GOP Becoming The Cartoon Party

[Patrick Degan]

These days, it's almost as if Stephen Colbert is actually writing the news:

MSNBC

Cheney backs Limbaugh over Powell
He says he'd rather back broadcaster in the battle over future of the GOP
The Associated Press
updated 1:10 p.m. CT, Sun., May 10, 2009

WASHINGTON - Dick Cheney made clear Sunday he'd rather follow firebrand broadcaster Rush Limbaugh than former Joint Chiefs chairman Colin Powell into political battle over the future of the Republican Party.

Even as Cheney embraced efforts to expand the party by ex-Govs. Jeb Bush of Florida and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and the House's No. 2 Republican, Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the former vice president appeared to write his one-time colleague Powell out of the GOP.

Asked about recent verbal broadsides between Limbaugh and Powell, Cheney said, "If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh. My take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican."

'Not as right as others would like'
Powell, who was secretary of state under President George W. Bush and held the nation's top military post under President George H.W. Bush, endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president last year. Nonetheless, since the election he has described himself as a Republican and a right-of-center conservative, though "not as right as others would like."

Cheney, citing Powell's backing of Obama over Republican nominee John McCain, said, "I assumed that that is some indication of his loyalty and his interests."

Cheney's remarks on CBS' "Face the Nation" were the latest step in his slow-motion estrangement from Powell since the two worked closely together to manage the Persian Gulf war in 1991 — Powell as the Army general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Cheney as defense secretary for the elder Bush.

Under the younger Bush, Powell initially backed action against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and delivered a famous U.N. speech laying out the U.S. case. But Powell and Cheney increasingly parted ways over the Bush administration's policies on the war and terrorism, with Cheney usually prevailing. Powell left the administration after Bush's first term.

Wading into the debate over the GOP's future, Cheney called efforts by George W. Bush's brother Jeb, along with Cantor and Romney, as "a good thing to do," but set a limit on how far the party should go.

"The suggestion our Democratic friends always make is somehow if you Republicans were just more like Democrats, you'd win elections," Cheney said. "Well, I don't buy that. We win elections when we have good solid conservative principles to run upon."

More government, not less
Powell has argued the Republican Party needs to move toward the center and reach out to growing black, Hispanic and Asian communities, but instead has been shrinking because it hasn't changed as the country changed in the face of economic distress. "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less," Powell said last week.

For months, Powell has urged the party to turn away from the acid-tongued Limbaugh. "I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without," Powell said.

"Colin Powell is just another liberal," Limbaugh retorted. "What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat." Limbaugh said Powell is "just mad at me because I'm the one person in the country that had the guts to explain his endorsement of Obama. It was purely and solely based on race." Both Powell and Obama are black.

On other topics on the CBS interview, Cheney:
# said transferring suspected terrorists from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States would be a bad idea that would enlarge their legal rights. Obama's national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, told ABC's "This Week" the White House isn't going to do that if it would make Americans less safe.
# reiterated his belief the U.S. has become more vulnerable to a potential terrorist attack since the Obama administration renounced harsh interrogation tactics such as waterboarding, which simulates drowning, that Cheney said provided good intelligence. Jones said he didn't believe the nation was at greater risk and that even some in the Bush administration disagreed with Cheney on that score.
# renewed his call for the administration to release two CIA memos he said list successes derived from those interrogations, including "attack planning that was under way and how it was stopped." The Obama administration is reviewing Cheney's request. Obama has said the memos are not so clear-cut and do not address whether the information could have been obtained without such methods.
# said he has been speaking out about the Obama administration although George W. Bush remains silent, because if he didn't, "then the critics have free run, and there isn't anybody there on the other side to tell the truth."

© 2009 MSNBC.com

This takes the cake:

"The suggestion our Democratic friends always make is somehow if you Republicans were just more like Democrats, you'd win elections," Cheney said. "Well, I don't buy that. We win elections when we have good solid conservative principles to run upon."

You mean just like the principles your party ran on in 2008, Dick?

[The Vortex Empire]

Have they learned absolutely nothing from the last election? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but can people really be this stupid?

Well, hopefully the American people aren't stupid enough to elect another Republican in 2012.

[Starglider]

Have they learned absolutely nothing from the last election?

They think they've learned something; John McCain lost because he was a moderate.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

It's hilariously ironic. They see that their party is on the road to death. But yet they truly believe that in order to bring their party around, they have to step on the gas pedal instead of making a U-turn.

