My commentary on Dionne's Latest

[JSojourner]

In his "McCain and the raging right" column, the thoughtful E.J. Dionne asks, "Are we witnessing the reemergence of the far right as a power in American politics? Has John McCain, inadvertently perhaps, become the midwife of a new movement built around fear, xenophobia, racism and anger?"

And here is my response...

Yes.  And yes, at least in part. 

We need to remember that another McCain-like figure, George H.W. Bush, fed the rise of the conspiracy-obsessed, extremist right in the late 80's and early 90's.  While Bill Clinton became the focus of their rage, they organized originally against President Bush's (wise) call for "a New World Order".  Several years before Clinton took office, "patriot" militia groups, common law courts, radical religious sects, white supremacist groups and other cabals of United Nations-hating, multiculturalism-fearing extremists began to percolate.  Oklahoma City was as much a child of H.W. Bush as of Clinton.  The "patriot" militias that gave birth to Tim McVeigh had been fulminating about the Department of Education, the injustice of all taxation and political correctness even before anyone heard of the man from Hope.
 
George H.W. Bush was a mainstream, conservative but not crazy Republican.  When people called for the abolition of the D of E, he said openly that they were nuts.  When he failed to attack China after Tianamen Square, extremists called him an appeaser.  When he played nice with the United Nations, rumors flew fast and furious about black helicopters and highway road signs bearing secret codes for our new U.N. masters who would soon invade...with the help of our government.  I even remember conspiracy theorists like Constance Cumbey and Texxe Mars claiming that "Soviet troops" were already stationed at the Presidio in San Francisco.  Never mind that the Soviet Union no longer existed.  It was all a ruse, you see.  And H.W. Bush, the Illuminati, the Tri-Lateral Commission and the World Bank were all involved.
 
McCain is in a lose-lose.  The old John McCain, who considered the religious right "agents of intolerance" is now back.  This is the John McCain who calls Barack Obama "decent".  This is the John McCain I considered voting for in 2000.  But his party is controlled by moonbats.  This is no longer the party of William F. Buckley, George Will or Gerald Ford.  Didn't McCain get the memo?  This is the party of Michael Reagan, James Dobson, Marvin Olasky and World Net Daily.  Rush Limbaugh is too liberal and too tolerant for some of these idiots.  Michael Reagan, who suggests Muslim babies should be anally raped with grenades, is more their speed.
 
McCain flirted with them long enough to win his primary.  What's the old saying?  Make love, and then live with the love you make.  McCain charted this extremist course and it is costing him the election.  And it may one day cost America more bloodshed along the lines of OKC.  These people do come and go.  But they are coming, presently.  And they will be the Obama administration's problem. Barring a last minute surge for McCain.  Either way, foreign terrorists won't be our only problem.
 
It's no surprise Dionne and I see things similarly.  But what's only hinted at in Dionne's tome...and what's needed in loud, screeching terms, is a call for sane Republicans to start fighting back.  McCain might be -- and I say, MIGHT be -- trying.  Now.  Finally.  But too little, too late.  It's time for someone else to try and save this party from its more extreme members.  Not because I love Republicanism that much. Hardly.  But because the party of Eisenhower and Ford is infinitely preferable to the current one...which is slouching toward becoming a clone of the Constitution Party.
 
Christopher Buckley, America needs you.  Even if you DON'T support Obama.  And Chris, if you can persuade Nancy Kassebaum and Alan Simpson to come out of retirement, we'd all be grateful.  Even Democrats.

[Storebought]

So the latest memo from Democrats is this: GOP, please be more Left. Gotcha.

And as far as the power of the kooks go, Daily Kos and ACORN their ilk have far more influence in the Democratic Party than the Bilderburg-set have in the GOP. Your lot did nominate Obama over mainstream Democrat Clinton, after all.

Truth be told, I am interested in the direction an insurgency will take against an Obama administration. So long as it isn't violent, I would support it.

[Torie]

I really don't see my party having been taken over by nutters. The thing is about nutters, of both the left and right, is that they make a lot of noise. That does not mean that they are the men behind the curtain. If the religious right controlled the GOP, Huckabee would have won the nomination. He didn't come close.

In my experience, the issues that do tend to push folks a bit towards the aisles are abortion, guns, gays and war and peace, with abortion and war really being the ones that fuel the fires.

Here is a link to the Dionne article by the way. He isn't suggesting that the kooks (e.g., the Obama is a Muslim crowd) are taking over the GOP either, just that McCain should ostracize them. Ayers is fair comment in any event, not kookery; it's just ineffective politically in my opinion at this point, for reasons I have elucidated.

