GOP Trouble Continued

Just to continue my thread about why the GOP shuould be concerned about holding onto power. The overtly liberal Foxnews.com ran this article about how the GOP has changed. The article does a very good job of illustrating the points I've fumbled to make. Granted, for Republican voters, where can they go? But they can allways stay home and, in the face of a motivated Dem base, that alone can spell disaster for the GOP. At some point voters will realize that the party that they sent to power is not at all like the party in power. While not a historical first, it is, none-the-less, reality.

Something about history repeating itslelf

CNN/Money has an article under a tab called "Power Packed Muscle Cars Come Roaring Back" which takes you to this article. What I love about this is somewhere some executive at Ford said, "SUV sales are declining, gas is pushing $3 a barrel, everyone's clamoring about the need to rely less on foreign oil, and people aren't buying cars. What should we do?" And some genius yelled, "MUSCLE CARS!!!"

Amazing. Didn't this happen in the 70's? Japan focused on mileage and utility, and Detroit kept producing bigger gas guzzlers. Does Detroit not study history? Do they ignore market trends? SUV sales are falling, and Detroit throws up even less useful gas hogs. At least SUV's hold lots of people and things. But muscle cars? Just what every family needs, a low-milage, low-utility vehicle. Normally, I would just note the raw stupidity of these execs, but I also remember the taxpayer funded bail-outs that came afterwards. Its one thing to let businesses make bad decisions and suffer the consequences, but its another when businesses make bad decisions and taxpayers have to suffer. And thats the other part of history that seems doomed to repeat itself.

Spamalicious

Hey we have spam! So we're not popular enough to get actual comments, but the spammers have found us. Eventhough any comment makes me feel special, I put an end to the spammers (I hope) by enabling a varification window for comments. I hope it doesn't hurt our popularity.

Robertson, "US should date Chavez"

Pat Roberton becomes the latest person who, despite actual video evidence, says I didn't say what I said on TV. At some point, people need to realize that TV is recorded. I just don't get how you can say something on TV and then think you can get away with saying "never said it, nope, not me." At least review the tape and formulate a good story. But to just out right lie, amazing.

So he says he didn't call for Chavez's assassination. "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

What he says he meant was, "I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him." "Or our special forces could "take him out," like on a date. Bring him some flowers and candy, you know, take him on a nice date. If the special forces are feeling the right vibe they could kiss him on the cheek, but not the lips, it is after all a first date. Sometimes just showing someone you care is all it takes to bring them around. And lets face it, no matter how much lobster he eats, its cheaper than the bill for a war."

The GOP Conundrum

Recent Polls show Bush's flagging approval ratings on most major issues. What's striking is that 80% of Dems dissaprove, while 90% of Republicans approve. The only thing worse than Bush's ratings are those of Congress, and that is the problem for the GOP. That core group of Republicans that approve of Bush do so out or personal loyalty. Key quote, "I may not approve of every single thing he does," McAllister said, "but he's a true leader because he's not leading by the polls." This quote, and other's like these, are rattling the rest of the GOP. Personal approval of Bush, even while disagreeing with his policies, does not translate to other candidates. I think this is why we're starting to see cracks in the GOP wall. Leading Republicans are aware that they are not Bush, and cannont rely on high personal approval. The concern must be that the blame for bad policy, because it is not sticking to Bush, will land on them. This will lead to more objections/defections, which could lead to lost opportunity for the GOP, and dissatisfaction of the base. Everyman for himself is a dangerous plan for the GOP, but this is the result of Bush's numbers. He must figure out a way to balance his numbers, and the rest of the GOP must figure out a way to garner some of his love with the base. GOP Presidential hopefuls (especially) must decide if they want to follow lock-step with a "war time" President who's numbers are below 50%, or do they want to risk the ire of a GOP base that is proping those numbers up?

Unless McCain gets the bid, the GOP may be in real trouble in 2008.

Once Bush is gone, however, the Dems would be wise to hit his policies while leaving him alone. But looking for wise strategy out of the Dems is in itself bad strategy.

Novakain

Bill Novak writes a long article bashing Frist. I'm not a huge fan of Frist, and he's done a host of laughable things, but Novak hits him, in part, because, "A month earlier, Frist missed the counting of Electoral College votes (including the Ohio challenge) to leave on a medical mission to the Indian Ocean following the tsunami. This was a decision by a doctor, not a politician."
How dare Frist do such a thing! Helping out in the tsunami relief instead of sitting there watching a foregone conclusioin in the EC? Why I never. This just shows why the beltway is its own twisted universe. Only in DC is this even an issue. Seeing the known conclusion to the Electoral Votes over helping in a disaster, where's the conundrum. It would be like a fireman saying, "hold on, I'll get there, I just want to catch the end of this Star Trek rerun, maybe Kirk dies this time?"
My favorite is the last part. I don't love Frist, but the more any politician thinks like anything other than a politician the better. I would love to see more Congressfolks making decisions like an accountant, banker, store clerk, mechanic, whatever than a politician. I mean, "thinking like a politician" isn't that an insult?

Gas Woes Just Got Worse

Since Congressfolks are not required to take Econ 101, we get this. Apparantly Congress is flummoxed by the concept of supply and demand. Next they's tackle such brain busters as "why do people need to eat?" And, "where do clouds come from." I think my favorite statement comes in the third paragraph, " Lawmakers admit there is no short-term fix to pain at the pump, but are nervous about political fall-out. " Just kind of says it all. I just hope, and this is a long-shot, that they don't put in some kind of cap, or some other useless command economy tool.

FANtastic