[Surlethe]

# said he has been speaking out about the Obama administration although George W. Bush remains silent, because if he didn't, "then the critics have free run, and there isn't anybody there on the other side to tell the truth."

That's funny - did Cheney, in almost the same breath, endorse Limbaugh and then turn around and say there's no other conservative Republicans out there attacking Obama?

[Darth Wong]

Count Chocula is a perfect example of these clowns. He clings to the notion that if the Republican Party had just been "true to its core values", everything would be hunky-dory. Where were all the Republicans pointing out these "core values" back in 2002, when the Republicans were laying down the groundwork for all the bullshit we're having to deal with now?

As recently as late last year, Glenn Beck was writing editorials on CNN explaining why the bank bailout is necessary. Their idea of what constitutes "core values" literally changed overnight when Obama took office. They're a party that is completely geared to being a full-time opposition party, which is why they cannot even obey their own stated principles once they gain power. What do Chocula and his ilk think? That they can pick somebody else who will live up to the true creed? Their whole ideology is no more practical or workable than Marxism. It only works as Opposition Party ranting, not as something you can actually implement.

[SAMAS]

Have they learned absolutely nothing from the last election?

Not only have they not learned anything, they're actively trying not to. They think they already know all the answers, and it's everyone else that's wrong.

[SirNitram]

The question is rapidly devolving from 'What outrageously stupid thing did the Republican Party do this week' to 'Which is unusual enough to report'.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I frankly just don't get Conservatives in general, and Republicans specifically. Some of the shit they say is so...odd and to be honest, so outlandish, it almost sounds like a joke. I'm not talking about this case in particular. I have no concern for Colin Powell, he's irrelevent to me and to be honest Dick Cheney can piss around with whoever he wants for all i care.

What i'm talking about, which is something Darth Wong touched upon, is the vaunted conservative "Core Values". What exactly are these values? I've yet to actually see them articulated in any real sense, and when i have heard someone try to explain them it's some variation of "lower taxes" and "small government".

What on Earth is "small government" and why is it good? From what i understand the meaning of smal government means to consolidate power into the smallest number of hands possible to cut down on red tape...but that's just a guess taking the term literally. At the same time they seem to be opposed to government in and of itself. I've heard quotes from Saint Ronald of Regan where he says something to the effect of "the most terrifying thing is a man from the government" and "government is not the solution, it's the problem". Wut? No seriously that's not even a political belief system that's anarchism. So far though, that seems to be what "small government" means--corporate driven anarchism.

As for this "tax cut" thing, that's just a non-sequitor. Cut taxes how? How much i mean? 50%? 60%? 100%? Will the government pay me? What the fuck kind of political system can possibly be implimented when the only unifying belief is LOL NO TAXIS1!!

The only other thing they all seem to believe is that capitaism=good, any other possile economic system=PURE FUCKING EVIL! I was watching Rachael Maddow and this guy, Sessions, was saying Obama was trying to "kill" free enterprise by destroying the economy. Now, mind, that's just wrong right there. But even if it were, what is so bad about giving up capitalism? Maybe it's because of personal experience, but capitalism is not something we can't survive without.

I mean the whole thing basically can be summed up in that way: they're anti-taxation corporate anarchists.

[Oskuro]

They're a party that is completely geared to being a full-time opposition party, which is why they cannot even obey their own stated principles once they gain power.

Funny thing, that's pretty much the same with the right-wing party around here, when in government they are often defined as opposition to the opposition.
My guess is that since their proposals are all about going back rather than forward, they must win people over by denouncing the evils of their opponents' progressive proposals. Unfortunately, the masses usually buy into this sort of knee-jerk confrontational drama, wich is why these types haven't been laughed out of politics yet. Or so it seems to me.

[Darth Hoth]

Their whole ideology is no more practical or workable than Marxism. It only works as Opposition Party ranting, not as something you can actually implement.

As I understand conservatism, from my limited European perspective (in my country, it basically does not exist as a political power), it is simply about preserving the status quo. Therefore there is no coherent ideology, or one that can be methodically implemented, and none is needed; it is a reaction to change, not a promoter of it. Its only aim is to stop (or slow) social transformation and retain the comforts of yesterday. Movements that attempt to radically change society, whether left- or right-wing, are fundamentally anathema to it.

[Starglider]

As I understand conservatism, from my limited European perspective (in my country, it basically does not exist as a political power), it is simply about preserving the status quo.