[JSojourner]

So the latest memo from Democrats is this: GOP, please be more Left. Gotcha.

More like Richard Lugar and John Warner...those raging lefties.

Sorry, you missed the point entirely.

[JSojourner]

I really don't see my party having been taken over by nutters. The thing is about nutters, of both the left and right, is that they make a lot of noise. That does not mean that they are the men behind the curtain. If the religious right controlled the GOP, Huckabee would have won the nomination. He didn't come close.

In my experience, the issues that do tend to push folks a bit towards the aisles are abortion, guns, gays and war and peace, with abortion and war really being the ones that fuel the fires.

Here is a link to the Dionne article by the way. He isn't suggesting that the kooks (e.g., the Obama is a Muslim crowd) are taking over the GOP either, just that McCain should ostracize them. Ayers is fair comment in any event, not kookery; it's just ineffective politically in my opinion at this point, for reasons I have elucidated.

This is great, Torie...and it's one reason I have much hope for the GOP still.  I wouldn't say it's taken over by nutters.  Yet.  I would say the voices of reason, balance and compromise -- conservative ones like our friend Judd Gregg -- are rapidly aging.  And I don't see a "next generation" replacing them.

That is one of the reasons I have my eye on Huntsman, Sanford and Hoeven.  Because they are quite conservative...but do not seem to have that nasty edge that accompanies a DeMint or that tribe.  It's not just the religious nutters who worry me, though they certainly worry me most.  It's also the "all government is bad and evil" tribe -- the folks who are secretly delighted about the economy because the only spending we can do is on fighting wars and bailing out banks. 

While the conservative voices you so respect make excellent arguments against too much government or out of control government, I daresay none of them would go as far as the "starve the beast" crowd.  Like our friend here, I forget his name, who suggests highway projects and airport runway projects be financed with donations from the public...or not done at all.

Somewhere, between the lunacy of extreme liberalsm's "22 chickens in every pot"...and the cruelty of extreme conservatism's "kill the damned chickens and let the bastards starve"...there is sanity.

I think a lot of Democrats have it and, still at present, a lot of Republicans do, too.  I am quite concerned, however, that one set is not replicating itself with younger successors.  And we NEED more Gordon Smiths and Judd Greggs...and fewer Jim Inhofes and John Thunes...

[NDN]

But because the party of Eisenhower and Ford is infinitely preferable to the current one...which is slouching toward becoming a clone of the Constitution Party.

Please don't insult the Constitution Party.

But yes your commentary has a lot of truth to it. Under Bush the GOP has gone way out of left field, completely eschewing 'small government' right-of-center politics in favor of naked religious fundamentalism, an uncompromisingly belligerent foreign policy, and economic policies heavily skewed in favor of the wealthy. And frankly neither the token 'moderates' OR the Democratic Establishment have managed to really stand up to the various extremist factions hijacking it. It's a large part of why I left the party.

[Storebought]

So the latest memo from Democrats is this: GOP, please be more Left. Gotcha.

More like Richard Lugar and John Warner...those raging lefties.

Sorry, you missed the point entirely.

No, I got your point entirely. I've posted it on the other Dionne thread.

Funny how you want to see the tired Lugar and Warner compromisers in charge of the GOP even while the Speaker of the House is a Democrat from San Francisco; the chairman of the Ways and Means committee a Democrat from Harlem; all domestic legislation in the Senate does not pass without meeting the approval of the Democrat from Massachusetts, etc. But compromise is a one-way street after all.

The GOP, in your world, would not be allowed to have its own congressmen represent the actual views of Republicans/conservative independents in the US electorate. That would be too "divisive."

[HardRCafé]

After eight years of hearing from Democrats how McCain is everything they wanted in a Republican and how much they admired him, you see what we get.

[JSojourner]

So the latest memo from Democrats is this: GOP, please be more Left. Gotcha.

More like Richard Lugar and John Warner...those raging lefties.

Sorry, you missed the point entirely.

No, I got your point entirely. I've posted it on the other Dionne thread.

Funny how you want to see the tired Lugar and Warner compromisers in charge of the GOP even while the Speaker of the House is a Democrat from San Francisco; the chairman of the Ways and Means committee a Democrat from Harlem; all domestic legislation in the Senate does not pass without meeting the approval of the Democrat from Massachusetts, etc. But compromise is a one-way street after all.

The GOP, in your world, would not be allowed to have its own congressmen represent the actual views of Republicans/conservative independents in the US electorate. That would be too "divisive."

Is there no point at which someone becomes too liberal...or too conservative...and is just plain crazy?