Before Blood Shoots Outta Your Eyes…

by Gayle Plato

Glenn Beck– one of the best on TV and radio; he is totally electric and compelling. I learn a great deal and am convinced he’s onto something with the trails of paper, the complaints of government take over, and the history lessons on point. He’s ready to dump all of Congress, state, local—he wants all politicians gone.

But before we run to throw all of the bums out, let’s not lose sight of the prize. The forefathers he hugs were partisan hacks of the day, not afraid of a good political mudslinging. These men who signed the Declaration of Independence and wrote brilliantly, inspiring us all—they were not saints. Some lied to each other, cheated on their wives; heck, some had slaves. They were fallible and real. Conservatives teeter on the precipice of GOP demise every other election cycle. For years, the new Republicans have wanted to push the elephants over the edge and into a tar pit of GOP goo. It’s the RINO ram of the elephant as the asses kick up their heels.  But then, why is it that all of the Republicans turn over? Yet people like Ted Kennedy, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, or Chuck Schumer become Congressional fertilizer, feeding all of the green shoots and astroturfers of the liberal jungle?  Maybe it’s time to see the forest through the trees; maybe we need some deforestation.

All political parties evolve and in a pluralistic system, there is the longing to break free. Look at Sarah Palin’s team, and feel the vibe of the 90’s. Is it Ross Perot all over again? But wait, what did Ross Perot get us beyond the science fair fold-out, cardboard charts and great cartoons of little men with big ears? Oh yeah, I remember: Perot got us Bill Clinton!

United States presidential election, 1992

November 3, 1992

         

Nominee

Bill Clinton

George H. W. Bush

Ross Perot

Party

Democratic

Republican

Independent

Home state

Arkansas

Texas

Texas

Running mate

Al Gore

Dan Quayle

James Stockdale

Electoral vote

370

168

0

States carried

32 + DC

18

0

Popular vote

44,909,806

39,104,550

19,743,821

Percentage

43.0%

37.4%

18.9%

         

Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Bush/Quayle, Blue denotes those won by Clinton/Gore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

 

As you look at the results, remember, the states Clinton won were due to the splitting Perot caused. It is not that Perot took away electoral votes; it’s that he pushed away George Bush’s count. Bill Clinton won with a minority of the popular vote, and the center-right nation split the pie for the liberals taking. Yet, I too voted for Perot, and I admired the idea, the planners.  I liked the story and the developing excitement. As I am older now though, I take a minute longer to see the field and look at all the players.

Democrats stay in office, holding on to their local yokels, and we republicans shoot at the center bulls-eye, walking on the carcasses left in the middle of the road. We then walk up to the Hill, all thousand points of light flickering like Zippos at yet another reunion tour of ‘The Who’. Just remember that there are plenty of good conservatives, mad as hell, and running for the exit. All that the ship jumping does is overload the rescue and the rebuilding effort. Simply put, before I run on the party (a thought I’ve pondered and now rejected) I want to see a clear list of all of the Democrats in Congress who are going home to private life. I want the numbers because otherwise, we’re going to turn the compost only to release a huge methane bubble that plain stinks.  We’ll be taking out ANOTHER Contract that was so simple and elegant, turning it into yesterday’s news.

 


Comments

  1. Blind Squirrel finds a nugget!! says

    Gee, somebody finally woke and noticed Huey Long in a skirt.

    Palin is a moron.

    A very dangerous moron.

    Vote for her and get moronic things.

    Conservatives used to want small effective government.

    Now they want no government.

    I believe they have that in Mexico right now- run to the sound of the guns!!!

    Look at Manos quitting and be afraid, very afraid.

    Suckers.

  2. Blind Squirrel,

    Your comment(s) makes little or no sense.

  3. James Davidson says

    Squirelly:

    No acorn this time.

    For a party whose Speaker just pronounced the insurance companies “villains,” whose President just said the Cambridge police acted stupidly, whose majority leader declared the Iraq war lost, whose lion of the Senate killed a 29 year old campaign worker, I wouldn’t go around calling someone a moron. Not very becoming.

    In case you haven’t figured it out, there’s a long way to go from a $4 trillion dollar government that now runs government motors but can’t operate cash for clunkers, and no government.

