatives. They were an extremely important building blocks of Karl Rove’s strategy to create an enduring Republican majority, along with another initiative that conservatives now hate with a passion, comprehensive immigration reform.
In any event, Erickson’s tirade against Santorum manifests the central delusion that has animated the right-wing uprising in the GOP since the 2008 election: the belief that Republican losses in 2006 an 2008 were strictly attributable to Republicans “abandoning their conservative principles.” The 2010 performance of the GOP massively reinforced that delusion. They may be saved from its natural consequences by voter anger towards the status quo, mistakes by Team Obama, or a Republican presidential nominee they can’t stand but also can’t figure out how to replace. But it burns brightly all the same.
Facebook
Twitter
Darsan54 on December 30, 2011 9:40 AM:
You were expecting rational, logical reasoning from Erickson? Take a moment, get some coffee and breath deeply. Relax.
Erickson is an embarrassment to rabid weasels thrown into a hospital nursery. He is only interested in making people angry, not in making sense. His opinion is to be heard, but unacted upon. Whereas I can't fault the target of his anger, his methods and means leave much to be desired.
Like all Republicans these days, he makes no sense anymore and we worry about their emotional stability.
DAY on December 30, 2011 9:42 AM:
There is so little cognitive wattage among the Rank and File Right that they need an army of pundits to tell them what to think.
Peter C on December 30, 2011 9:43 AM:
Erick Erickson is a clown who can only survive on a place like Redstate or FOX which freezes-out any sort of dissenting opinion. The concept that George Bush wasn't a 'real' conservative is the sort of idea that can only survive in a completely protected hot-house environment of reinforced delusion.
The Bush Administration is the ultimate proof of the disasterous consequences of the adoption of the Republican philosophy of 'governing'. To try to pretend that the Republicans didn't have the vociferous support of all the movement 'conservatives' (with the exception of Ron Paul's anti-war stance) completely beggars belief.
Anonymous on December 30, 2011 9:47 AM:
They may be saved from its natural consequences by voter anger...
That's certainly what they -- and shameless shills like Erickson -- hope.
Anger is what motivates the Republican "base." Their point of view doesn't have to be logical, or based in fact, or have positive or productive consequences. All it has to do is get people mad.
That's what Erickson and his ilk specialize in. Given their continued success, I would doubt they are as stupid as their ranting suggests; rather, I think they are well attuned to a market need, and they are serving it assiduously.
You can't argue with the willingly stupid, especially if they layer emotional excitement on top of their stupidity. We shouldn't waste precious electrons on them.
c u n d gulag on December 30, 2011 9:56 AM:
You know who was a REAL Conservative?
HITLER - THAT'S WHO!!!*
Hoo-boy, W was now too Liberal?!?!?!
The man who brought us great hits like torture, rendition, spying, and shit on Habeus Corpus, then wiped his ass with the Constitution?
He was too Liberal?
Then wtf was Uncle Ronnie?
A flaming Red Atheist Communist nancy-boy, with a garter, ass-less leather chaps, a feather-boa, and high-heeled F*CK-me red pumps?
We have now entered - "The Twilight Zone."
Btw - CNN has the ignominy of having hired Erick the Dread, not FOX!
*Godwin forgive me...
theAmericanist on December 30, 2011 9:58 AM:
Judo 101: the very first lesson in judo is how to fall without getting hurt. It's sorta like a rookie boxer learning to get over the fear of being hit -- once you've hit the mat a few times, or somebody has whomped you with an oversize glove in what they can see of your face inside the headgear, you can move on to learning how to dish it out as well as take it.
It's past time progressives moved to the intermediate level, don't ya think?
Cuz the basic tactic here was laid out by the late Henry Hyde in 1992, right after the election immediately before Gingrich led the Rs to take over the House for the first time. People forget that there was a large class of Republicans elected for the first time with Bill Clinton -- and as a senior guy, Hyde gave them their orientation speech. Obama ought to quote it -- a lot.
