Tuesday, May 05, 2009

A Rainy Day for Conservatives

In my column this week, I solemnly deliver a Conservative eulogy.

If you have something to say about it, Scene's new webpage has a user-friendly comment section and you can comment on the article directly (via the above link), or you may tell me off here, or feel free to email my editor Frank Lewis at flewisATclevesceneDOTcom.

Now then, as promised in the article, here are the links to the quotes therein:

Oldandevil2 musing on Obama supporters.

Velociman musing on Obama's inauguration.

And Dan O, who just pines for the end.

* * *


Hal said...

Don't let Palin, Jindal, or any GOP leaders out of your sight, even if the ship is completely submerged.

If the economy (namely unemployment) doesn't significantly improve by 2010, the GOP could very well resusitate itself. Ratings for the Limbaughs and Hannity's have spiked, as have those for Fox News, and all three are making stuff up about Obama almost every day, and their audience is eating right out of their hands.

Plus, Palin is an especially opportunistic piece of work who is still loved by the Republican base, in spite of her liabilitie, and she could emerge as a front runner in '12. A country that elected Nixon twice and Bush twice could easily elected a Palin.


So yeah, enjoy the GOP crazy train while it lasts, but let's not get overconfident.

Earl Tesch said...

Not particularly politically inclined, but never at a loss for commentary...I will sing a little.

...the Cuervo Gold, the fine Columbian
Makes tonight a wonderful thiiiing..

Erin O'Brien said...

I know, Hal, but after EIGHT YEARS of darkness, we're entitled to a bit of gloating.

Earl, a wonderful thing for the narrator but Ms. Nineteen was probably guzzling the Cuervo in order to deal with his wrinkly member.

Tony said...

Now that the eulogy has been delivered how can we be sure the body will be buried? More of this kind of writing might do the trick.

hoosierboy said...

Erin, please do not confuse the GOP and the Conservative movement. The GOP has not been conservative for a long time, and I could make a case they lost because they are trying to be Democrats-lite. Why go for an imitation when you can have the real thing.

A Battleground poll taken a few short months ago (and Battleground is considered pretty bipartisan since it is funded by both Democrats and Republicans) found that 60% of Americans consider themselves conservative!
These results remain steady since 2002, when the poll began.

You can toll for the GOP, but there was a mandate for change from the Bush Presidency.

Anonymous said...

In the latest attempt at CPR Bristol Palin was unleashed on the unsuspecting electorate with an anti-fucking campaign this morning, summarized nicely here: http://cajunboyinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/05/bristol-palin-on-fucking-it-will-ruin.html.

I'm guessing the poll numbers will shoot right off the charts.


Erin O'Brien said...

Thanks, Tony.

Hoose, Lasky is a neoconservative and so is his publication. Even so, the article you site is from August 2008. Quite a bit has happened since then, including the financial collapse. When Gallup (or some other nationally credited poll) tells me this country is 60% conservative, then I'll believe it.

That said, you bring up a good point. The only party with any power the "conservatives" can turn to right now is the GOP, which they're not so happy with.

Will a neo-con party emerge? Perhaps. But right now, they're part of the big-tent right whether they like it or not.

RJ: This is exactly what I'm talking about. The righties just don't understand. They just don't get it. Here, I'll help them out:

HEY GOP/CONSERVATIVES/NEOCONS: Get Bristol Palin as far away from the media as you can. It is bad for you all the way around and it will only keep getting worse. Trust me!

Think they heard?

Kirk Jusko said...

Move over, Maureen Dowd, Erin O'Brien's back in town!

OK, now that I've got that out of my system, a few thoughts.

Hal basically said what I wanted to say about the prospects of a Republican comeback. As for your own comeback, "eight years of darkness", I would argue it's closer to 27 (the Clinton Era a night light at best.)

As for John McCain identifying with Teddy Roosevelt, does he realize that after TR bolted from the Republican Party in 1912, he ran as a PROGRESSIVE (Bull Moose was just a nickname)?

You mentioned Norman Rockwell in your opening paragraph. I read somewhere that Rockwell was a lifelong liberal who once even voted for Socialist Norman Thomas! (maybe he was attracted the first name.)

Kirk Jusko said...

That last sentence should read: maybe he was attracted TO the first name.

The Cuyahoga County Public Library system cut me off before I had a chance to proofread.

Erin O'Brien said...

Hi Kirk,

Thanks for the tidbits. As for being compared to Dowd, oh to only aspire to such heights!

