Neoconservative Pundit Knifes Today's GOP!

[M.G.]

Neoconservative pundit Jennifer Rubin sticks it to the GOP in her Washington Post column. Rubin, a prominent conservative and strong Romney supporter, was actually considered a supporter of the Tea Party for a while, although I'm sure she'll now be considered a RINO pinko liberal squish by all the usual suspects:

'There has been, to put it mildly, some mass self-delusion going on in right-wing circles. Here’s how to tell if you are suffering from the ill-effects of the echo chamber:

1. You think Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has it nailed when he tells the Value Voters Summit that the Dems are “feeling the heat” in the shutdown fight.

2. You think the problem is Ken Cuccinelli isn’t conservative enough.

3. You think if only the shutdown went on longer the GOP would win this fight.

4. You think poll numbers showing the plummeting favorability of Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Cruz’s 2-to-1 negatives are “skewed.”'


http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/10/11/20-signs-youve-drunk-the-kool-aid/

[Kber]

1. She and Douthout from the NYTimes are Done!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-kurtz-republicans.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

The can join the club of disillusioned conservatives who can no longer support the modern GOP.

[M.G.]

5. Seems like a coastal vs. Deep South feud.

There's probably a million ways to slice this intraparty feud, but it seems to me like a battle between East Coast (and maybe some West Coast) Republicans and those from the South.

I know that a lot of tea party types basically consider neoconservatives (not strictly synonymous with East Coast Republicans, although there's a crossover) Democrats with hawkish or interventionist foreign policy views.

[RainDog]

13. Also "appalachia"

The south can be divided into deep south and appalachia - this includes Missouri, Indiana, parts of Texas (which is not really the deep south.)

I think the division is between religious fundamentalists and religious conservatives. That's where the divisions lie based upon the red state division now.

[M.G.]

24. Good point

Right now I think it comes down to a feud between GOP members who believe in sharing political power with Democratic representatives and those who think all "liberal" policies are de facto illegitimate and are incapable of such sharing.

[RainDog]

31. which coincides with religious ideology

if you think, as fundamentalists do, that there is one and only one correct religious expression, everything else is heresy.

"Market fundamentalists" are out of that same mindset. The one true faith is capitalism and anything a govt. does to address potential and actual structural problems due to vast inequalities in wealth, for instance, is godless communism.

H.L. Hunt was a prophet of the tea baggers...

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Lessons for Liberals/Progressives ...

To listen to, consider and apply:

9. You think it is better to have 30 “true conservatives” than 51 Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

{Note: Replace "conservative" with "Liberal" and "Republican" with "Democrat."}

16. You think the GOP needs candidates like Ted Cruz to run in for Senate places like Michigan, Virginia and Colorado.

{Note: Replace "gop" with "the Democratic Party" and add "and the House" after the Senate.}

I know it is not popular to recognize electoral politics; but Rubin is spot on in her OP ... 217 Democrats in the House, even if they are "heat-seeking" bluedogs, and most of what we are experiencing would not have occurred.

And we can't get there by putting up Dennis Kucinchi or Bernie Sanders in Utah or the Dakotas, or most of the gerrymandered House districts.

[M.G.]

3. One thing I will say here:

I sometimes think the dynamics on this point might be a bit different for liberals than conservatives.

Overall, yes, I would rather have 51 Dem. Senators than 30 strong progressives.

Thing is, I'm not sure the American public knows what a strong progressive sounds like. They definitely know what a strong conservative sounds like.

At least with 30 real progressives, the public would finally get a real sense of what undiluted progressivism says.

Just a thought. (And again, I'd overall rather have the 51.)

[IronLionZion]

20. We can have all types of Democrats

liberal Dems from liberal districts and moderate Dems from more moderate districts. The goal should be to maximize the number of democrats, and within that, maximize the number of liberals. The 50 state strategy got us both houses of Congress in 2006 and greatly expanded the presidential swing states in 2008 and 2012. Its a winning strategy and it doesn't have to conflict with strong progressives.

There will always be ideological differences in our side. Its just the nature of liberalism. I dare anyone to find me two liberals who agree 100% on every issue. But our side should not be attacking each other to the extremes that the other side is doing.

[M.G.]