Because Hyde told the new guys: you should know what the issue is, on which YOU ARE WILLING TO LOSE. This is the big time, folks. Lots of what we do is petty bullshit, but we are also the ones who decide really big, complex, IMPORTANT stuff -- on which honest people who are smarter than you or I candidly disagree. So you will be tempted to blur the sharp edges, to tell people what they want to hear or worse, let them think you did while you keep your options hope.
Don't do it, he said. Go home tonight, and write down on a piece of paper the issue on which you are willing to lose -- to have an open, clear disagreement with your employers, the voters in your district, and get fired for it.
Be honest about it, he said. No fair writing down "a strong national defense" when you're from a district with a Navy shipyard and an Air Force base.
You might be pro-life, from a pro-choice district. You might want to raise somebody's taxes, knowing that there's a guy just aching to primary you.
The point is, Hyde said, you have to know what the issues are on which you are willing to tell your employers that you're right and they're wrong -- or you will be no good here. He didn't go that far (but I do), to say that open disagreement with the voters by Representatives who get re-elected anyway is a measure of the health of our democracy (because if the disagreements aren't open or if folks lose all the time on single issues, there is something wrong).
So that creates a huge opportunity for Democrats (and progressives) this year -- we should be PRAISING Republicans for finally! having the courage of their convictions, for demanding that their nominee oppose abortion EVEN in rape, incest and the life of the mother cases, for insisting that gay people have no rights (note the guy who wants states to be able to execute 'em), for opposing tax hikes (except on working stiffs), for trying to kill the economy for partisan reasons, and so on.
They certainly seem willing to identify a whole host of issues on which they are willilng to lose. The most effective way to help is to praise them, hell, to EMULATE them -- they're willing to lose by fighting for all kinds of unpopular stuff, so we are willing to lose by agreeing that those are the choices: on which WE have the POPULAR side. The President should be quoting Henry Hyde.
Can't anybody play this here game?
c u n d gulag on December 30, 2011 10:01 AM:
I forgot about Little Boots' efforts in seeing if government regulations were flammable.
They were.
**********Oh, and maybe if I changed my moniker to "free shipping," CRAPTCHA would let me pass without an ink-blotted password in Swahili, with Andromeda numerals, and having to explain sine and cosine in Latin?
Huh, CRAPTCHA?
You're not very good at you job, are you, CRAPPY?
Unless your job is to help WaMo become like 'The Rude Pundit' and have NO comments.
c u n d gulag on December 30, 2011 10:04 AM:
And if CRAPPY is a fixture, how about giving us "Edit" and "Delete" as compensation?
Because for an idjit like me, "Preview" is obviously NOT enough!
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHHH!
Christie on December 30, 2011 10:04 AM:
Could someone, anyone, in the "media" remind not only Erick the pantload, but the awful Joe Scarborough that their collective conservative butt-boy, Paul Ryan, cast the deciding vote in the much hated Medicare part D?
zandru on December 30, 2011 10:05 AM:
"perfectly happy to pork away on Pennsylvania’s behalf"
It's always about sex with these people, isn't it?
majun on December 30, 2011 10:22 AM:
The only thing that will save this country at this point is for an unabashedly conservative of the Tea Party brand to win the nomination and lose to Obama the way McGovern lost to Nixon. But the question is who? Now that Erickson is attacking Santorum as a RINO, who's left? Rick Perry? He too is suspect since it was revealed that the had a heart (allegedly) since he didn't want to punish the children of undocumented immigrants for something that they had nothing to do with. Newt? If you suspect Santorum of being too "big government", you have to laugh at the thought of Newt ascending power in the WH and doing anything that wouldn't accrue more power to the position. He already thinks he's emperor of the world and is just looking for a coronation to confirm it. Michele Bachmann? I guess she would do, but she is so Wackadoodle Wingnut that I don't think she can win the nomination, she scares everyone but the most ardent Tea Partiers. If she could win the nomination, she would be my preferred challenger to Obama.
