The saga continues, with the GOP's chief victimologist laying the groundwork for post-November excuse-making.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"Help, help, we're being oppressed!"
Wanted to be the first with the obligatory Monty Python reference. I was never a big fan, but man is there a lot of stuff relevant to this election.
*sits back to await Schmidtian revival of the dead parrot skit*
She really is such a clown. I can't wait for her to be out of my life...
She is going to go away after November, right? Right, guys?
not only excuse-making, but the kind of obstructionism and demonization that happened with bill clinton.
lord help us all if dems do not get a filibuster proof majority in the senate, cause you can bet your bottom dollar that republicans will try to completely shut down any democratic initiative in the senate if they do not have that kind of margin.
their rationale will be that obama is illegitimate and therefore they are acting heroically.
it is a very intentional strategy.
It shouldn't surprise me that Republicans, especially those like Palin, are positively eager to say things that they should know are blatantly false, especially when it comes to voter fraud, and yet it does. Okay, it doesn't surprise me--it pisses me the hell off. This is a pretty good article on the so-called fraud, at least in that it gives ACORN a chance to defend itself, which is more than I can say for most of the media on this subject.
And can I also just point out how ironic it is that the party that claims to be the party of responsibility is already doing a massive job of covering its ass for the expected beating it's going to take in November? In 2002, when the Democrats took it on the chin, James Carville said on CNN that that's what happens when you don't stand for anything. No excuses--we deserved a beating and we got one. But Republicans? It's never their fault--it's always someone else's fault.
@Stacy
Don't count on it. Unless something dramatic happens, at a minimum, she becomes the most in-demand conservative speaker & fundraiser in the country. I have a feeling we will be talking about her for years to come.
Unless something dramatic happens, at a minimum, she becomes the most in-demand conservative speaker & fundraiser in the country.
Not to mention the instant frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2012.
The turn of the campaign over the last few weeks is pretty mindboggling to me. I just turned 25. George W Bush has been president for my entire adult, aware-of-politics life (this is why young people can get a little too messianic about Obama. It's steak after a lifetime ofdog food). I kinda remember the impeachment, whitewater, waco, ruby ridge and the Clinton years in general but I didn't feel them--is this what it's like when the white resentment crowd is out of power? Are we up for four (eight!) years of BTN and the Angry White Male on the cover of Time again?
Yeah, I know. She's not really going anywhere, and every cable news program is going to be getting her opinion on every topic for the next four yers. But while she may be the front-runner for 2012, she doesn't have a chance in hell at winning. She's as hated as she is loved. I'd also like to believe her base is getting smaller, not larger.
they will try to make what happened to clinton seem like a picnic.
and clinton NEVER got a honeymoon.
they went after him, with a vengeance, the moment he came into office.
if you doubt it, read david brooks' books on his role in the smearing of bill and hillary clinton and the right's fairly successful efforts at limiting his ability to effectively govern.
they have the game plan in place, they have experience at implementing it, and if they do not win, it will go into effect immediately.
and what is happening now is definitely the groundwork.
victimology, coming up again in a discussion of Republican tactics in this election. analagous to the questioning many people are now doing as to whether mccain has changed or was a bs-artist all along is the question of whether the GOP has always had such a deep sense of victimology behind it, or is only now in its death-throes resorting to stoking that feeling among its supporters. I think the truth is in between the two extremes for McCain, but my feeling is that with regard to the GOP's victimology, I think this has been its M.O. since the 60's, when it took advantage of an older and genuinely more (small-c) conservative generation's fears about the direction government and society was taking. Just shameful. ESPECIALLY for "conservatives" who decried the same stuff coming from those who at least had more of a claim to victimhood, i.e. the poor and minorities, during these same decades. I can't wait until this party dies so that something truly conservative can grow in this country.
There's no major political home for real small-government types - just think about that. I know that for those involved in government itself to insist upon consistently shrinking its scope and power is unlikely. (How many Ron Pauls are there?) But damn, it's always something, if they support low taxes (and today's GOP say they do but spend like tax money is endless) they still also support the military-industrial complex, etc. Even Barry Goldwater, whom I admire greatly despite the fact that he didn't do enough for Civil Rights in that era, was all gung-ho on the military stuff. (I say STRONG DEFENSE not OMG CALIPHATE or CONSTANT GLOBAL FORCE PROJECTION).
phew, got off-topic there, sorry.
let's take a little poll: What would you guys say is the over-under for articles of impeachment to be introduced against Obama? 3 years? 6? 9 or more (aka never)? I'm gonna say 6 years. (He's got to make some serious mistakes as president before then, too - anyone would.) I'm pretty sure that (a) the committed GOP will shrink down to like 10% of the electorate, and (b) that 10% will hate Obama more than they hated Clinton. A wounded animal is the most dangerous, etc, and there will still be enough money behind them. Hopefully I'm wrong about the level of vitriol and obstinancy; I'd honestly like to see an honest and decent conservatism take the place of today's GOP and incorporate former Bush people. We need that.
