I just had an interesting thought.
What if the near future will be increasingly about cooperation and sustainability and the wall street myth of eternal growth crashes and burns leaving oligarchs to focus on holding market share like the used to do?
What if the GOP is an artifact on life support utterly maladapted to the shifts ahead, the critical inflection points?
What if all the viciousness meted out by the GOP in recent times is the thrashing of a dying thing, like the Whigs in the 1850's?
The tactical blunders now enhancing the abyssal slide might be some clawing to keep a status quo that faces inexorable decline.
Posted by Chris Rich at January 25, 2007 08:44 AMWell even ABC news may be getting the message, but the indefatigable San Francisco Chronicle and its crew of Dem-bashers (aka their "Washington Bureau") still thinks that attacking the Democrats deserves to be at the top of the news.
"GOP in House call Dems heavy-handed
After majority rams through 'Six for '06' bills, Republicans are exasperated and angry
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Thursday, January 25, 2007"
Four days ago I wrote that continued unified support of Bush from the Republican party and its base made absolutely no sense: rational political actors, always primarily attuned to self-preservation, should never commit political suicide.
Your underlying assumption, that the GOP is filled with rational actors, is completely whacked. (but you knew that) I think the better theory model is prospect theory, even though the actors within the GOP believe they all operate under a sense of Realism. The perceptions of the actors are skewed, and when their actions result in the unforseen consequences (to them), they panic and dig in. Therefore - enforced unity, aggressive & slanderous rhetoric against an opposoition, and lastly loyalty oaths before the inferno breaks out - are probably predictable outcomes.
Of course, the ones to break first are the ones with some brains that are still operating within some modicum of Realism. Brownback and Hagel arerunning for president, and Snowe and Specter damn well know who their constituents are.
. . decision making is constrained by formed opinions and tendencies to overreact in crises, that decisions tend to be made based on the perceived choices to fulfill objectives, and that for policymakers, a crucial consideration in taking risks is the perceived prospects for avoiding losses and realizing big gains.Posted by idiosynchronic at January 25, 2007 08:54 AM. . Given this mentality, decision makers are likely to "frame" or construct, a definition of the boundaries of the options for a given choice. They accept risk by reconsidering on the basis of hindsight the accumulating costs of previous decisions. At the same time they are eagerly and recklessly prone to taking big risks when gambling to achieve future gains.
. . Policymakers cling to failed policies long after their deficiencies have become apparent. This may account for leaders' reluctance to make and implement corrective policy decisions for fear of public criticism (Bostdorff 1993).
~ Charles W. Kegley, Jr., World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 2007, p72-3.All that said - Bring on the marshmellows!
I watched the mark-up of the 'will have little effect' non-binding Hagel, Biden, Dodd, 'we disagree with the Prez's troop surge' bill.
It was hillarious. Never, ever, ever were the puke mark-ups this fair and open and loose. Never were the puke mark-ups on any bills as inclusive of the Dems as the Dems were for the Pukes.
The debate and dialogue was fabulous. Everyone had an opportunity to say everything that they wanted to get off their chest.
Do these assholes really think that the people are not watching?
There are more people paying attention to the SPAN than they will ever comprehend. The Pukes really enjoyed an oblivious public who only rec'd their information from Faux news and took it in with the spin that it was presented with.
No more.
The people are leading and the politicians are following - as it should be.
The hillarious aspect of the hearing was the grandstanding of the Republican Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee with their long speeches of how they are going to keep the WH in check...however, their grandstanding meant less than nothing when every single one of the dumb-asses, except Hagel (who was truly brilliant, I might add) voted "no" on the bill.
WTF. They can't even put their names on a non-binding fucking resolution. They are stupid and I agree with you Paradox, imploding.
The Dems will get us out of Iraq and they will fix the fuck ups of the last six years. It will take a very long time, but they will fix it.
It will be as it was before - when Reagan tripled the National Debt - it was the Dems who cleaned it up.
Now that GW has quadrupled (or more) the National debt and borrowed more money from foreign sources than all previous 42 presidents combined - it will be the Dems who clean it up.
I miss all of you and apologize that life has taken control of me and I have just not had the time to hang around.
I am going to blog-whore though, since I have little time to do anything else...
I miss you guys.
Anjha
Posted by Anjha at January 25, 2007 08:55 AMThe psychopaths that are killing Americans that I worry about the most are the ones in the White House. You can't see Cheney's interview with Wolf Blitzer and come away thinking that man is right in the head.
So I share the question, what is the Democratic Congress going to do about it?
Posted by biggerbox at January 25, 2007 09:11 AMAs despicably repulsive as the Bush/Cheney administration is, another nail in the GOP coffin is the general impression and example offered by the dwindling assortment of everyday authoritarian cranks, social scolds and corporate ballwashers still pledging fealty to Total Dick, Fredo and the other jackasses who piloted America onto the rocks. The lady next door, the guy at work and the man from church, synagogue or temple who display the best minds of the 19th century will be the GOP's new emblem throughout America.