In Europe, that's usually correct. For example, the UK conservative party was originally opposed to the NHS, but now that it's become an essential part of UK life they support it. However in the US things are different in two ways. Firstly many of the 'paleoconservatives' believe that the ideal 'status quo' for the US was reached in about 1890, and everything the US government has done since then has been a regression. Secondly, many of the 'neoconservatives' are very keen to 'realign the world order' to a more US-favorable position. This pursuit of national interests is considerably more aggressive than that advocated by typical European conservatives, who are usually keen on national defense but not pre-emptive strikes on far-away countries.

[hongi]

"Colin Powell is just another liberal," Limbaugh retorted. "What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat." Limbaugh said Powell is "just mad at me because I'm the one person in the country that had the guts to explain his endorsement of Obama. It was purely and solely based on race." Both Powell and Obama are black.

Limbaugh doesn't have any evidence to back his claim up. In fact, I distinctly remember Colin Powell calmly, rationally explaining his reasons for endorsing Obama on Meet the Press or some show like that...and there was nothing about 'black bros gotta hang tight'. Powell is the last person I'd expect to jump into the Obama ship because of skin colour.

[The Spartan]

Limbaugh doesn't have any evidence to back his claim up. In fact, I distinctly remember Colin Powell calmly, rationally explaining his reasons for endorsing Obama on Meet the Press or some show like that...and there was nothing about 'black bros gotta hang tight'. Powell is the last person I'd expect to jump into the Obama ship because of skin colour.

Remember a couple things, too. First, Powell went before the Republican National Convention in 2000 and more or less scolded them for not being more inclusive of minorities, so imagine what a white conservative as far right as Limbaugh. Second, even if he hadn't, Limbaugh is still a racist douchebag. And a hypocrite. And a liar.

[Big Orange]

"Colin Powell is just another liberal," Limbaugh retorted. "What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat." Limbaugh said Powell is "just mad at me because I'm the one person in the country that had the guts to explain his endorsement of Obama. It was purely and solely based on race." Both Powell and Obama are black.

Limbaugh doesn't have any evidence to back his claim up. In fact, I distinctly remember Colin Powell calmly, rationally explaining his reasons for endorsing Obama on Meet the Press or some show like that...and there was nothing about 'black bros gotta hang tight'. Powell is the last person I'd expect to jump into the Obama ship because of skin colour.

Because Limbaugh and his ilk are racist, that's what. Applying their twisted logic, Rice would also be in on the Black Brother's Conspiracy.

And what things are the American Conservatives supposed to actually conserve? I can understand that they want to conserve moronic religious heritage, but on the other hand they've actively destroyed the economy instead of wisely conserving it. What is so objectively conservative about wildly selling off a ton of industrial/service assets for short-term gains, spriling into deep financial debt, dampening economic progress through overweening private ownership, and destroying jobs through self-destructive outsourcing?

[SAMAS]

Their whole ideology is no more practical or workable than Marxism. It only works as Opposition Party ranting, not as something you can actually implement.

As I understand conservatism, from my limited European perspective (in my country, it basically does not exist as a political power), it is simply about preserving the status quo.

Well, in our case, a good analogy would be Joe Quesada and the whole Spiderman thing: It's less about preserving the Status Quo as it is, but rather bringing back a previous Status Quo as they remembered it (which is not always the way it actually was, rose-tinted goggles and all that).

[Darth Wong]

And what things are the American Conservatives supposed to actually conserve? I can understand that they want to conserve moronic religious heritage, but on the other hand they've actively destroyed the economy instead of wisely conserving it. What is so objectively conservative about wildly selling off a ton of industrial/service assets for short-term gains, spriling into deep financial debt, dampening economic progress through overweening private ownership, and destroying jobs through self-destructive outsourcing?

They're actually economic ultra-liberals, to use the proper definition of "conservative" and "liberal". But I think their economic policies actually stem from old-fashioned temporal conservatism, ie- they think everything was better in the 18th century, and they want to go back to that time.

If you look at the lack of social safety nets, public education, public health care, government regulation, minority rights, religious diversity, and taxation in the 18th century, it looks exactly like what they're pushing for. So "conservative" in this sense just means that they've spent too much time wanking to Civil War movies and they want to go back to those halcyon days, before Sherman torched the fuckers.