I don't know ...
Is it groundwork for excuse-making or election-challenging? Might want to take a look at the current SCOTUS.
She is going to go away after November, right? Right, guys?
A movement will grow up around her -- the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts are her very vocal base. But she'll be Huckabee-d for 2012. The Republican Big Money Boys are going to say, "Enough is enough!" after the massive drubbing they're going to take on 11/04/08. They'll be quietly behind her impeachment (or recall or simple defeat in 2010). After Palin, Romney will look positively sane
and he'll be their go-to boy in 2010.
None of the above precludes Palin's coming career on Fox News, though.
Excuse me, that's "Romney will be the GOP's go-to boy in 2012. steve simels regrets the error.
Romney/Jindal in 2012 sounds about right to me.
"I kinda remember the impeachment, whitewater, waco, ruby ridge and the Clinton years in general but I didn't feel them--is this what it's like when the white resentment crowd is out of power? Are we up for four (eight!) years of BTN and the Angry White Male on the cover of Time again?"
Sadly, kid, we certainly are, and most likely, it will be even nastier. The most amusing thing will be the sudden reappearance, on the right, of the need for "checks and balances" and "presidential overreach" and lots of straight-faced claims about government oppression and executive branch secrecy. Expect lots of talk about the Constitution, for example.
The GOP is neutralizing itself. The economy matters now. The GOP went rabid against the Clintons because they made enemies back in Arkansas. Their nasty local politics with the GOP went national.
The GOP is not going to be able to get at Obama like they did with Clinton. Those baby boomers were re-fighting the Vietnam and Cultural Wars.
Plus, people are tired of it.
instant frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2012.
The problem with this idea is that people running for president actaully have to talk to the press. If she tries to run without holding press conference or appearing on political talk shows (Hannity does not count) she will not get pass go.
Re: What would you guys say is the over-under for articles of impeachment to be introduced against Obama?
None at all, because A) The GOP will not have control of Congress for at least six years and B) Obama will not give them any grounds (e.g., there will be no "bimbo eruptions", etc.) Yes, Michael Savage and his ilk will opine that Obama should be impeached simply because he isn't a Republican, but the saner heads at the RNC will recall the political hit they took from the Clinton impeachment, and besides the GOP will be too busy fighting among themselves over Who Lost America.
Re: The Republican Big Money Boys are going to say, "Enough is enough!"
Yep, but that means they will be fleeing the sinking ship and cutting deals with the Democrats who, for the most part, will happily cut those deals (come on, be real here people!). As the old saying goes, Nothing suceeds like success, and with the Dems in control of everything and the GOP of nothing, the porcine Powers That Be will slurping their suppers at the Democratic buffet table.
"The most amusing thing will be the sudden reappearance, on the right, of the need for "checks and balances" and "presidential overreach" and lots of straight-faced claims about government oppression and executive branch secrecy. Expect lots of talk about the Constitution, for example."
Is this really being offered as something *NOT* worth looking forward to?
Is FISA, for example, only something bad when A Bad President (defined as "not the guy *I* voted for!") has access to?
The whining of these people over voter fraud ins't just annoying and another good reason to laugh at white trash.
I don't think that Republicans will quietly and civilly hand over the reins to BO and the Dems, and I think this means more than them saying that they wuz robbed. I think you will have a considerable number of Americans that will point to voter fraud, some real and some imagined, to undermine the legitimacy of a Democratic regime in the same way that alot of left-wing Democrats wanted to after the 2000 election (those that say for example, that Gore should have set up a separate government in Tennessee).
While I think that alot of this ACORN controversy is overblown (although I call Bullshit on any Democrat who says they wouldn't protest ACORN's registration practices if it were a right wing organization), voter fraud and election manipulation of the type that occurred in 2000 are a very serious issue. After all a government is only as legitimate as the election that established it. I don't know what the punishments are for election tampering, but I think they should be very severe, after all destabilizing a government through manipulating the democratic process is really a soft form of treason.
The problem with this idea is that people running for president actaully have to talk to the press. If she tries to run without holding press conference or appearing on political talk shows (Hannity does not count) she will not get pass go.
