The blame can be squarley blamed on religion. The religious fundamentalists destroyed the Republican party -- it goes way back to Billy Graham's influence over them in the 1960's. A close friend of the Bush's, and Reagan, and Nixon.
Christian fundamentalism on the one side, and outright greed on the other, destroyed the Republican party. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "do.rflex" <do.rf...@...> wrote: > > > Waterloo > > by David Frum <http://www.frumforum.com/davidfrum <http://www.frumforum.com/davidfrum> > > > Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing > legislative defeat since the 1960s. > > It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives > may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today's > expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But: > > (1) It's a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about > November by then the economy will have improved and the immediate > goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs. > > (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is > forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle > now. > > So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the > hard lesson: > > A huge part of the blame for today's disaster attaches to > conservatives and Republicans ourselves. > > At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, > say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, > we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no > compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be > Obama's Waterloo just as healthcare was Clinton's in 1994. > > Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with > 53% of the vote, not Clinton's 42%. The liberal block within the > Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in > 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and > also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure. > > This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none. > > Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap > between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The > Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's > Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage > Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican > counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994. > > Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have > leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative > views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive > enterprise without weighing so heavily on small business > without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law. > > No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans > scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we > muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more > for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind > policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to > banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even > if the votes were there would President Obama sign such a repeal? > > We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and > they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. > > There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But > they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had > whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making > was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to > murder your grandmother? Or more exactly with somebody whom > your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their > grandmother? > > I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our > overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters but by > mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, > overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent > and elected leaders to lead. > > > The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different > imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on > confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted > President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own > interests. > > > What he omitted to say but what is equally true is that he > also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed if they > govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out > of office Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are > less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for > Sleepnumber beds. > > So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is > a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners > and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even > more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on > television and radio. > > > For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to > represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours. > http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo <http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo> > > Cry me a river, David... -jrm >