Anonymous said...

well thanks for the links, and like Hoosier I don' count myself as a Republican or Democrat. I am not sure I am a die hard conservative on every issue. In fact I am not real crazy about labels of any kind.

James Old Guy

Erin O'Brien said...

You are very welcome, Mr. Smith.

jonas said...

As soon as you convince yourself that one side, position, party, or label has all the right answers (or, hell, even most of them), you're all ready headed down a path of eventual disappointment, and hopefully disillusionment.

Erin O'Brien said...

I've never said I was convinced of that Jonas nor am I.

kim said...


I would stand by my comments, except for the fact that Obama is even more fascistic, nationalizing, socialist, and thuggish than I ever imagined. He's not even pretending to operate within the rule of law.

Although I'm sure you consider those traits features, not flaws. I know you folks like to compare Obama to FDR, but the only president he reminds me of is Richard Nixon.

jonas said...

I know. The "you" there wasn't YOU. Its more of an "US/WE".

Anonymous said...


Being a winner, you're entitled to gloat. However, a "eulogy" may be a tad premature. During my lifetime, this is the 4th time the GOP has been written off and left for dead:

1964 - and Nixon won in '68
1974 / 1976 - and Reagan won in '80
1992 - and GOP won Congress in '94

Frankly, the GOP was in much worse shape in the post-Watergate era than it is now. It really takes 2 to 4 years of the Democrats running everything to put the Republicans back in charge.

And just out of curiosity...would you really be pleased with the entire country under one party rule so the everywhere can be like Cleveland and Cuyahoga County?

philbilly said...

"It really takes 2 to 4 years of the Democrats running everything to put the Republicans back in charge."

By God, you've got it now.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

"I know, Hal, but after EIGHT YEARS of darkness, we're entitled to a bit of gloating."

Entitled? Let me guess ...

Similar to "entitlements" like welfare, right?

Years of Darkness? In the last eight years, our country has not suffered a single terrorist attack. That's darkness? Not to me. Say what you want about Bush and company, but we've not experienced a single terrorist attack on our soil since then. They were doing something right.

Gloating? Let me see if I got it right .. you're gloating because a party who eschews a point of view 180 degrees out from yours is experiencing some trying times. Oh, and the Dems are the majority in the congress and (maybe) the Senate.

Have I got it about right?

What this means is that we may have one party rule (if Al "Stuart Smalley" Franken is seated, that is). That, in any other country is called a dictatorship. I'm not saying that this is what we indeed have, but when the congress and senate are both ruled by a majority of the same party, we're not far from it in fact.

My guess is the gloating is due to a belief that a liberal agenda is about to be foisted upon us. So be it. In four years, we have a choice to make, as we will with midterm elections. President Obama is taking a huge risk - his policies, such as they are may or may not work as far as our economy is concerned, not to mention our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. If they work, he's a hero. If they don't, he's a zero. My take is he'll be a zero, but time will tell. If he succeeds, he'll be one of our best presidents, and for good reason. I'm not confident he will be, but we'll see.


Erin O'Brien said...

Kim: Show me links. Give me specific, verifiable details of of your allegations. Until you do, it's just more fist-swinging.

Okay, Jonas.

Anon: I am not for one-party rule, never said I was.

Hi Phil.

Al: Oh really? Bush's team didn't protect anybody from Katrina. And he had days of warning before her arrival.

Also by your way of thinking, Bill Clinton kept the country safe from a terror attack for eight years as well. There were terror cells at work during his terms.

And another thing to everyone shouting about dictatorship and one-party rule, one thing in which the left is 100 percent faultless is the problems within the GOP and conservative camps.

hoosierboy said...

"Oh really? Bush's team didn't protect anybody from Katrina. And he had days of warning before her arrival."

Seriously Erin? And just what did the Mayor and the Governor do to protect their LOCAL communities? How could a President protect anyone from a natural disaster? How can a President force people to take individual accountability?

Ask more pertinent questions like why did the people stay? Why didn't the Mayor use the hundreds of school buses to take people to safety? Where was the Governor in the aftermath? Why didn't she mobilize aid in the days before?

Blaming Bush for the idiocy in NO is like blaming Obama for the deaths in Kentucky following the ice storms.

Did FEMA react like it should have -- no, but let us put the blame where it belongs. How is it that Mississippi, which was hit HARDER by Katrina seems to have come out of it OK, while NO is still pleading for money?