berttheclock on December 30, 2011 10:36 AM:
@Christie, not even close on that Paul Ryan comment. In none of the three House votes from early in the day, to late the following morning, Paul Ryan was never the deciding vote. On the last vote, which DeLay kept open for several hours, there were several changes in voting, while the so-called Democratic Rep Wu sat on his hands before seeing the RepuGs would win and he voted, but, Ryan was not among that group of 3 Demos and several RepuGs who changed their votes. You might say Lindsey Graham joined with a fellow RepuG and Wyden, the so-called Democratic Senator from Oregon to push the Senate into overcoming the needed 60 votes.
theAmericanist on December 30, 2011 11:06 AM:
Oy... majun: the first political skill is the ability to count.
It is true that roughly 75% of Republican primary voters continue to support anyone who isn't Romney, but it is also true for Romney to lose the nomination, someone else has to win it.
None of the other candidates can do that. It could change, but Iowa is almost certainly going to produce one of two outcomes: either Romney gets a plurality, then goes on to win in New Hampshire because the other candidates instantly become also-rans, OR some other candidate gets a plurality (take your pick: Paul? Gingrich? Santorum? the startling news story that Huntsman gets second or third?), and Romney survives with a solid second or third-place finish.
Either way, Romney wins because he either gets a direct path to the nomination outright (if Iowa gives him a plurality) or because one of his opponents gets chosen as his chief rival -- and NONE of them can plausibly show how they win next November. Paul? Gingrich? Santorum? Perry? Nope. Making it a binary choice between Romney and a sure loser will concentrate Republican voters fast.
Romney is very strong in New Hampshire, where he is almost certain to win. Gingrich and Perry have self-inflicted a serious wound in Virginia, and Gingrich in particular gave Romney the astonishing opening for a witty response: Newt said failing to make the ballot in Virginia was like Pearl Harbor, a typically megalomanic thing to say, while Romney replied it was more like Lucille Ball in the chocolate factory.
That's the kind of remark that makes a President -- or at least the nominee.
Ds should stop trying to guess which R will get their nomination, and start focusing on ensuring that everything Romney does to GET it, fatally damages him with independents.
berttheclock on December 30, 2011 11:26 AM:
Newt may compare himself with Pearl Harbor, but, does he have his "fuel dumps" operable? The biggest mistake by the Japanese was not destroying those fuel depots atop the hill. In politics money is the equivalent of fuel. Does Newt have the money to continue or is he akin to the Battle of the Bulge, where tne Panzers ran out of fuel due to the heavy damage inflicted upon the Ploesti oil fields? Coming days may be his "Battle of the Bulge" and, he, may as Pieper did, have to walk back home. I suppose all Democrats could play McAuliffe and just say "Nuts" to Newt.
dalloway on December 30, 2011 11:30 AM:
The so-called lurch to the right of the Republican party is really a power struggle between the establishment that's controlled the party since Reagan, embodied in Karl Rove, and the neo-fascists who'd like to take it over, led by Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. It ain't about ideology or who's more conservative. It's about who will pull the strings and rake in the cash going forward.
Spiny Norman on December 30, 2011 11:47 AM:
Erickson is a halfwit.
golack on December 30, 2011 11:53 AM:
Sounds like Mr. Rick needs to make a bigger ad buy/donation to a certain blog site
Teresa on December 30, 2011 12:36 PM:
Spiny you overestimate Erickson.
Doug on December 30, 2011 7:20 PM:
Are there ANY conservative Republicans running? Do those who call themselves "conservative" actually KNOW what the term means or is merely short-hand for "someone who agrees with me"?
The last honest conservative Republican to occupy the White House was DD Eisenhower. He was also the last Republican President to understand how the Consitution is supposed to operate and the last conservative Republican who understood that winning elections weren't the ONLY things that mattered. I understand he learned a lot of that at West Point.
Once someone believe that winning IS all that matters, you're no longer a conservative but an ideologically-driven radical; ie, Erickson et al, determined that purity take precedence over governance.
Such types might want to ask Savanarola how THAT turned out...