Republicans Get Lucky


As far as I’m concerned Hurricane Gustav was a gift to the Republicans. Now they don’t have to go through prime time speeches by George Bush and Dick Cheney in St. Paul. They can actually pretend that they have no connection to the last 8 years of incompetence.As conservative author Andrew Ferguson pointed out this morning, the Republican platform is presented that way.

The premise of most party platforms is that while this is the greatest country the world has ever seen whose most wonderful days lie just ahead, it’s headed straight for hell. Our only chance, therefore, is if you read these 50 boring pages and do exactly as we say.

Blame is easy to apportion: If your party holds the White House but not Congress, you blame Congress for the country’s precarious position. If you hold Congress you blame the White House.

But what if, for most of the previous eight years, you’ve held both the White House and Congress, and things are still a mess?

The draft platform’s answer is ingenious: Blame Republicans, too, just the way everybody else does.


This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Journalism, Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Republicans Get Lucky

  1. BobbyG says:

    Just in at my Unauthorized McSame Store, more fun with Photoshop:

  2. Dave says:

    They could always go in the other direction and raise the stakes:

  3. Alex Bowles says:

    Too soon to tell. If the storm response goes smoothly, then yes, this could be a real win for them. This week becomes no talk and all action, with clear sign to people who naturally support the GOP that Katrina was an anomaly, and that all the right lessons have been learned.

    On the other hand, if there’s any serious flooding, it will look as though they just patched up the worst spots, and tried to forget the rest. And then they’ll have nothing to say for themselves at all.

    Fortunately, the local authorities seem to be doing a solid job getting folks out of harm’s way.

    But the levees are an Army project, and the status isn’t so clear there.

  4. Morgan Warstler says:

    As Dick Morris says:

    Bush picked Cheney.
    McCain picked Palin.

    I try and offer constructive and highly personal criticism of the arguments you choose to make. And lately, I’m absolutely terrified of what your side will become if Obama loses. I’ve said this before, as the election nears, you seem likely to get more and more shrill, and paranoid and angry and defensive… which truly raises my fears of an Obama loss. Because if you are this bad, imagine some other freaktards. We need to be on guard for racism and sexism during this election surely, but jesus, we need to be on guard for your -ism too, apparently.

    Seriously for me, there are positives and negatives to both political choices. And the thing you keep advertising here, but never get around to actually doing, is some kind of new federalism. WHICH MEANS by its very definition, states in the union living opposite of the way you want. It means states living opposite of the way I and Hugo, and Zak, and Ken, and Alex, and Len, FOR SURE, that half-wit John Hurt who thinks I’m a political operative sent here to ruin your tea party – it means him putting up with states doing shit he doesn’t like.

    Or it is meaningless.

    Now maybe Sarah Palin faked her birth to cover for her daughter. And maybe that Michael guy was proof of the evilness of Cheney.

    But, if per chance, McCain didn’t “guess” that Palin had some horrible family secret AND he made a chose a pol with about as much of a resume as Obama (don’t go freaking out, it is basically true), no matter what – he certainly didn’t pick a CHENEY.

    So somehow, you need to get some kind of distance from this thing, some kind of 30K foot view, and realize that YOUR political CREDIBILITY is based in part in seeing some inherent good in the opposition. Because when you don’t see the nuances of each pol as part of the fabric (and the likely common outcomes because each pol is unique), and take it all with a grain of salt… you look like a greedy old guy with an agenda that is totally unlike your stated goals.

    Perhaps a new post: New Federalism… benefits of each candidate towards improving state’s rights. A critical essay.

  5. Dan says:

    you seem likely to get more and more shrill, and paranoid and angry and defensive”

    A tip of the hat to Morgan for the Chuckle of the Day.

  6. Morgan Warstler says:

    Dan, Jon has gotten more shrill – others here have noted it. Go read. I can’t undo Jon’s writing. Amongst other things, he’s still that Palin baby / Michael guy.

    He’s free to delete my posts. But I can point out he is afraid to debate me publicly. HE. IS. AFRAID. I don’t want to break bread at dinner, I want to cross examine his logic in front of an audience. I want to publicly undermine his own thoughts about his intellect. Dinner can be afterwards.

  7. Alex Bowles says:

    MW – any chance you can support your points without the ad hominem attacks? After all, they’re a sure sign of a weak position or an inferior mind.

    Since I’m sure you doubt you have either, why not avoid the type of thoughtless rhetoric that suggests otherwise?

  8. Jon Taplin says:

    Morgan-If you organize the public venue in LA, I’ll be there to debate you. I just don’t want a room filled with your clones as an audience.

  9. Dan says:

    Morgan, “HE. IS. AFRAID” is, how shall I put this, shrill.

    It’s your usual hysterical defective-personality I-am-always-right crap.

    Seek therapy.

  10. Dan says:

    “HE. IS. AFRAID.”

    That’s what I mean by shrill. Your usual style of rhetoric. Your only style of rhetoric. Even if you were right, and Jon is totally wrong about everything, and fails to see the inherent correctness of every single one of your views–you’re not, of course, but even if you were–the Earth-shattering importance you appear to attach to Jon falling to his knees and admitting himself beaten is galactically overinflated. It suggests touches of megalomania.

    The point of life is not to conquer those around you, or to imagine that you have conquered them. If you have no interest in breaking bread with the people you debate with, then you shouldn’t debate them.

  11. Morgan Warstler says:


Leave a Reply