I have no problem with differing positions, we can all learn something. But this is plain unhinged, BDS. I expect such nonsense from the DU, not here.

To paraphrase Jonas above, anytime we fail to see our elected officials have flaws we are nothing but blind sheep. Do you know what happens to sheep? Read some Orwell.

jonas said...

Here's the thing: if the fate of our country were left to an intellectual horse race between Bush II and Obama, life would be much different. And despite rhetoric that wants to essentialize out current political to such a scenario, it just aint the case. We also elect Congress people, mayors, city councilors, etc. Our gov't--both local and federal--doesn't allow for ONE person to be all that important. We would do better to think in slightly more complex terms.

Erin, as much I'd rather not point this out, you're overlooking two significant Clinton-era events: 1) the FIRST World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (yes, Feb...so he hadn't been there long) and 2) the Oklahoma City bombing...a most definite terrorist act. Just saying, Clinton doesn't get to dodge this issue.

Anyway...its been 100 frickin' days. Why don't we just sit back and let the guy do his GD job?? Bitching won't exactly get him unelected. While people are making sure their knowing disapproval is heard well ahead of time (for the invariable "I told you so), seems to me ever-so-slightly unpatriotic to continually bash the Head Honcho just because you disagree with him on some things.

Is the country going to be better off in four years if we spend it hating on the Obama admin's every move? Cuz you know what? The more difficulty the government has now in trying to get things done, the harder it makes it for whoever's in charge in 4 years. Keep that in mind.

Erin O'Brien said...

Hoose, I agree that plenty went wrong with Katrina on all levels of gov. and no I don't blame any public official for an act of God, but the reactions of Bush and Brownie and FEMA were unconscionable. What if those levees had been destroyed by a terrorists bomb with no warning?

The Katrina debacle is widely recognized as Bush's most disastrous debacle. Here's a short Washington Post article from Jan. 15, 2009 that addresses this. There's a link therein for the 379-page House committee report on Katrina dubbed "A Failure of Initiative" for your reference.

Erin O'Brien said...

Mea culpa on the attacks, Jonas.

And folks? My article wasn't about Obama. It was about the Right Wing. Isn't it funny that I've yet to hear one solid argument against the specifics I've put forth therein?

Erin O'Brien said...

But really, Jonas, I was sort of goofing on the kudos of "Bush kept the country safe."

You could say Clinton kept the country safe from a second WTC bombing and Bush didn't.

Know what I mean? You can't prove a negative and therefore, I find the argument just silly.

garrett said...

Hi Erin!

Here's a comment on your column specifically.

Delivered with love:

... "from whence" is redundant.


Other stuff ...

... Ron Paul is a "nontraditional" Republican in a broad sense.

Support for his message (peace and liberty rooted in Constitutional conservatism) continues to grow. Including (perhaps especially) among the young (this is intended as a refutation of your "senior citizen" point).

I still don't remember you ever responding to any of my various comments and questions whether studied what Dr. Paul and the "conservatives" in the libertarian camp have to say.

Did you (and did I miss it)?

If you didn't, will you?

If you haven't and if you won't, then at least on this issue, you're taking the easy way out. Which is perfectly understandable, but I'm not going to let you off the hook!

What I mean is ... you do a tolerable job knocking around the "mainstream" GOP folks, but they're easy targets, inasmuch as they appear to be devoid of integrity and to have positions based on whatever is politically expedient rather than principle.

... in a similar vein, I think it's inappropriate and intellectually dishonest to conflate the GOP and conservatism.

They are not the same, and I'm sure you know it, and I'm sure you don't need a link to some website about it.

The GOP is a disaster, but the reason they're a disaster is not because they're conservative, the reason they're a disaster is because they claim to be conservative but they are not.

Conservatism is about government leaving people alone to live their lives. The GOP is not about that at all.

The GOP loves the government just as much as the Democrats [1]. They just have a different group of clients to pay off when/if they can. The GOP crowd prefers to use the government to fight wars and promote the business interests of their favored clients (think military-industrial complex).

The Democrats, on the other hand, prefer to use the government as a device to "level" perceived inequalities and to promote as well as the business interests of their favored clients (think labor unions and "greens").

Both parties do this at the expense of the consumer/the ordinary citizen. And both parties lie about it (neither party is honest about who bears the costs of their policies/preferment).