21. Basically I'd agree...

I'd basically agree with this, with an exception for the occasional Joe Lieberman type (who was much more of a DINO than any major contemporary Republican politician could be called a RINO.)

[IronLionZion]

22. Lieberman deserved to be primaried out

That was a unique case in fairly liberal northeastern state. Even though I disagree with some of his policy positions, he ran as an independent and won fair and square, and I respect that.

But there's not much benefit to primarying dems in the south or Midwest for not being liberal enough, because they are more likely to be replaced by reactionary tea party types.

[M.G.]

23. Exactly

Exactly. Lieberman was an unusual case of a Democratic Senator going out of his way to support Republican issues on extremely weighty issues who happened to be vulnerable in a primary.

Things could change again, but for the most part national-profile Democrats seem pretty unified at present.

[HooptieWagon]

10. I am in favor of 51+ Dem senators, of which 30 are strong progressives.

Its not an either/or. Lets elect strong progressives in solid blue states, and blue-dogs in purple states.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. I agree ...

and what about red states/districts? Do we support/run "strong progressives" or Bluedogs?

[RainDog]

14. This is where rhetoric and frustration deals with reality

A lot of people are frustrated about the rightward tilt in this nation for so long and express that frustration here.

But when it comes down to it, the left needs to vote strategically, not emotionally.

[HooptieWagon]

16. And if the Dem Party wants a strategy to keep the left in the fold...

Then they have to give the left issues and candidates they can get behind. Demanding their votes and delivering nothing (or giving us the finger like Rahm) is a sure way to lose the left.

[RainDog]

17. The funny thing

is that I don't come down on any "faction's" side here. I'm an equal opportunity pisser-offer. lol.

I express my frustration. I criticize Democrats. But when it comes to the practical issues of who controls the House, Senate or Executive, I know it's more important to vote to remove Republicans than to expect a fully-enacted agenda - which, when you come down to it, is how the govt. works.

Things are so out-of-balance now because of the far right activists of the Republican Party who are unwilling to compromise.

I think the pendulum is swinging back to the left - how can you use that, strategically, to advance your cause? What can the left learn from this moment of right wing meltdown caused by a refusal to compromise?

[HooptieWagon]

18. So you're perfectly happy when Obama signs TPP?

Don't make waves and all?

[RainDog]

19. LOL

make waves.

but also work within the bounds of the possible at one moment in time.

[M.G.]

25. Progress on LGBT rights shows...

Progress on LGBT rights shows that progressives can push the country in their direction using political organizing, media savvy, and appeals to fairness.

[Nay]

27. That's only because the monied class doesn't give a shit if gays marry

or not.

[M.G.]

28. Thats nihilism.

I remember when gay bashing was a rallying cry used to in votes. Clearly sown thing changed among the public in the last two decades.

[Nay]

32. I should have been clearer, sorry -- yes, the public is more liberal, but

the only liberal advances the monied class will allow are those they don't give a shit about -- like gay marriage.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. No ...

Now how will 217 republicans in the house and 51 republicans in the Senate stop that?

[Paulie]

4. "although I'm sure she'll now be considered a RINO pinko liberal squish by all the usual suspects"

Awesome line. Thanks so much!!!

Given that she says half of the 20 when it's more like 2+, she hasn't earned her squish title yet.

[M.G.]

6. You are welcome!

[tblue37]

30. I read many of the comments,

and a LOT of them, including the very first one, accused her of being a liberal mouthpiece!

One comment quite a ways down actually said that if she was against Cucinelli, that was a good enough reason to like him, even though the commenter admitted knowing nothing about him. Then the same comment also accused Rubin of doing nothing but repeating liberal "nonsense."

Typical low-information dodo . He knows NOTHING about either Rubin or Cucinelli, but assumes Rubin must be a liberal, and therefore if she is against Cucinelli, he must be the perfect conservative candidate.

[charlyvi]

7. If you've lost Jennifer Rubin.....

Well, you know.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. Rats jumping from the sinking ship?

[M.G.]

9. Lets hope!

Lets hope that the feud turns into a real party crack-up!

[Laelth]

11. Comments following the blog post are a riot. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[RainDog]

12. agreed n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Rubin?