[Coyote]

What on Earth is "small government" and why is it good? From what i understand the meaning of smal government means to consolidate power into the smallest number of hands possible to cut down on red tape...but that's just a guess taking the term literally. At the same time they seem to be opposed to government in and of itself. I've heard quotes from Saint Ronald of Regan where he says something to the effect of "the most terrifying thing is a man from the government" and "government is not the solution, it's the problem". Wut? No seriously that's not even a political belief system that's anarchism. So far though, that seems to be what "small government" means--corporate driven anarchism.

The idea is that anything the government does is done inefficienctly, and too costly, and can be done better by private industry. They are under the belief that private industry will be more accountable to the citizens --err, customers-- because if they are inefficient or produce shoddy goods, the customers will just go to another company to buy stuff. In other words, the "invisible hand of the market" will keep costs low through competition.

The only thing government does, in this scenario, is create stifling regulations that don't allow a company to do as they fucking please to workers and the environment innovate, and steal th ecompany's rightfully-earned profits through taxation to give to layabouts who do nothing to help productivity... or prop up inefficient businesses that should be allowed to go bankrupt.

If business were unchained from all regulations, they believe, the companies would provide an economic powerhouse that would... ummm... create a great society, I guess, to benefit... well, let's face it, to benefit the CEOs and the stockholders. If you are an employee you can buy shares of stock in the company, supposedly. I've never heard a convincing word about what would be done to prevent monopolies, or if, say, non-stock-holders would be allowed to walk on a sidewalk built by a company. I suspect everything would be based on tolls-- toll roads, toll sidewalks, toll parks, toll bridges. If someone charged too much for you to use their bridge, you can, um, start a company (it's cheap, since there's no annoying government regulations to stifle you with crap like safety requirements, etc) and build your own bridge and charge a more fair price.

There's a lot of magic fairy-dust stuff at work, basically. But corporations can take th eplace of government and be much better.

As for this "tax cut" thing, that's just a non-sequitor. Cut taxes how? How much i mean? 50%? 60%? 100%? Will the government pay me?

Taxes would be cut 100% because all the things that taxes currently pay for would instead be provided by corporations. The Mail service, national defense, space program, schools, roads and other infrastructure, the police and fire an drescue agencies, Coast Guard-- all of it would be built & run by companies that you can buy stock in. Instead of taxing everyone for what a few people use, they charge a toll only on those who use it, and thus it is "fair".

I mean the whole thing basically can be summed up in that way: they're anti-taxation corporate anarchists.

Anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-syndicalism, to be exact. But yeah. You contract with a Police Company to patrol your neighborhood and keep you safe. If they don't do a good job, you fire them and hire another Police Company, and the other company goes out of business. Neighborhoods band together to contract schools, and teachers from good companies will get a good reputation and teachers from bad companies will get a bad reputation and not be hired. And so on.

It's all run by Santa Claus, I think. Oh, wait. He gives out stuff for free, the stinking commie. Maybe the Tooth Fairy. She gives money for harvesting body parts. That's more like it.

[Darth Wong]

The world-view Coyote describes above is pretty much accurate to a typical hard-line conservative or libertarian. Their problem is that they seem to have a fundamentally anti-scientific mindset because they present what they believe to be proof of their theory, and ignore disproofs. That's not how it's done in science: you can never absolutely prove a theory; you can only disprove it.

Their fundamental axiom about private industry always being more efficient than government is easily disproven by producing as little as one verifiable contradictory example. But when you do this, they simply produce counter-examples, and they fail to grasp what has just happened.

[Akhlut]

Coyote, you seem to have a grip on their train of thought, so, if I may ask: what the hell makes them think that corporations wouldn't turn into the mafia? Just mere competition? What about when they wall up your neighborhood and force you to pay them and you can't leave or fire them, then what? Or does that just not happen?

I mean, don't they see what's going on with China, and how a company can ship poisonous goods and not be held accountable at all due to distance or consumer ignorance? Do they just not consider these options? Are they ignorant? It boggles my mind.

[Darth Wong]

Coyote, you seem to have a grip on their train of thought, so, if I may ask: what the hell makes them think that corporations wouldn't turn into the mafia? Just mere competition? What about when they wall up your neighborhood and force you to pay them and you can't leave or fire them, then what? Or does that just not happen?

I mean, don't they see what's going on with China, and how a company can ship poisonous goods and not be held accountable at all due to distance or consumer ignorance? Do they just not consider these options? Are they ignorant? It boggles my mind.

