WP: “Republicans See Long-Term Victory in Defeat on Stimulus Plan”

According to the Washington Post, the Repubs are angling towards a long-term, more strategic game in Congress.  Really, as far as that goes, all you need to see is the title.  But if you read further into the article, it becomes interesting.  I’ve managed to confirm my suspicions- the Republicans see this as 1993, and all they have to do, in their minds, is be obstructionist and stick to Rush’s mantras.  And I may have said this before, but I don’t think that will work.

It’s almost as if the Republicans learned nothing when they got their asses handed to them in November.  They seem to think that the only reason people didn’t vote for them was because of El Jorge.  So they think that Democrats and people who voted for them in November will just take a nap now that El Jorge is back in Texas.  There’s a name for this.  It’s called wishful thinking.  As the article points out, the Republicans have lost ground almost everywhere except for the South, and the Democrats have the highest number of self-designated party IDs in over 25 years.  I don’t see this being 1993, because history does not really repeat itself.  The fact that the moderate Republican wing has been decimated in Congress means that most of the people left are the “Southern nut” wing.

Furthermore, I’m skeptical of this attitude that “we can get out of this hole by digging more”, when I see numbers like this (H/T Wonkette).  Given that many people obviously disapprove of the Republican handling of the stimpak, how can they possibly say, “W00t, we’re winning!”?  As Lewis Black once said, “I wonder, what kind of a drug could make one so delusional?”

Of course, those numbers are numbers for right now, and say nothing of how the Republicans will be perceived in the coming months.  As the article notes, it likely depends on how well the stimpak goes.  Well, we’ll see.  I just don’t think any of the backpatting among Repub leaders is the least bit justified.  Maybe I’m wrong, but again, we’ll see.

Quote of the Day, 1-6-09

“Everybody wrings their hands about Fox News. You know, “fair and balanced? Why, that’s snide!” Yeah, okay, maybe they’re not fair and balanced, but CNN used to have the slogan “You Can Depend on CNN”. Guess what? I watch it, no you can’t. So what’s the difference?” -Jon Stewart

(H/T Wikiquote)

The First Speed Bump

For those of us who thought the Obama transition was going too smoothly to be humanly possible, NBC has this news:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on Sunday announced that he was withdrawing his nomination to be President-elect Barack Obama’s commerce secretary amid a grand jury investigation into how some of his political donors won a lucrative state contract.

Let’s hope this isn’t just a precursor to worse things to come.

(H/T NBC via The Daily Beast)

Quote of the Day, 12-22-08

“If I was to really get at the burr in my saddle, it’s not politics – and this is, I think, probably a horrible analogy – but I look at politicians as, they are doing what inherently they need to do to retain power. Their job is to consolidate power. When you go to the zoo and you see a monkey throwing poop, you go, ‘that’s what monkeys do, what are you gonna do?’ But what I wish the media would do more frequently is say ‘bad monkey.'” -Jon Stewart, September 29, 2004

(H/T Wikiquote)

By the way, I’m terribly sorry about not having a Quote of the Day for the last week.  My little brother was hogging the Internet computer in our house.  But I’m back!  And just to let you know, February will be the Month of Montaigne.  As in Michel de Montaigne, French philosopher and inventor of the essay.  I’m going to be reading his book Essays and reflecting on it.  And all of the Quotes of the Day for that month will be from Montaigne, unless something comes up.  Happy holidays (or whatever)!

Don’t Write the Republicans’ Eulogy Yet

If there’s one thing I have learned in my fairly short life so far, it’s that one should not completely trust any predictions, whether they be about the weather or the stock market.  And so I cringe a bit as I hear of serious conversations on DailyKos and the Huffington Post about banning the Republican Party.  Perhaps you can recall a few years ago, when Karl Rove and the Republicans were talking about a “permanent” Republican Party, and Zell Miller came out with a book entitled A National Party No More, condemning the Democrats for catering to the far left.  The irony, of course, is thick enough to choke on.  Every party has its ups and downs.  Four years ago, the Democrats seemed belaguered, having lost 2 presidential elections in a row, and having had no control of Congress, aside from a few brief patches, since the Class of ’94.  Yet the Democrats have come back to win the Oval Office with greater margins than either of the elections George W. won, and have secured their hold on both houses of Congress, drawing close to the crucial 60 votes in the Senate.  Unless the Republicans turn out like their predecessors, the Whigs, they will return to power, in all likelihood.  And the comparison to the Whigs seems a false analogy, since the Whigs never really gained traction; they only had 2 elected presidents, and both died.  My sense is that the Republicans will probably spend 6-8 years in the wilderness (don’t even consider another 1994; the circumstances are quite different), figuring out why they lost and retooling their message (hopefully).  Then they’ll come back onto the political stage, and the cycle will begin anew.

Here’s a justification for 2010 not being 1994 redux, which I agree with.

And, also from Marc Ambinder, thoughts about how the Republicans might respond to the Obama Administration.