Here's a meme (word of the moment) for you
Get McCain's earlier plan, and earlier message:
What's happened? The last reform of this party took place after Nixon's 1960 defeat, was perturbed by the appearance of a non ideologue Nixon, who took advantage of th Democratic Party reform of 68-72 and completed in 1980 with the ascent of Reagan. Reagan as we all know transformed the party to conservatism. This continued past 1994 and Newt Gingrich's ascent on traditional conservative principles, but was wrecked on the big govt, big spending, corrupt mutations, and utter incompetence of the morphed republicans under Delay and Bush. Now comes, under, McCain wave 2. Conservatism was not enough to return a smaller functioning system. Reform is required. The corrupting forces on the conservative wave have to go, and what remains? Not important ideologically. That makes John McCain a revolutionary. He doesn't want to change the philosophy as much as he wants to change the machine. All this while recognizing, as he said that we are in a war against jihadism, and that war is worldwide. Something the other side denies forcefully.
Is that interpretation possible? This is why he needs to spell out the nitty gritty carefully. Is he trying to kill the instrument which generates corrupting lobbying dollars that flow into election campaign coffers, for most legislators? How do you say or somehow communicate that to the electorate without those interests concluding they are better off letting Obama win and picking up the pieces under a different party, while the republicans return to the $$ sucking fold in 2012?
The republicans face a Democratic party still trying to figure out who they are after it's 1972 reform. They have the morphed civil rights forces who now insist on equal outcome for all, by income transfer if needs be. They have the anti vitenam people who have morphed from patriotic dissent from a really needless war into america haters who think the basis of the nation, PROPERTY, is the evil at birth which eventually made Vietnam inevitable. They have the remains of the diminshing union influence. They have the sensation, which causes them to react, that as the nominal inheritors of FDR they have to take care of everyone (that mean EVERYONE without income) without his driving need to ensure that communism or fascism did not overtake an america in a corner in 1932.
Against this back ground we have Russian Expanionsm born of a fusion of Alexander III, and Nicolas I, and Stalin with the gift of cash under the ground that was never possible under any of their systems, and an apparently never dimished dislike of the USA.
We have an industrious and ingenious China, hobbled by the communist system anchor it is dragging around, which is determined to be as powerful as the USA.
Most importantly, we have an unimaginably rich, irresponsible, violent group in charge of the SINGLE most important economic commodity, whose peoples together (as any Pew poll tells us) believe myths and learn hatred too early in life for facts to intervene later as adults. This party believes our system reformed or not, democratic party dominated or not, is not Fukuyama's mythical endpoint of history. They have now priced this commodity so high after 1973 that it threatens the economic fabric of the world. It may be that that cannot continue.
Our domestic situation economically is the result of that commodity, and GREED. The greed Mr. McCain sees in govt. That commodity aside, are there any fundamental problems here? I really don't think so. Solve that problem and we can manage our problems with EITHER party in charge, in the usual back and forth and shouting. But one party TODAY is not going to move with a sense of urgency (as evidenced by one crowd shouting 'Drill baby, drill').
Who is best formed to push our tiller a little bit this way or that?
Are you kidding?
Someone else arrived to change the focus and "her language resonated more of supermarket aisle than the megachurch pulpit. More than the men on the tickets, she embodies the spirit of the moment: impatient, fed up, tough-minded, but ironical. Even in attack, she projected the cheerfulness of someone confident about the future."
Then McCain ... the insurgent and revolutionary.
Could it be?
Get McCain's earlier plan, and earlier message:
This is from David Brooks of the NYTJohn McCain is trying to reform the Republican Party before a presidential defeat, with the old guard still around, and with a party base that still hasn't accepted the need to transform. The central drama of this week's convention was the struggle by reform Republicans to break through the gravitational pull of old habits and create something new.Before the convention, some McCain aides wanted to sunder the links to the past in one bold stroke: Name Joe Lieberman as the vice presidential nominee, promise to serve only one term, vow to take a hiatus from partisanship and work by compromise to get things done. That proved to be a leap too far.
So McCain was pulled back. But he refused to stay there and pressed ahead by picking Sarah Palin.
What's happened? The last reform of this party took place after Nixon's 1960 defeat, was perturbed by the appearance of a non ideologue Nixon, who took advantage of th Democratic Party reform of 68-72 and completed in 1980 with the ascent of Reagan. Reagan as we all know transformed the party to conservatism. This continued past 1994 and Newt Gingrich's ascent on traditional conservative principles, but was wrecked on the big govt, big spending, corrupt mutations, and utter incompetence of the morphed republicans under Delay and Bush. Now comes, under, McCain wave 2. Conservatism was not enough to return a smaller functioning system. Reform is required. The corrupting forces on the conservative wave have to go, and what remains? Not important ideologically. That makes John McCain a revolutionary. He doesn't want to change the philosophy as much as he wants to change the machine. All this while recognizing, as he said that we are in a war against jihadism, and that war is worldwide. Something the other side denies forcefully.
Is that interpretation possible? This is why he needs to spell out the nitty gritty carefully. Is he trying to kill the instrument which generates corrupting lobbying dollars that flow into election campaign coffers, for most legislators? How do you say or somehow communicate that to the electorate without those interests concluding they are better off letting Obama win and picking up the pieces under a different party, while the republicans return to the $$ sucking fold in 2012?
The republicans face a Democratic party still trying to figure out who they are after it's 1972 reform. They have the morphed civil rights forces who now insist on equal outcome for all, by income transfer if needs be. They have the anti vitenam people who have morphed from patriotic dissent from a really needless war into america haters who think the basis of the nation, PROPERTY, is the evil at birth which eventually made Vietnam inevitable. They have the remains of the diminshing union influence. They have the sensation, which causes them to react, that as the nominal inheritors of FDR they have to take care of everyone (that mean EVERYONE without income) without his driving need to ensure that communism or fascism did not overtake an america in a corner in 1932.
Against this back ground we have Russian Expanionsm born of a fusion of Alexander III, and Nicolas I, and Stalin with the gift of cash under the ground that was never possible under any of their systems, and an apparently never dimished dislike of the USA.
We have an industrious and ingenious China, hobbled by the communist system anchor it is dragging around, which is determined to be as powerful as the USA.
Most importantly, we have an unimaginably rich, irresponsible, violent group in charge of the SINGLE most important economic commodity, whose peoples together (as any Pew poll tells us) believe myths and learn hatred too early in life for facts to intervene later as adults. This party believes our system reformed or not, democratic party dominated or not, is not Fukuyama's mythical endpoint of history. They have now priced this commodity so high after 1973 that it threatens the economic fabric of the world. It may be that that cannot continue.
Our domestic situation economically is the result of that commodity, and GREED. The greed Mr. McCain sees in govt. That commodity aside, are there any fundamental problems here? I really don't think so. Solve that problem and we can manage our problems with EITHER party in charge, in the usual back and forth and shouting. But one party TODAY is not going to move with a sense of urgency (as evidenced by one crowd shouting 'Drill baby, drill').
Who is best formed to push our tiller a little bit this way or that?
Are you kidding?
Someone else arrived to change the focus and "her language resonated more of supermarket aisle than the megachurch pulpit. More than the men on the tickets, she embodies the spirit of the moment: impatient, fed up, tough-minded, but ironical. Even in attack, she projected the cheerfulness of someone confident about the future."
Then McCain ... the insurgent and revolutionary.
Could it be?
1 comment:
Thanks for this thread-the conclusion = = great!
PALIN/ McCain...
I know>>>
McCain/PALIN
Post a Comment