When I was in school I used to think more along those lines. It's not too complicated to understand: "out of sight, out of mind". People get angry at having to pay taxes for services which they do not instantly perceive. Just look at road and bridge maintenance: you never perceive its benefits, only its costs. You perceive that you pay taxes for it. You perceive that it snarls traffic and interferes with your commute. You rarely (if ever) perceive that it is necessary for your safety and the continued usefulness of the road.

This is common to many government activities: we only perceive their downsides, and not their usefulness. When something horrible happens, we ask "why didn't government stop this?" But when nothing horrible happens, we do not credit government for maintaining order; we ask why they need our fucking money to run themselves.

With corporations, it is different: we purchase a service and we perceive an instant reward. It all boils down to the way our brains process things and our ability or inability to process these things on an abstract level.

That's why a lot of people are inclined to perceive the government as an inherently rapacious organization but not corporations, even though all of the evidence shows that corporations are every bit as rapacious if not much more so.

[Coyote]

Coyote, you seem to have a grip on their train of thought, so, if I may ask: what the hell makes them think that corporations wouldn't turn into the mafia? Just mere competition? What about when they wall up your neighborhood and force you to pay them and you can't leave or fire them, then what? Or does that just not happen?

I mean, don't they see what's going on with China, and how a company can ship poisonous goods and not be held accountable at all due to distance or consumer ignorance? Do they just not consider these options? Are they ignorant? It boggles my mind.

It is mind-boggling, and naive as well, I think. I had a roommate who was a rah-rah-Randroid, and I admit for awhile there I was seriously looking into the Libertarian Party as a political alternative. [shivers]

But, yeah-- they believe that any company that uses violence or coercion would lose customers, and those customers would form a new company to take the place of the "evil" company. Essentially, boycotting them to death or at least irrelevancy. Or, another company from a neighboring area would be called in to expand contracts in their region.

Part of the theory rests entirely on customers being educated-- you research a company before buying from them. If they use child labor, or dump waste in the environment, then you take your money to a company that doesn't do these things. Customer conscience becomes marketable, basically, and companies that do bad things go out of business. Companies that build bridges that collapse would go out of business... no word on the poor saps that the bridge collapsed under to prove the point. Or, the company that builds bridges would contract a "safety inspection company" with a good reputation to inspect bridges and put their seal of approval on it to reassure customers.

They don't seem to understand that either people are lazy and won't do this research, or, that the companies will be the ones owning the media themselves and can control what "research" is available. There's so much potential for abuse, but they don't see it because they assume that companies that abuse their customers will get "bad reputations" and go out of business. The possibility of a company hiring media to boost them, and hiring private police to kneecap anyone who disses them, is a scenario they can't navigate around.

[Darth Wong]

They don't seem to understand that either people are lazy and won't do this research, or, that the companies will be the ones owning the media themselves and can control what "research" is available. There's so much potential for abuse, but they don't see it because they assume that companies that abuse their customers will get "bad reputations" and go out of business. The possibility of a company hiring media to boost them, and hiring private police to kneecap anyone who disses them, is a scenario they can't navigate around.

It goes deeper than that. Even if you can prove to them that these mechanisms are nowhere near as effective as they think they are, they will stubbornly maintain their insistence that government is still worse. The source of the disease is still their gut-level feeling that government is intrinsically a waste, while private industry is not.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I've never heard a convincing word about what would be done to prevent monopolies, or if, say, non-stock-holders would be allowed to walk on a sidewalk built by a company.

The typical argument I've run into from these people is that monopolies are ONLY due to government interference, and just wouldn't exist. And if relaxing government regulations leads to monopolies appearing, why, that only means that they haven't been relaxed enough ! They demand examples of monopolies in governments with NO business regulation - which is hard when as far as I know that's pretty much a universal facet of governance.

Except in failed states, where the government is ineffectual or nonexistent; which of course is somehow not what such anarcho-capitalism would actually result in.

[Patrick Degan]

I've never heard a convincing word about what would be done to prevent monopolies, or if, say, non-stock-holders would be allowed to walk on a sidewalk built by a company.

The typical argument I've run into from these people is that monopolies are ONLY due to government interference, and just wouldn't exist. And if relaxing government regulations leads to monopolies appearing, why, that only means that they haven't been relaxed enough ! They demand examples of monopolies in governments with NO business regulation - which is hard when as far as I know that's pretty much a universal facet of governance.

Except in failed states, where the government is ineffectual or nonexistent; which of course is somehow not what such anarcho-capitalism would actually result in.

Naturally, of course, none of these assclowns ever read a history of the Gilded Age, which only government interference was able to put a stop to.