    I wouldn’t go around citing Mexico as the case for no government. It is exactly the opposite. Mexico has long suffered from a bad case of dirigismo, in which Mexico City runs everything. It’s collapsing now because of the endemic corruption and the drug lords.

  4. Annie Hoyle says

    Blind Squirrel,
    I’m laughing loudly because at my house, a “nugget” isn’t food!! I think “nut” might be more befitting!

  5. Palin is not a moron, nor are her followers, or anyone who likes Glenn Beck. My point is simple and has nothing to do with fringe views of the left. Conservatives need to take a breath and focus on the goal. Get a republican, conservative legislative and truly respresentative government back in power. All other tin foil hat wearing rambles, service no one.

  6. ” Get a republican, conservative legislative and truly respresentative government back in power. ”

    2001 – 2006. Well, the “truly respresentative” part didn’t happen, but when have conservative been interested in that? Typically, only when people less conservative are in power.

  7. kralmajales says

    Beck is not a moron…he is an evil, devious, purveyor of filth…and he is brilliant to the point of making a whole helluva a lot of bank off of a lot of people who need a lot of real economic help.

  8. kralmajales says

    Gayle,

    You may be on to something and missing something at the same time. Sarah Palin will be much more likely to be like Ross Perot. Split the party…which you must admit has an element (I think you are one) that wants to stomp out moderate Republicans…and those that frankly contribute to your campaigns. I would indeed take Palin very very seriously…as she could be the fissure in the party that ends it….not galvanizes it. If she goes “maverick”, runs, and loses, she will have the might to run as a third party candidate…ending the GOP…for yet another 4 years…and likely splintering the Reagan coalition forever.

    The contract with America was brilliant and done within a galvanized GOP that was rather unified. It came AFTER Perot, as you not. Palin, however, is likely to be the Perot all over again.

    Last, do you think that Romney wont do everything in his power to crush her…and the establishment, business GOPers with him?

  9. Kral,
    You sound nearly breathy; you see something that’s getting to you worked up with the visual of Palin and Romney? Romney’s ticket flies one-way, right to the Massachusetts healthcare fiasco. He’s in trouble the second that get wooped up.

    So take your thought to it’s conclusion… If Sarah can see the lower 48 from her high-priced lecture podium, can she not put together the puzzle? She needs to amalgamate. Get all the brains outta Perot’s push, the team of the Contract, but don’t jump ship. Palin needs a Doctor, and he um, just sent his calling card… get ready Kral…

  10. Recent party identification polls by Gallup clearly exhibit the challenge facing Republicans not in the 2010 midterm election but also in the 2012 presidential race.

    There are currently 29 states in which Democrats enjoy a 10-percentage point (or more) edge on party identification. Compare that to just four states where the Republican edge is ten points or higher (Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Alaska) and one (Alabama) that leans toward the GOP.

    Add up the 29 states that are in the solidly Democratic category, according to Gallup, and you get 350 electoral votes; add up the four states in the solidly Republican category and you get 15 electoral votes.

    To be sure, these numbers should not be read as a direct indicator of what the 2012 election landscape will look like as voters often identify with one party while voting for another. For example, four of the states that are identified as solidly Democratic (West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas and Missouri) went for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.

    Still, the trend lines apparent in the Gallup data have to be disturbing for Republicans.

    The party must find a way to appeal to more voters, particularly in an electorate that is increasingly Hispanic/Latino and non-white. Voters under 30 lean particularly strongly away from Republicans, whose most reliable age cohort is the oldest generation, who obviously as a group will not be voting as long as those who are much younger.

  11. Sarah Palin as the GOP Presidential candidate would truly signal the not-far-off end of the Republican party. I find this situation quite surprising because up until last year I would have thought the party to most likely split would have been the Democrats.

  12. James Davidson says

    These things go in cycles. From 1932 to 1968 the Democrat Party controlled the White House for 28 out of 36 years. From 1968 to 2008, the Republican Party controlled the White House for 28 out of 40 years. I remember quite well when the white ethnic vote was solid Democrat. It now is Republican. In the generation before mine, the African-American vote was Republican. Now it is solidly Democrat. The Latino vote now trends Democrat, but Republicans had been making in-roads until 2006. We’ll see.

