Kevin Hollinshead, Staff Writer
Ideology: Liberal | Writing from: Fort Collins, CO
When President Obama gave his Afghanistan troop surge speech two weeks ago, some progressives and pretty much all of the Tea Party crazies agreed that Obama has alienated his base, and has set himself up for defeat in 2012.
Between a divisive, costly war escalation, Joe Lieberman’s self-serving hijacking of the healthcare debate for the benefit of insurance companies, and a lack of Obama administration focus thus far on job creation, it has become fashionable in some circles to presume that Republicans will take back both Congress and the White House.
Fortunately for Mr. Obama and the Democrats, their defeat is far from guaranteed – and they have the GOP, the most vocal prognosticators of future Republican gains, to thank for it.
For every person turned off by President Obama’s policies, there is another that views the hard-right shift by the GOP in an equally negative light. Republicans must be feeling unusually generous toward Democrats this holiday season- just look at all the fodder they’ve given Democrats this year.
The Republican Party is experiencing an intra-party fracture, akin to the Civil Rights-era divisions among Democrats. In one corner, there are establishment Republicans (both conservative and moderate) who at least pretend they care about bipartisanship, and who are not slaves to the whims of the religious right.
In the other, there are the Tea Party rally supporters, who apparently think calling Mr. Obama a Nazi and reading random parts of the Constitution (even though most would fail a pop quiz on its contents) is intelligent protest. Based on the wording of their new talking points, Congressional Republicans have apparently sided with the latter, at least for now.
Then, there is the recent meteoric rise of Glenn “the government is using OnStar to spy on you” Beck. His incoherent chalkboard drawings, tearful fits of paranoia, self-contradicting claims about Obama being a racist, and constant plea for viewers to buy gold, both on his show, and in paid advertisements for Goldline International, help solidify his position as the loudest pundit on Fox Noise.
As if that weren’t enough, there is the Republican National Committee’s new “purity test” to run as a Republican: yet another sign that they’re letting the Tea Partiers dictate the future of the party. It contains the new ten commandments of being a good Republican.
The resolution floating around to adopt the test would require you to support eight of the ten. Support gay rights? That’s one strike against you (one must support the Defense of Marriage Act to be a good Republican). Do you mindlessly oppose and obstruct basically anything with Mr. Obama’s name on it? You’re in luck, as seven of the ten ways to be a good Republican are covered under that umbrella. That means you get to be a maverick in picking the one remaining commandment!
On top of that, the RNC chairman, Michael Steele, may quite possibly be the biggest dork to appear on cable news this year. From proving to be spineless under pressure from Rush Limbaugh and the far-right fringe, to awkward comments during interviews that implicitly said “look at me, I’m black and a conservative! Pretty neat, huh?” it’s no wonder that the Becks and Limbaughs of the world are more influential within the party than the chairman himself, and that the public doesn’t take him too seriously.
This is not to mention the “family values” Republicans busted for juicy tales of infidelity and ethical misfires- common occurrences since the birth of the “moral majority.” This year’s list of shame includes South Carolina governor Mark Sanford (though his conduct may be sufficient for its own, more bizarre list), and Senator John Ensign from Nevada.
Then there are the Teabaggers, a movement already fracturing from within. Because the group is defined by significant disconnect from reality (in their world, Medicare and socialized medicine are two completely different things), angry flair, amusing—and occasionally offensive—artwork, countless spelling errors on signs, little substance in content and a lack of a coherent message beyond paranoia-driven fear of the government’s new black/socialist/communist/Nazi/Muslim/Kenyan boogeyman-in-chief, the chances of this group growing beyond students of the Beck school of conservatism is pretty small.
And finally, we have Sarah Palin. Enough said.
What does this all add up to? It’s simple, really: the party is too much of a joke at the moment to seriously challenge Mr. Obama in 2012. Sentiments that Republicans are sure to take over Congress and the White House over the next three years are presently little more than a cocktail of conservative dogma and almost-manic wishful thinking.
