The buzz of the political press this AM…
Where’s Reagan’s heir? This field certainly doesn’t seem to have him…
It was George Allen! Can we have a moment of silence? Thank you.
That’s probably right, actually. He was conservative, but not an ideological zealot. He believed in lower taxes but also in fiscal discipline at the federal level. On the war, he was too aligned with the neocons to be actually described as a realist like Reagan - but that may have been party line politics.
Either way, there is no Republican on the horizon who seems willing to repeal tax cuts to reign in the federal deficit and debt (like Reagan and the first Bush did). McCain flirted with the idea and seems to have dropped it. Same with the other two.
And while I once placed McCain in the realist camp of foreign policy, he’s - for political reasons - embraced the neo-con approach. Again, they all have. They’re all pro-surge and say little about Baker-era diplomacy.
This field sucks.
Duh!
Neocons…Do as we say, not as we do…
Where did the neocons come from, Jake? Now you can call Reagan in the latter years a realist but he was a jingoistic rabblerouser early on and the neocons were the ones fuelling much of the ideological rationale for it.
So Reagan drank the Kool-Aid, but eventually it wore off?
You guys are really right on the ball spotting right wing hypocrites (which Gingrich certainly is).
It’s too bad you couldn’t spot a liberal hypocrite if he landed on your house with his private jet and shoved his oscar up your ass.
:P
At his first meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985, Reagan had perplexed him by talking about how they might work together if there were an invasion of aliens from outer space. Reagan had got his idea from a 1951 science fiction movie in which an alien warns of earth’s destruction if nuclear weapons are not abolished.
At the Reykjavik summit in October 1986, Reagan had agreed to eliminate all nuclear weapons (to the consternation of his advisers) until Gorbachev insisted that testing for the Star Wars missile defence shield be suspended. Two of Reagan’s utopian dreams collided. But after the exposure of the Iran-contra scandal, Gorbachev dropped the objection to Star Wars. Instead, he crafted a practical arms reduction agreement, the intermediate nuclear forces treaty. And, despite opposition from conservatives, Reagan seized upon it.
With script in hand, Reagan was Reagan again. In September 1987, he addressed the United Nations general assembly: “I occasionally think how our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.” That December, Gorbachev came to the White House to sign the treaty. Then, in June 1988, Reagan went to Moscow, where he declared that “of course” the cold war was over and that his famous reference to the “evil empire” was from “another time.”
Reagan did not bring about the downfall of the Soviet Union. But he lent support to the liberalising reform that hastened the end. In reaching out to Gorbachev, Reagan blithely discarded the rightwing faith that totalitarian communism was unchangeable and that only rollback, not containment and negotiation, would lead to its demise.
Reagan was acutely self-conscious about his about-face and on his trip to Moscow he explained it. “In the movie business actors often get what we call typecast,” he said. “Well, politics is a little like that too. So I’ve had a lot of time and reason to think about my role.”
Reagan’s embrace of Gorbachev rescued his own political standing. His rise in popularity to the mid-50s was essential in lifting his vice-president’s presidential ambition, for the elder Bush was moon to Reagan’s sun. Yet Bush distanced himself, adopting the “realist” view that Reagan suffered from “euphoria” and that nothing fundamental in the world was changing.
Now, George W Bush eulogises Reagan as his example. Bush has his own doctrine, a Manichean battle with evildoers, and an army of neoconservatives to lend complex rationalisations to his simplifications. Yet Reagan was saved by the wholesale firing of the neoconservatives, the rejection of conservative dogma and a deliberate strategy to transcend his old typecasting. It is why he rose above his ruin, and rides, even in death, into the sunset of a happy Hollywood ending.
You mean the private jet that is actually a commercial one since that’s how Gore mostly flies? Or do you mean the commercial jet where Gore is likely the only passenger onboard who has calculated the carbon footprint of the flight and has paid for it? Or do you mean the commercial jet he drives to using his hybrid vehicle, after leaving his green-energy powered home?
Or Spoofy, do you just mean that you still can’t admit that you called Gore a hypocrite for not being environmentally conscious because you ASSUMED he didn’t even have fluorescent lighting - and then it turned out you were WRONG?
Wait, Gingrich is a possible '08 presidential candiate? For real (as in more than anyone who hasn’t said no yet is possible)?
But but but… the meat industry causes more carbon emissions than all vehicles combined. And Gore is a meat-eater. LOLLERCOPTERS.
Also ironing clothes contributes to global warming. His shirts aren’t wrinkled!!!
Yes, very much so.
And from a conservative point of view, he’s very much liked (this little dalliance - and others - aside). Chuck Todd had a great piece in the National Journal recently about how familiar the Republican 08 field looked. He had seen it before but he couldn’t place his finger on it until Brownback released a video saying that “he represented the Republican wing of the Republican party” a la Howard Dean’s similar slogan in 2004.
The point - there’s a great deal of dissatisfaction with this field with the conservative base, which is precisely why Gingrich is considering jumping in later in the year and why conservative primary voters hope he does.
And Bob - you should have argued for Spoofy. You would have made much more sense at least.
It is kind of hard when ‘liberals’ to not run around pontificating the moral sins of people.
So please let us know the next time a liberal politician:
Rails against gay people, but turns out to be gay.
Goes on a witch hunt looking for congressmen who have affairs, but is having an affair.
Decries abortion, but who had a daughter / wife that had one.
In general, tells you how to live your life, but doesn’t abide by the same standard.
Perhaps the reason you see so few liberals being framed as Hippocrates is because unlike Republicans, they are not running around telling everyone else how to live their lives.
How about that?
The man has NEVER made sense. Frankly, I’m half convinced he’s some rogue AI programmed by someone over at Free Republic to troll phpBB boards and spout random, sarcastic anti-Democrat remarks for the sole purpose of sowing confusion.
I think most people don’t label Gore as the hypocrite of the Clinton/Gore presidency.
No matter his politics he’s a standup guy - when Katrina happened he out of his own pocket flew medical supplies and aid while FEMA was still dithering, and refused to let media come along because he didn’t want it to be a political gesture.
Gore is stiff. Gore is wooden. Gore is boring. And Gore does tend to exaggerate.
But I would agree that you can’t really tag the man with the hypocrite label as easily as you can others.
And you’re right: His reaction to Katrina - and the fact that it had to be discovered by the press - I think says a lot about the man, say what you will about his other short comings.
Given that the wiki article you linked to talks about the (valid, IMO) criticism that P.C. is a straw man invented by the right to attack the left, you might want to pick another example.
Not saying you’re wrong, just that it’s a bad example.
“Perhaps the reason you see so few liberals being framed as Hippocrates is because unlike Republicans, they are not running around telling everyone else how to live their lives.”
No one remembers Tipper Gore’s heyday in the 1980’s and pre-92 election? I have concert bootlegs from that timeperiod that mention Tipper.
I didn’t know about that. That’s pretty cool.