January 30, 2008


The Stupid Party and the Evil Party (Dinesh D'Souza, 1/30/08, AOL: News)

My mom, who lives in Mumbai, India, has trouble understanding American politics. Recently she asked me to give her a brief summary of what's going on.

I explained, "There are two parties in American politics. There is a stupid party and there is an evil party." [...]

I was kidding, of course, but the humor arises out of the element of truth in this description. Consider the charge of stupidity. Would the Republican Party be in the confused state it is now if Bush had appointed a vice president who was electable and actually sought the nomination?

I'm not saying Bush shouldn't have appointed Cheney the first time around. Cheney inspires irrational and paranoid loathing on the left--he's Darth Vader for the Michael Moore set--and this alone was good reason to keep him reasonably close to the Oval Office, not to mention the nuclear arsenal.

But when Bush ran for re-election, he should have sent Cheney packing. Then the GOP would have an heir apparent who would have an inside track to the nomination and who could claim up-close experience in the responsibilities of governance. If Bush had done this, he would have shown both foresight and concern about the future of the GOP.

Now let's turn to the evil party. What other term is appropriate to describe a party where Ted Kennedy's endorsement is actually counted as a positive?

It is the belief in Evil that makes conservatives--indeed, Americans--Stupid, not the doing of dumb things. Just as it is the lack of faith that makes our betters Bright, though literally unAmerican.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 30, 2008 6:24 AM

It is better that their wasn't an 'heir-apparent' in the VP slot. The current hullaballoo needed to be done, the GOP internal coalition needs to be shaken up. Too many groups were beginning to think that they were the sole base of the party and that everything ought to revolve around their desires. The fight will reset the pecking order and about time.

Note to those who are vowing never to vote GOP if McCain is the nominee: if you do that what makes you think the GOP is going to let you near a lever of power again? Summer soldiers aren't well-respected.

Posted by: Mikey [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 30, 2008 12:42 PM

An electable VP will bear Bush's baggages, including voters' desire for change. Don't forget, Bush I was the only VP promoted by the voters since Harry Truman.

Posted by: ic at January 30, 2008 1:09 PM

"Summer soldiers"

Well said Mikey.

Posted by: Bartman at January 30, 2008 2:04 PM


Just a little reminder: Those who are pushing the "stay home" or "3rd party" meme are also pining for good TV ratings or website hits with a Hillary in office.

Having said that, yes, there will be changes in the GOP/conservative hierarchy. I'd expect some of the anti-immigration nativists to be treated like Stormfront members, for example.

Posted by: Brad S at January 30, 2008 2:33 PM

Actually, ic -wouldn't Bush I be the first since Martin Van Buren? IIRC every other VP that got voted in had taken over a part of a term after death or resignation of the elected president.

Posted by: Mikey [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 30, 2008 3:57 PM

Correct, Mikey -- GWHB was the first VP to succeed to the Presidency by election since Van Buren.

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 30, 2008 4:35 PM

Mikey: Yes and no about that GOP coalition. Those "too many groups" make a bargain with one another for support of each group's domnain of greatest interest. It's "I'll support your tax cuts, if you support my RKBA," of "I'll support your live babies if you support my robust foreign policy."

The system breaks down this or that constituent group tries to act like the "vanguard," thinking that they can take their coalition-mates where they do not wish to go with respect to their own area of greatest concern.

That's why the Huckabee dog wouldn't hunt. The right to life is important to one kind of Republican and low taxes are important to another. The coalition cannot be kept together by a pro-life tax-and-spend type.

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 30, 2008 6:14 PM