The Tea Party wing is not as homogenous as you describe and they also account for a very small percentage of the vote. The party might be undergoing a few problems, but the general trend towards less government influence cannot be ignored. Most of those who voted for Christ Christie were not rabid tea-parties but rather rational individuals who saw the flaws in progressive government.
We honestly have not seen the GOP fully respond to the Tea Party movement and until then we cannot know for sure what will happen in 2010 or 2012
For a party that, as you describe it, seems to be in utter shambles and completely destitute, to pick up two governorships in states that Obama won handily in the general election is not a coincidence. In fact, polls featuring races between generic Republican and Democrat candidates are going overwhelmingly for Republicans all over the country.
But most important to recognize is that whatever part of the right side of the spectrum people come from, they will recognize come 2010 and 2012 that ANYTHING is better than Obama and will vote together for whoever opposes him. That’s a kind of unity that the Democrats most certainly do not have. The split in the Democrat party we saw during the primary season is rearing its beautiful head once again, but this time many former Obama supporters are seriously considering voting against him, if they haven’t already made up their minds.
2010 will see landslide victories for Republicans, most surprisingly in states where Republican victory would have seemed impossible (thinking of Boxer in California, Dodd in Connecticut, and possibly Reid in Nevada).
I loved this, I’m still laughing!
This was wonderful. Thank you for this.
Quite frankly, No.
Even if you think the Republican is reactionary and stupid, it will turn out, far more than the liberal base.
Did you forget that independents who are turned off for the midterms simply don’t turn out. They care about Presidential elections, not their congressman.
That pits the angry independents (aka angry at the government, angry at Obama) and the tea partyers who will bring their mother sister and cousins to the polls against the liberal base who doesn’t really want to turn out to support Obama right now.
Their reasons for turning out may be stupid, and Glenn Beck may be a raving lunatic, but don’t forget that lunatics vote too, and they bring their friends.
Keith: Who’s crazier: Keith Oberman or Glenn Beck? And where do you get off calling a black guy (Michael Steele) a “big dork?” Are you a racist? Sound like one to me.
And Sarah Palin in her girlish “surprise” pose? Looks sexy. Keep showin’ that one.
Keep rubbin’ that rabbit’s foot!
This is a joke, right? You don’t actually think this is “analysis,” do you?
The “Anybody but Bush” crowd won a landslide in 2006 without any politically-unified goal. There’s no reason to believe that a counter to that (no matter where it comes from) couldn’t be equally effective.
Government is permeated by idiots from all sides. The question to many voters is “Who’s a bigger idiot?” The losers are typically those in power when that discussion begins.
Tim, you’re absolutely right. This article is full of unbased claims and name calling. The author mocks Glenn Beck by doing exactly what Beck does. Some others of you may have laughed and still be laughing but that is not the sign of reasoned thinking. You’re laughing because the article is a joke and meant to be funny.
Start at the begining, “tea party crazies”, Has the author been to a “tea party” has he talked to doctors to confirm the attendees
‘crazi”ness? Then the “for every person” claim, does he have any facts to back this up? Then the “intra-party fracture” paragraphs, has he any facts to back up the “pop quiz” idea? Does he not know that the “religious right” no longer holds the sway it once did? And intelligent protest? Its an oxymoron. IF he is going to make a claim about talking points he should at least quote one to prove his point.
Is Glenn Beck running for office as a republican? Is he any crazier than Chris Matthews who called West Point “the enemy camp”? Can the author cite this “purity test” so we can see it? Does he know that you can support gay rights and defend the word marriage?
Opposition to the collective is called mindless but it seems the author’s support is more aptly described by the term.
Regarding the comments on Michael Steele, two words, Howard Dean. And It looks like he thinks that anyone who cheats on their spouse can’t be a member of a party that promotes family values. Everyone lives in a glass house.
If the “teabaggers” (the epithet is an attempt at homophobic insult) are so small why do they matter to the author so much? This article should never have nade past the editors. Please, some facts Mr. Hollinshead!