A Republican staffer of almost 30 years talks about what has gone wrong in his party

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LordofHats**

The downturn in the economy hurt McCain more than Palin did I think.

**Melissia**

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:Many people on Dakka speak of Republicans/Conservatives as being crazy, please understand that to the right your out-spoken "leaders" look equally crazy and dangerous.Cheers!

I live in Texas.

Craziness is pretty common here.

I mean, look at Rick Perry... he was still pushing the Birther bullgak a few months ago.

**Tyyr**

Palin could have been just fine as a VP candidate. The problem was that the McCain campaign was run by a pothead chimp. I've never seen a campaign bungle such basic things like prepping your VP candidate before tossing her in front of a camera.

I used to call my self a Republican. I don't anymore. Frankly the Republican party has gone off the deep end and is as bad for the country as the democrats are.

**Ahtman**

Tyyr wrote:Palin could have been just fine as a VP candidate.

No, she was a terrible candidate. He became pretty much unelectable once she was added. It was an incredibly stupid move. She is an extremely divisive character that probably cost him the election (or it being even closer) becuase she made all the moderate votes flee to Obama or just not show up. I know for me it was the deciding factor. I always liked McCain, I thought he was pretty good Senator. I actually wasn't really sure who to vote for, but that made the choice easy. She shored up right wing votes that would would have begrudingly gone his way anyway. Any VP candidate that makes the center flee in droves from the top of the ticket is not "just fine".

**Kilkrazy**

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:While this man's statement is very specific to all the things wrong with the current Republican party, I think the core of it explains what is wrong with all of the American parties. . . extremism. I think extremism is one of the most frightening things out there.

As a registered Republican, I really dislike many of the outspoken "leaders" (the term being used loosely) of the party. I think it is interesting that probably the most centrist candidate for the party, Mitt Romney, is being heavily attacked for being centrist. I hate that!

Frankly I don't refer to myself as a Republican, I see myself as a "moderate conservative". If that madwoman Bachman is on the ticket I will either vote Democrat or not vote (of course I live in the People's Republic of California so my presidential vote rarely matters).

My hope is that just as there is a silent majority of voters, there is a silent majority of true conservatives in the Republic party that will see the benefits of being more central on social issues while maintaining a strong fiscal and defense stance. Maybe I am dreaming . . .

Many people on Dakka speak of Republicans/Conservatives as being crazy, please understand that to the right your out-spoken "leaders" look equally crazy and dangerous.

Cheers!

It's interesting you say that because from a European viewpoint, the Democratic party looks somewhat right wing.

They certainly are not "extremist" in either social or economic policy which compared with European left-wing parties. In fact they may be somewhat to the right of the UK's Conservative Party.

**Tyyr**

Ahtman, the problem is that the McCain campaign didn't bother to do anything with her. They pulled her out of Alaska, threw her in front of a camera, and hoped for the best. Instead of properly prepping her, and getting her ready for the job they just winged it and it bit them in the ass. I agree, Palin unedited and on her own is unelectable. Palin, prepped and on McCain's points would have worked.

If Obama managed to keep Bidden from destroying him McCain could keep Palin under control.

**Melissia**

What could you do with her? She's pretty much unsalvageable.

**biccat**

I really find it amazing that people rag on Palin so much, and yet appear to give Obama a pass on picking Joe Freaking Biden as his running mate.

I'm honestly astonished each time he manages to string 3 words together into a coherent sentence.

**Melissia**

Wait, you think that people don't make fun of him for picking Joe Biden?

Do you live in a different country?

**LordofHats**

I don't really think we can put Biden and Palin on the same level of political silliness. Palin just says and does to many ridiculous things for a politician. Her life is worthy of a (not) reality TV series.

**Mannahnin**

Biden is a genuinely good and intelligent man and a dedicated person trying to do good via government. Read even a short biography of the guy. Yes, he regularly says funny things, tripping over his words and being over-earnest.

Palin is a cynical, self-aggrandizing and selfish creature, who wanted to ban books and did things like firing the town librarian and police chief because she didn't think they were sufficiently loyal to her personally. She's the kind of dishonest scumbag who resorts making up crap about "death panels" as her primary means of debate, and thinks nothing of grabbing over and over for Federal funding for projects like the Bridge to Nowhere, then lying over and over to the public by claiming that she never asked for the money and that AKnever took it.

**biccat**

Mannahnin wrote:Biden is a genuinely good and intelligent man and a dedicated person trying to do good via government. Read even a short biography of the guy.

I have.

It shows that he's a self-absorbed man whose intellectual capabilities were far below his ambitions. Yet he was able to succeed due to shady deals, political favoritism, and personal favors.

Admittedly, this might show why Obama picked him for VP. Birds of a feather and all that.

**Kanluwen**

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Biden is a genuinely good and intelligent man and a dedicated person trying to do good via government. Read even a short biography of the guy.

I have.

It shows that he's a self-absorbed man whose intellectual capabilities were far below his ambitions. Yet he was able to succeed due to shady deals, political favoritism, and personal favors.

Admittedly, this might show why Obama picked him for VP. Birds of a feather and all that.

As opposed to a governor who ran a state into the ground and dropped out to become a political commentator on a network that is openly Conservative and hailed her as something akin to Gandhi?

Yes. Clearly, let's focus on how shady Biden is rather than how Palin expensed hunting trips using a helicopter against elk.

**biccat**

Kanluwen wrote:Yes. Clearly, let's focus on how shady Biden is rather than how Palin expensed hunting trips using a helicopter against elk.

Because it makes a whole lot more sense to attack a private person than someone who has the power and ability to affect government policy, right?

I'm genuinely curious, does this actually make sense to you?

**WarOne**

biccat wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Yes. Clearly, let's focus on how shady Biden is rather than how Palin expensed hunting trips using a helicopter against elk.