Not at first, and she'll have a couple of years of coaching between now and then, and if she stays on the safe ground, speaking to the committed (or those who ought to be), she'll be in good shape for a 2012 run. I'm not saying she will--I suspect that there will be a major schism in the party--but barring some strange happening, she'll be the early, name-recognition frontrunner a la Joe Lieberman in 2002.
(although I call Bullshit on any Democrat who says they wouldn't protest ACORN's registration practices if it were a right wing organization)
What practices would those be? Would they be the separating out the questionable forms and letting state authorities they suspect something is amiss with them? Or would you rather ACORN just tossed the forms they didn't like, the way some Republican-financed groups did in Arizona in 2004? Know your facts before you spout crap.
Hey Incertus: You're just the guy I was talking about.
Thanks!
Hey laborlibert,
You're a dishonest hack, at least, you are if you're honestly comparing what ACORN does with their registration forms with what Sproul and Associates did for the RNC in 2004. Not even in the same league. Sproul's people threw away the forms of people who had chosen to register as Democrats. If ACORN was tossing Republican registrants, I'd be mad at them--you don't know me at all if you think I'm partisan on this crap. The vote is the most sacred political action we have, as far as I'm concerned.
But ACORN isn't doing that. They're turning in everything, even the stuff they suspect is false, and they're pointing it out to the authorities so it doesn't slip through. If you can't see the difference between them, then you're willfully blind.
They are so intellectually dishonest. Sarah Palin preaching about ethics... she lives in her own little world, doesn't she?
Incertus is correct. I suggest reading this article. While I don't turn to TPM for my news this is the most concise and "truthiest" bit about ACORN. If Bush's justice department could find wide ranging voter fraud after looking for two administrations I think it is officially time to stop trying to make this dog hunt.
I'm not being partisan here (unless erring on the side of franchising people is partisan) when I say I think many of the voter fraud folks are looking for ways to disenfranchise some people not actually support better voting and registration practices.
Sorry, that should read, "If Bush's justice department could not find wide ranging voter fraud after looking for two administrations I think it is officially time to stop trying to make this dog hunt.
Yeah, but will they still be able to claim that 'they had to fight with one arm tied behind their backs'?
Not at first, and she'll have a couple of years of coaching between now and then, and if she stays on the safe ground, speaking to the committed (or those who ought to be), she'll be in good shape for a 2012 run. I'm not saying she will--I suspect that there will be a major schism in the party--
They are already falling out over Palin. The smarter ones know she is clown shoes, and the dumber they are the more likely they are to just attack anyone who says anything bad about the ticket. However, even the dumber ones are going to look at Palin in the post-mortem and blame her at least in part for sinking the ship.
This is fun watching the far right squirm.
Enjoy the decade-long Democratic control of the Congress, righties! Thanks for the gerrymander!
Unless something dramatic happens, at a minimum, she becomes the most in-demand conservative speaker & fundraiser in the country.
That's a possibility, since she'll have a lot of free time - thanks to her exposure on the national stage this will be her only term as governor or in any elected office.
She's not well-liked among Alaska's Republicans, and they'll seize on any pretense to mount an electoral challenge - like "Sarah Palin sunk McCain's campaign in 2008; don't let her sink Alaska, too." Her bumbling public appearances will give plenty of ammo for TV ads. And the fact that she jumped at the chance to take the veep slot about ten minutes after being elected as governor is going to make her look like she doesn't really care about the job.
All this is assuming she's not indicted for violating Alaska ethics laws. Maybe I'm underestimating her but I think odds are good we've seen the last of Sarah Barracuda.
“Work harder, prove yourself to an even greater degree.” --Sarah Palin, in a bit of unasked-for advice to Hilary Clinton when HRC was dealing with her own media handling.
I'm getting way too much schadenfraude mileage out of Palin's little lecture, but she really needs to replay it to herself.
I think Gov. Palin will be a very popular national go to GOPer for certain elements in her party. Plenty of Fox News time and she'll be able to study up on all the issues - in all the papers. If she survives the second Troopergate report, I could see her challenging Sen. Murkowski (pro choice & for stem cell research) in the 2010 Primary.
If she loses that race, maybe she'll call a press conference & say "You won't have Sarah Palin to kick around any more."
Check out Anne Lamott's take on the Barracuda:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/10/14/anne_lamott/
As to what the GOP congressmen will do if Sen. Obama is elected, they'll go to the obstruction playbook immediately - no honeymoon. It'll be like Harold Washington vs the Machine in Council Wars - except, the majority will be with the executive this time. Need to get to 60 + Bernie Sanders in the Senate!