    What is unclear now is whether President Obama will replicate President Carter and be a blip, or whether he will replicate President Roosevelt or President Reagan and be a game changer. Six months ago the odds were that he would be a game changer. Now I’m not so sure.

    On today’s scene I would have to say the Democrat top leadership is better at politics. But what they are selling won’t work for America. Government at 50% of GDP dooms us to a generation of slow growth and high unemployment, and we are seeing that the people don’t really want it.

    The top Republicans are not now as good at politics, but they have the deep reserve of better policies. Lower taxes and smaller government are always going to beat bigger government and higher taxes in the long run.

    A Reagan or a Roosevelt seems to come on the scene only once in a generation, and even then, no one knew that Reagan or Roosevelt would reach greatness. Both were criticized as light weights before they got elected. I don’t see anyone on the Republican side with President Obama’s skills. But the public is fickle, and when they sour on someone they often don’t come back. What is certain is that a new generation of Republican leadership must emerge. The Democrats ran through Carter, Mondull, and Dukakis before they came to Clinton.

    What is striking is the venom and vitriol heaped at Governor Palin. You have to go back to Clarence Thomas to find anything like it. Whether she can withstand it remains to be seen. I will say that one of the things that made Reagan so successful was his ability to slough off nasty criticism with a joke. The rejoinder to Mondull in the second debate about not taking advantage of his opponent’s youth and inexperience was classic. It would help Governor Palin to work on that talent.

  13. James,
    Actually in 2008, the “white ethnic vote” leaned Democrat.

    Last time government was over 50% of GDP was in the 1940’s, after which we saw the most expansive economic growth in history, so I am not quite sure what the claim is that current spending, which is under 50% GDP is going to lead to low growth.

  14. James Davidson says

    Todd:

    You are right about 2008, but it is an anomaly in the trend.

    Something happened in the 1940s called WWII that pushed government to more than 50% of GDP.

    Between 1946 and 1950, GNP growth rates were very anemic, averaging less than 1.0%, but with lots of variation among years. The average growth rate increased in the 1950s to 3.55%, as the government’s share of GDP declined, but there also were two recessions. The 1960s enjoyed the best average growth rate of any post-WW II decade at 4.21%. The 80s and 90s had solid average GDP growth rates — above three percent.

    I’m missing the correlation between high government shares of GDP (or GNP as it used to be called and calculated) and growth. If the 90s showed us anything it is that slow shrinkage of the government’s share of GDP leads to increased growth.

  15. James. I’m not suggesting there is a clear link between GDP share and growth, I’m arguing that your formulation that GDP share going over 50% leads to slow growth and high unemployment is not supported by history.

  16. James Davidson says

    Todd,

    Fair enough distinction. But when did a sustained governmental share of GDP over 50% ever lead to sustained growth in the U.S. at solid rates, particularly with an advanced economy? We have not had that experience in the economy in the post-WW II era.

    And by the way, I should clarify what might lead to a misimpression. In the period 1946-50 the average growth rate was anemic, but actual rates were high both in growth and in shrinkage — high peaks and deep valleys, but on average weakly positive.

  17. Again, I never claimed GDP share over 50% lead to higher growth, I merely pointed out when the modern US had GDP share over 50% and what followed. This was to provide counter-argument to your claim that high GDP share will lead to high unemployment and low growth.

    I would also point out that federal spending is nowhere near 50% of GDP, more like 25%, so it is not even clear to me why you are using that figure.

  18. James Davidson says

    Todd,

    In my second post (no. 12) I never mentioned a 50% government share of GDP. You brought it up in post no. 13. I merely said, and still maintain, that high taxes and government spending are detrimental to GDP growth, which is why Republicans have a policy advantage over Democrats, even if Republicans are not as good at politics as as Democrats.

    But while we’re on the subject, it’s not just the federal share of GDP. It also includes state and local governments. The two now are about 40% of GDP in most states. That is a drag on growth. Throw in federalization of health insurance, and where do you get?

  19. James – I think you need to reread your post (#12) You say:
    ” Government at 50% of GDP dooms us to a generation of slow growth and high unemployment, and we are seeing that the people don’t really want it.” My response in #13 was to that.

  20. James Davidson says

    Todd, You’re right. I did say it. I stand corrected.

Leave a Reply to Richard Grayson Cancel reply