[1] My use of "Democrats" is intended to refer to Obama and the sort of mainstream "liberals"; I don't know enough about fringe groups to comment on them and they don't have enough power to be relevant for the point I'm trying to make)

jonas said...

Erin, yes...I know what you mean. You know I have no more love of the dogmatic right than the left. Dogmatic thinking is, in short, stupid. All sides claim the correctness of their own cause. They have to: if they didn't, there would be no sides. A bit tautological, I know...

I'll offer this pieces of advice to those who believe themselves conservatives (if not Republicans): if you got a better story than the one being given by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and the rest of those a-holes, lets hear it!! But remember, even they say the Republican party isn't doing what it should. So, what IS the real "conservative" position that matters? Where is this silent majority? Sitting back and saying "well, Bush isnt a real conservative" or "the Rep. party isnt really a conservative party" don't count as excuses anymore. Cuz unless you voted for someone other then Bush et al., they're the only way we know you're out there. THEY represent you. For better---or much, much worse. So, either start a new party, reclaim this one, or accept having supported the party that has, historically speaking, done us far more harm than good in the last 8 years. Claiming a safeguard from terrorism is a red herring (if I may so badly apply that antiquated term): the economy and our world standing have far greater and long lasting importance. Not to sound crass, but if a few hundred or even thousand more people died from an attack in the US, do you think that compares (historically) to what might happen if our economy really doesnt recover? Do you think it compares to having massively reduced international credibility? It doesn't Don't get me wrong: I'm certainly not advocating anything terrible. But, we live in a sort of safety bubble here in the US, compared to you know.....everywhere else. Erin's right, none of us know (maybe Al Trag aside) how "safe" any president has made us. Most of that will never be made public. What we have in the meantime is the historical realities of the last 3 centuries of American history. And in those terms, the last 8 years have been, you know, suboptimal.

Erin O'Brien said...

Garrett, I have no intention of investigating Mr. Paul. He will have to get my attention.

And Jonas, I found your last comment to be absolutely dead on.

hoosierboy said...

Get a grip. 7 of the last 8 years were pretty damn good economically.

Things are not as bad as we like to pretend right now. Unemployment was higher at the end of the Carter years. In addition we had runaway inflation. Chrysler was broke and AMC went under. Deja Vu, baby.

The stock market crash and housing bubble burst can be traced to CONGRESS. If you want to place blame, the economy started to tank when the Dems took over Congress. Republican and Democrat spend spend spend attitudes are what is bankrupting the country. I do believe we are seeing nothing more than an economic cycle that has been repeated many times in our history. There are factors that are exacerbating the situation. The panics of the 1870s and 1893 were much worse, to say nothing of the Great Depression. There is no evidence we should abandon the free enterprise system for another, since history has shown no other system works.

Hyperbole gets us nowhere.

The GOP may be dead, but there are a lot of people that espouse cobservatism as a core belief. The polls I mentioned above show the number has remained steady for the past 7 years. And more Americans claim to be conservative than liberal. Erin, I am not convinced that this all changed in 1 month or two as you suggest. In fact, I believe more people are concerned about the role of government in recent weeks and months as they see the Feds creep into the banking, insurance and automobile manufacturing business.

As I said, you can call the GOP dead, but conservatism is alive and growing stronger every day. The more The Democrats push a leftist agenda the more likely the conservatives regain power. See Johnson, Carter, and Clinton for historical examples. Governing to the left is as big a disaster as governiong from the far right. Both get you voted out pronto.

jonas said...

"Get a grip. 7 of the last 8 years were pretty damn good economically."

Compared to what, and for whom? They were for the people who then screwed the pooch and left us all ALOT less secure. Put it this way, the economic effects of those 7 years are going to be with us in a negative way FAR longer than in a positive. I'm not sure how you can see it differently, but if so, I'm all ears....or, eyes, in this case.

Can you do us/me a favor? Define this: "but conservatism is alive and growing stronger every day." What is "conservatism" in your view? It would really help if we all would start using actual definitions and meanings, rather than vague labels. I have a distinct feeling that "conservatism" is a moving target, and what you mean might not be what other people mean. Are we talking economic? Social? Whats? So, for the sake of a more evolved conversation, give us your take, would you? It would be really helpful.

Now, my previous statement had nothing to do getting rid of with free enterprise. But even Adam Smith advocated the need for regulation (see Patrica Werhane's
Adam Smith and His Legacy for Modern Capitalism"). Hell even Greenspan realized Smith's "invisible hand" needs some tweaking. The massive deregulation of the last decade made alot of people rich. Great. Also screwed us in the much longer term. Not alot of economic justification for that, sorry.

garrett said...