So I was just watching "Singing in the Rain" on TCM and every time the Lina Lamont character opened her mouth (which was a major plot point) I was reminded of Sarah Palin. Gov.Palin will likely get better at what she does (God help us all) and will become a leading light of the right wing GOP (can't wait to see her throw down with Huckabee later on) but not in time for this election. My biggest fear after the CBS/NYTimes 14 point poll lead for Sen. Obama is complacency. Look for the McCain camp to try to scare voters about all of Barack's incredible fundraising success. I'm seeing lots of posts about Sen. Obama outspending McCain, which of course he should, that's why we sent him all this lucre--spend it all and spend it smart and use it to win!
If the polls say you're winning by 10, but you lose by 10 on election day then maybe you can make the case you were robbed.
When the polls all say you're going down in flames; well, you're probably just going down in flames.
As much as I fear many of the comments about Palin being in demand for years to come, I hope that she gets the blame she deserves for allowing herself to be used as an attack dog. She became the worst of what people call strong women and that is most unfortunate. Although, the chance that she'll fade into obscurity does still exist depending on the results of the troopergate inquiry that she supposedly supports which doesn't seem to be a cakewalk.
Stay tuned. More to come.
"Is FISA, for example, only something bad when A Bad President (defined as "not the guy *I* voted for!") has access to?"
I think you misread me. I'm all in favor of checks and balances, a strong respect for the Constitution, and the demystification of the executive branch. I just simply will find it funny if the Republicans and their attack dogs suddenly, after eight years in which the federal government grew in power in unfathomable ways (with in many cases their active encouragement), find religion again and get obsessed about such things.
I think Palin's appeal will fade as she ages. Every right-winger I've heard from rants about how hot and VPILFy she is (always males, never females). And for that kind of appeal, she's getting near the end of her shelf life. She'll need brains to push her career beyond that, but I haven't seen the evidence that she has them.
btw, I love the Lina Lamont comparison.
"As to what the GOP congressmen will do if Sen. Obama is elected, they'll go to the obstruction playbook immediately - no honeymoon. It'll be like Harold Washington vs the Machine in Council Wars - except, the majority will be with the executive this time. Need to get to 60 + Bernie Sanders in the Senate!"
I'm betting we'll see Arlen Specter nominated to the supreme court and either Collins or Snowe to Interior.
However, even the dumber ones are going to look at Palin in the post-mortem and blame her at least in part for sinking the ship.
I think you overestimate the intelligence of the dumber ones in the party. They'll look at the two and say "McCain would have won if he'd just followed Sarahcudda's lead!" Remember, these are the mouthbreathers who are screaming epithets at Palin's rallies when she talks about Obama "palling around with terrorists." They think she's the next hot thing.
If Bush's justice department could not find wide ranging voter fraud after looking for two administrations I think it is officially time to stop trying to make this dog hunt.
Chaz, with respect, you need to read up on voter purging and then reconsider this statement. The Justice Department has been systematically pressuring states to purge voters for many years now, disenfranchising 100s of 1000s of voters in some cases. An interesting article on this can be found here...and you can fact check the article with a few google searches:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/62133/?page=1
The term "voter fraud" was invented by the Republican Party to suppress the vote. We should all know that throughout history -- EVERYWHERE! -- there have been far more instances of fraudulent behavior by political parties and candidates, than simple citizens willing to risk imprisonment to gain one more vote.
Read up on NYU's Brennan Center, ACLU, NAACP, MALDEF, or any other respectable group actively fighting this "PR fraud" and helping to prepare us for what Coates is rightly predicting: massive crocodile tears by the Republicans on Nov. 5 pointing to so-called "voter fraud." Don't even use that term because it's b.s. Recognize the real problem is voter intimidation, vote suppression, modern-day poll taxes, and illegal activities aimed at denying the franchise.
Tessa,
Sorry you misunderstood me. Voter fraud is people casting illegal votes. You're talking about voter suppression which is an entirely different issue. Those getting "upset" be ACORN are claiming widespread vote fraud, the casting of illegal votes. And that is what I was writing about and what the article I linked to was about. I'm more than aware of voter suppression as a problem, albeit a separate problem.
Carrington Ward, yes I've heard that strategic appointment of GOP senators to gain the 60+ majority (with Dem governors making the appts.).
For Spector it makes sense because of his health issues and long time Judiciary Cmte work. I just wonder if Collins or Snowe would be ready to jump. Love to see how that plays out.