The GOP's day in the sun is over...for good. If corporate America wants to resurrect their "project", it must be via the DemocratIC Party and on the terms of Democrats. And the masters of the universe are going to have to mind their manners.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at January 25, 2007 09:11 AMrats fleeing ships will be a popular topic. it is hoped that the next president will be one that was against the crap from day one
Posted by oldtree at January 25, 2007 09:19 AMgood to hear from you, Anjha. i am often heartened by listening to callers on the SPAN. for every half-informed crank, there are 2 or 3 extremely well-informed cranks. i was watching when cher called in anonymously (the host dragged her identity out of her) -- i now love cher, except her music.
Posted by benjoya at January 25, 2007 09:35 AMI feel the same way about Melissa Etheridge, benjoya.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 25, 2007 09:42 AMChris Rich--you're on to something. Elaborate, please.
Posted by Danton at January 25, 2007 09:44 AMGrand Old Party Implosion.
Marvelous.
May we call them GOPIs [Grand Old Party Imploders] from now on?
Or "guppies" for short.
Posted by clio at January 25, 2007 09:54 AMOK, I'm going to throw a big, wet blanket on this admittedly fun topic.
Hagel, at long last appears to have stopped drinking the kool aid. In fact, lately he has been astonishingly articulate and forceful in his denunciation of the current efforts of the white house. Contrast this to Hillary. Picture if you will Hagel grabbing the GOP nomination vs. Hillary in 2008, and do you still think we'll wipe the floor w/the Pugs? My fear is that Hagel, or someone like him, will outflank us on Iraq.
Posted by weinerdog43 at January 25, 2007 10:18 AMWell I spend a lot of time trying to prepare for the post oil world that is inevitable.
There are cycles to human affairs and we've been through a long ugly cycle that encourages bare knuckle competition as some universal good and the flag bearers for this lean meanness tend to be GOP.
Much of their success derives from relentless adherence to this ethos with impressive discipline.
But how will they drop everything they know when it no longer works?
I think McLuhan said, "If your only tool is a hammer, you'll try to solve every problem with a nail" or 'Stick to your shtick and you're stuck with your shtick'.
Of course the hammer quote has new comic resonance considering the fate of DeLay.
The dems frequently hamstring themselves trying to fit a broad and often bickering constituency base under a big tent, but it at least gives them lots of practice at the sort of negotiation and cooperation that will be essential to make a sustainable world.
I think the GOP senses this doom on the horizon and they are just using every possible stupid pet trick to stave it off like when gramps wastes money on quack cures in the hope that one might actually kill the tumor.
Posted by Chris Rich at January 25, 2007 10:26 AMWhat if the GOP is an artifact on life support utterly maladapted to the shifts ahead, the critical inflection points?
Sounds like McCain at the SOTU.
Posted by ann at January 25, 2007 11:17 AMHagel, at long last appears to have stopped drinking the kool aid. In fact, lately he has been astonishingly articulate and forceful in his denunciation of the current efforts of the white house. Contrast this to Hillary. Picture if you will Hagel grabbing the GOP nomination vs. Hillary in 2008, and do you still think we'll wipe the floor w/the Pugs? My fear is that Hagel, or someone like him, will outflank us on Iraq.
Damn good observation. Johnathan Alter made a convincing argument for Hagel just last week.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 25, 2007 12:19 PMThe columnist Robert Scheer who begin his career as an anti-Vietnam candidate has also plumped for Hagel. He would be very dangerous to any weaselly Dem, though I doubt the Repubs would nominate him. They'd rather crash and burn.
My criteria for a president is poorly met by anyone in either party: who, when the US is hit with another terrorist attack, will respond with law enforcement and international diplomacy, rather than by heaving munitions around?
Posted by janinsanfran at January 25, 2007 01:33 PMon the day when the Afghani government refuses to kill off their countries poppy crop, Bush asks for 10 billion more to prop up their drug producing govt. Which Dem wants to be the first to say, quit suppling the world with heroin, and then we'll talk financial aid. It is appalling for the United States to underwrite heroin producing nations. If Bush is serious about fighting terror, he'd just order our planes to poison the crops, since the Taliban make money off the dope.
Posted by T2 at January 25, 2007 02:08 PMAnjha, hey, miss you posting. Hope your health is okay and you are doing well.
You too Ann. Haven't heard much from you either. How is that Republican brother of your's doing these days? Mine is taking his frustrations out on me. LOL
Posted by Judith at January 25, 2007 05:28 PMWhat about Iran?
The President's "strategery" for Iraq is not the escalation. It's war with Iran. And Iran will become the "reason" why we can't win in Iraq.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01172007.html
The question is: why is Bush, who is confronted with failure in Iraq, willing to compound his problems by attacking a more powerful Muslim state that the US has no prospect of being able to occupy?A former member of the National Security Council gave me a possible answer. Bush can bury his defeat in Iraq with a “victory” in Iran.
Here is the victory scenario: Bush and Cheney will claim that their air attack on Iran succeeded in destroying Iran’s (non-existent) nuclear weapons program. The victory claimed by the Bush Regime and the propagandistic US media will “make America safe from nuclear attack.” This will restore Bush’s popularity and move the US back to a 50-50 political split in time for Karl Rove to steal the 2008 election with the fraudulent electronic voting machines built and programmed by Republican operatives.
Some left-wing nut? No. It's "Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com"
Think Bush is going to go home without his chips after he's already lost the house and the car and the kid's college fund gambling at roulette?
"C'mon! Lucky Seven! C'mon lucky seven. One more time!"
Posted by Cugel at January 26, 2007 10:03 AM