Thanks for the honest (albeit extremely disappointing) response, Erin.

hoosierboy said...

Jonas, I am not the one who claims conservatism is dead, now am I? Maybe all of you who think so should define it instead.

I guess you read the first paragraph and skipped the rest, huh? Maybe I should have typed slower so it is not so hard to understand. You cannot blame a single President or give him credit for success. For instance, the boom of the early Clinton years can be traced back to the policies of Reagan. I guess a civics lesson is in order, only CONGRESS can pass legislation (no matter how much some want the courts to do it). They control spending etc. So if you have issues with what happened to the economy in the past two years, blame CONGRESS. The Stock Market had unprecedented growth previous to that. Many many people saw their 401K and personal wealth grow. To claim otherwise just paints you as the idealogue you pretend to despise.

Erin O'Brien said...

That's exactly the righties' problem. They have no leadership, no message, and no cohesion. And no thanks, I already done 'em a favor with my nifty list. They've got to solve their problems themselves.

Hoose, I'm sorry I don't put much credence in the poll you cited and I won't repeat why, but you still haven't changed my mind.

Cry Fannie and Freddie all you want, but this mess is borne hugely from the loins of deregulation, insane over-leveraging and those darling credit default swaps.

Oh, and the 2004 capital net rule change that led to unprecedented leveraging was a backdoor deal courtesy of Cox and a shitload of billionaire bankers. It never went before Congress.

Erin O'Brien said...

Hoose, I do understand that there are a lot of people who do not commit to one party or another and that some of these call themselves conservatives.

If what you say is true and the conservatives outnumber the liberals, please explain this to me.

jonas said...

Dude. "type slower"? Really? You wanna go there?

I didnt say anything about the GOP, did I? Maybe you should read more carefully. I'm asking YOU, one who defends a "conservative" position to actually define that position. Pointing and laying blame is easy.

Yes, the Market did grow. And then what? Why is it you leave off the rest of the story? You going to blame non-conservatives for corporate greed and lack of oversight?

Many people saw their 401Ks grow. Yup. And now "many people" have lost it. So you know, all for naught...

jonas said...

Oh, and it appears those who might be grouped together as generally defined "socially conservative" (you know, so we actually define a term around here) also approve of the crazy commie Prez:


jonas said...

The link didn't take...


hoosierboy said...

"7 of the last 8 years were pretty damn good economically."

Compared to what, and for whom?"

Gee Jonas you asked I answered.

Are you guys really so dense as to think job approval equals death to an idealogy? If so, I guess we could have claimed the Liberal wing was dead in 2001, since Bush had higher approval ratings than Obama after 100 days. Politics go around. Once again, see Johnson, see Carter, see Clinton.

Time will tell.

Erin, you can disregard the poll all you like. But the battleground polls are highly regarded in politiical cirlces (by both sides). Do some research.

You can say things have changed, but I explained why I think you are wrong, and we will have to agree to disagree for now.

Erin O'Brien said...

Okay, some research on the Battleground Poll. Seems they weren't doing so good at estimating the younger Americans.

In that poll, they had McCain as the frontrunner for the 2008 election. Guess they were, um, sorta wrong?

jonas said...


Let's do a little though experiment here. Since you're clearly in possession of better facts and clearer sense of history, I'm curious as to your thoughts on the following: shits and grins, Bush got a third term. Since the 1st 7 years were so rosy, what would his admin. be doing right now to undo the economic shitpile that suddenly appeared? What would the right/GOP/call it whatever have been doing differently? Give us some sense of how the party you presumably voted for would be running things now. If you didn't for them, sorry you wasted a vote on a 3rd party.

Yes yes, all the variables have changed. But Bush left AFTER the crisis started...it certainly didn't start in Jan. No bailout(except the one started before Jan...)? More tax cuts? Seriously, how would they have approached it differently, and what differences would that have made?

Regarding polling: what should we have learned from McCains fairly resounding defeat? 53/46%, 28 vs 22 states, 365 vs 173 electoral votes, 10M more popular votes. Like him or hate him, McCain was the "conservative" candidate, and he got more or less crushed. Where's this swing to the right you're talking about? It wasn't close. While you might have a different "right" than McCain/Bush, once again...they represent the right in this country. If there's some other conservative movement we should know about, let's hear it. Aside from Ron Paul. If this silent majority of yours is out there...shouldnt McCain have won?

Erin O'Brien said...

By the way, hoose, I really appreciate you coming around all us lefties and making this a great discussion. It takes balls to be the dissenting voice.


Here is what I just found, I went to the Battleground poll website and downloaded the 8/20/08 "Questionnaire with Percentages." On page 16 of that document, you will find the "conservative" weighting found in the "American Thinker" article. You will also find that SEVENTY SIX PERCENT of the questionnaire participants were over the age of 45.

So, yeah, I've got some real problems with the poll.

jonas said...

Research can be found here:

AAPORAAPOR is the organization keeping an eye on these things.

Erin O'Brien said...

Of the exact same poll referenced above--the one "American Thinker" quotes--the following could also be said:

42% of Americans polled lean Democrat while 41% lean Republican (page 17)


46% of Americans polled usually vote Democrat, the same number applies to those who usually vote Republican (page 17)

You won't find those numbers in Mr. Walker's article. That's because he is biased. He is cherry-picking. That's why I'm such a snob about what I link.

As I first suspected, American Thinker is tripe. The research shows it.

Now I suggest you download that poll and take a good look at the numbers. They do not support your argument, Hoose. I'm sorry, but you go on and prove me wrong.

kid said...

Hey Erin wot's up. If I knew you had a blog I would have been here much sooner.OT have you noticed some people that have been connected with Cleveland are now heavy hitters with the GOP.Bill Sammon runs FOX Newsroom and Phil Kerpen works at FOX and a top conservative publication.As you know Bill spread the ACORN rigged the election Bull and Phil invented the terms Porkalus, Spendalus, and Usurper.Their talking points.Again love your articles.

Anonymous said...

"Anon: I am not for one-party rule, never said I was."

Let's test this. Erin, which are you OK with:

A Republican President?
A Republican House of Representatives?
Enough GOP Senators to block Democratic legislation?

If the answer is 'no' to all of those...well, you get the picture: It's one party rule.

kid said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon: I am not for one-party rule, never said I was."

Let's test this. Erin, which are you OK with:

A Republican President?
A Republican House of Representatives?
Enough GOP Senators to block Democratic legislation?

If the answer is 'no' to all of those...well, you get the picture: It's one party rule.
Well now it's the Democrats turn.We had eight years of fascism. All bush had to do was his job. If Rush and the rest of the RepubliKlan party keep it up, there will be no party left.I hope they host more tea baggin' parties .

hoosierboy said...

Ok Jonas, I will take your challenge. I would just wiggle my nose like Samantha Stevens and all would be fixed.

Why not since we are dealing with fantasy world? What if and maybe is not productive, whether we are dealing with the past or the future.

Erin O'Brien said...

Hi Kid. Thanks and welcome.

Anon, how could anyone be against any of those things? I find your question nonsensical. Ask me about specific issues and people.

In the meantime, here's what I'm I'm for and against.

hoosierboy said...

Erin, somehow we are getting off track here. You maintain the Conservative movement is dead. I responded the GOP may be in trouble but there are plenty of conservatives out there. Numbers of certain political parties are irrelevant. No one ever claimed there were not more registered Democrats.

Even if the poll I mentioned is skewed to older voters, there remains a significant number of people who believe they are conservative, so how can the movement be dead? If nothing else, the last election showed at least 45% of Americans lean right on the political spectrum. We are not all bigots voting against the man of color. Political philosophy had to come into play. I maintain if someone besides McCain had run the results might have been different. But that kind of speculation is a waste of time.

My position is one cannot make a proclmation a few months in. Bush I had approval ratings in the 90s at one point. Carter had huge ratings and is now considered as one of the worst Presidents ever.

If you want to discuss political parties (which I still maintain is a separate discussion) the GOP was in far worse shape following Watergate, yet just four years later Reagan was elected in a landslide.

The Dems have control for now. They will get the credit and the blame for the next few years. I maintain when the American People wake up and realize the Democratic Congress just added $25,573 in debt this year alone to each and every one of us, there will be Hell to pay.

Only time will prove one of us wrong.

I will graciously allow the host to have the final word.

Erin O'Brien said...

Hoose, while "eulogy" is in the column's title, you have to understand that I am paid to write sharp evocative articles and I thought the plight of the right was great fodder.

Is the right dead? No, but it sure as hell is sick. They have no leader or solid message. Their contingent is aging and shrinking.

You've been espousing how conservative doesn't mean GOP throughout this thread. Okay, fine. Maybe all of your "conservatives" will start a new party and dump the GOP.

I don't have a crystal ball. Maybe you need to reread my article. Tell me why I'm wrong and why the right is in such a great position for a come back.

The way I see it, Bush and co. screwed us bad and now the entire right is paying for it. You're welcome to come over here and shoot the messenger again and again. I love your comments, but the right's plight ain't my fault, Hoose.

To end, take another look at the last paragraph of my article:

"Political arenas change all the time, and maybe there's someone within that tangle of red faces, white skin and blue blood that can save this sinking ship. In the meantime, please forgive me for enjoying the sound of gurgle, gurgle, gurgle."

Anonymous said...

Looks to me like a scribe could chip-up in this here eulogy business.
I'll have mustard on my burger please.


jonas said...


"What ifs" and "maybes" are productive when you're trying to convince people that another way to go is better then the present one. That's the whole point: bemoaning this great debt that Obama is somehow blamed for doesn't actually include an alternative. Doesn't include a solution. If you're going to play the role of the martyred minority here, at least prodived substance to the position! If the current path we're on isn't the correct one, we'd ALL love to hear more about what is should be. This is about Aristotle's "good life," and if you're not going to bother articulating what that looks like for you (or, for some group), you can't be surprised when you don't get much support. Your sales pitch needs work, man.

I'm not trying to be a dick, by any means. This is about deliberative democracy. We NEED to know what others round us see as ideal...not just what they think is wrong.

Anyway, I'll leave it. I've beaten this well to death.

Marc Mannheimer said...

Hi Erin,

I want to thank you for this article. I always thought of you as a comedian or a comic inspirational writer -- well with words in your columns about home life, and Cleveland, etc. I don't believe I've really ever read a true political column by you. Well done.
A word about old, white people -- I hang out with seniors a bit, and the middle class ones who worked hard all of their lives are about as liberal leaning as anyone you can think of. War? -- get us out of there. Obama? -- yay. Bush? -- Ding dong the witch is dead. Point being an awful lot of senior citizens are cool muthas and as long as they will be around will support the current trends in politics.
One more thing -- those bloggers you quoted need a cookie along with their nap.

Velociman said...


You need links to know that universal health care is a socialist policy? That threatening to ruin the reputation of a secured creditor is fascistic? These are pretty basic facts. And the administration is soaking in them. You don't need links so much as an alibi.

jonas said...

You know who has universal healthcare? The military. And housing. And food. And all sorts of "socialist" stuff.

Anyone arguing they shouldn't?

philbilly said...

I noticed tonight driving home that I am a Conservative.

I believe people's sexuality is their own business, and should be kept to themselves.

Same for my guns.

In an age where children born out of wedlock are cast aside like afterbirth, or the single responsible parent is bludgeoned by the realities of self-induced poverty, I believe that same sex folks that want to be recognized for a commitment that contributes to a peaceful and productive society should have the legal protections of marriage, if they bring the standard of care that union implies to the larger community.

Personally , the thing between a man and woman is a book I can't put down, but that's just me. No one is stopping me from snapping to attention when I hear high heels clicking down a hall, and turn to catch a glimpse of heaven.
BTW, there is a fatwah against women clicking their heels in some fundamentalist locales.

I believe race and ethnicity are camouflage for economic and educational disparities, nothing more, nothing less.

I believe the abiding strength of this country is the heterogeneity of its people, more a petri dish than a melting pot.

I'm guessing these views don't jibe with Ann Limbaugh, so why am I a Conservative?

I drove easily tonight, getting the best mileage I could. I check my tires. I tune my engine. I give bad drivers the finger as I let them pass. I conserve fuel, because I know, indirectly, tangentially, incrementally, American Armed Forces and many others in the world are in harm's way so that I, and you, have unrestricted mobility. It behooves me to treat that gift embodied in my fuel with respect. I conserve, therefore, I am a Conservative.

jonas said...


Nicely put.

Erin O'Brien said...

Velociman: More vague generalities and inarticulate tripe. Whenever you open your mouth, you prove my point further.

gurgle gurgle gurgle

Erin O'Brien said...

And yes, Phil, very nicely put.

Marc, if you're still out there, I did get your comment and it is a point well taken. Thanks for stopping by.