Because it makes a whole lot more sense to attack a private person than someone who has the power and ability to affect government policy, right?

I'm genuinely curious, does this actually make sense to you?

Didn't Palin do that as a Governor of Alaksa?

I know she had supported legislation to do such in any event...

**Mannahnin**

Even leaving aside Palin's teasing about whether she's going to be a candidate again or not, Palin was a government official, and one whose credentials and track record while an elected official and a candidate are so bad that they make most politicians look like Rhodes Scholars and saints by comparison. Biden isn't a saint; no politician is, but anyone who knows even a little about the guy can see he's a good man trying to do government right. And yes, he still gets mocked in the media when he makes gaffes, including by commentators on the left side of the aisle, like Jon Stewart.

Of course this is all tangential to the article, which is about the fact that fools like Palin and nutjobs like Bachman are now central to the GOP, instead of its lunatic fringe. How and why is this so?

**dogma**

Tyyr wrote:Ahtman, the problem is that the McCain campaign didn't bother to do anything with her. They pulled her out of Alaska, threw her in front of a camera, and hoped for the best. Instead of properly prepping her, and getting her ready for the job they just winged it and it bit them in the ass.

Actually, if you look at how many of her speaking engagements were cancelled at the RNC, Palin likely received extensive prepping. Its just that she's an awful person to run in national election.

Tyyr wrote:
If Obama managed to keep Bidden from destroying him McCain could keep Palin under control.

Biden has held federal office for decades. He is nowhere near as bad a politician as Palin, and was actually a shrewd pick given his foreign relation credentials, and rust belt appeal.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Because it makes a whole lot more sense to attack a private person than someone who has the power and ability to affect government policy, right?

I'm genuinely curious, does this actually make sense to you?

Private people don't have the ability to affect government policy? That's new.

**WarOne**

Mannahnin wrote:How and why is this so?

Look at what gets ratings in America. We'd rather have celebrities than honestly good politicians in the limelight.

**Melissia**

dogma wrote:Its just that she's an awful person

Yeah, it's kinda sad.

WarOne wrote:Look at what gets ratings in America. We'd rather have celebrities than honestly good politicians in the limelight.

Well if you ask Biccat this is apparently a good thing.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:I really find it amazing that people rag on Palin so much, and yet appear to give Obama a pass on picking Joe Freaking Biden as his running mate.

I'm honestly astonished each time he manages to string 3 words together into a coherent sentence.

It isn't Palin's speaking ability that made her a poor choice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
It shows that he's a self-absorbed man whose intellectual capabilities were far below his ambitions. Yet he was able to succeed due to shady deals, political favoritism, and personal favors.

I'd dispute the bit about intellectual capacity, I don't think Biden is particularly intelligent, or unintelligent, when compared to the majority of federal officials (who all tend to be fairly bright, but not necessarily relative to others with their education) but the rest is essentially how you reach national office. I mean seriously, you sound horribly naive.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
It shows that he's a self-absorbed man whose intellectual capabilities were far below his ambitions. Yet he was able to succeed due to shady deals, political favoritism, and personal favors.

I'd dispute the bit about intellectual capacity, I don't think Biden is particularly intelligent, or unintelligent, when compared to the majority of federal officials (who all tend to be fairly bright, but not necessarily relative to others with their education)

He finished near the bottom of his class in both undergrad and law school, plagiarized a paper, and was relatively unaccomplished until rising to prominence as a bomb-thrower during the Thomas hearing.

I'd consider that unintelligent and biased.

dogma wrote:but the rest is essentially how you reach national office. I mean seriously, you sound horribly naive.

No, that's not "essentially how you reach national office." Because no one says this when the accusation is made about a Republican, in that case it's evidence that they're corrupt etc. When someone makes the allegation against a Democrat it's "essentially how you reach national office." It's an appalling double standard and you're providing a great illustration, particularly given the rest of this thread.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
WarOne wrote:Look at what gets ratings in America. We'd rather have celebrities than honestly good politicians in the limelight.
Well if you ask Biccat this is apparently a good thing.

I'm not sure what exactly you're basing this on.

Rarely do good politicians make the limelight, unless there's some inflammatory and absurd claim against them.

Admittedly, you could also point out that the field of good politicians is pretty slim

**Melissia**

Because according to you biccat, celebrities such as sports stars have more actual value than someone who actually does something for society (a scientist, a competent politician, etc), and you've argued this is a good thing in the past.

**WarOne**

biccat wrote:Rarely do good politicians make the limelight, unless there's some inflammatory and absurd claim against them.

Good politicians (if we want to assume good means honest and hardworking) rarely get the headlines. They keep their head in their work and rarely look to become that celebrity that cameras follow around and detail every little bit of their private and public life.

Then you have Sarah Palin. Once a politician, now a walking mantra of what is wrong with the goldfish like attention span of our media (she in and of itself is not the problem, but it is a sympton when she grabs greater headlines than decent, well meaning politicians who do good work).

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:Because according to you biccat, celebrities such as sports stars have more actual value than someone who actually does something for society (a scientist, a competent politician, etc), and you've argued this is a good thing in the past.

Not sure what you mean as to "actual value." But yeah, people are willing to pay more to see celebrities, sports stars, and the like, so they obviously value them highly.

Then again, the operating budget for the entertainment industry is measured in billions while the US government's is measured in trillions. So it's very possible that people value government more than entertainment.

**Melissia**

biccat wrote:Not sure what you mean as to "actual value."

I know you don't Biccat. I'm not bored enough to try to explain it to you again

The government IS quite valuable to a lot of lower end people who only manage to be above the poverty line because of government assistance. But the difference is that people have no real option of supporting the government with their wallets or not, and so they have to support it another way. I think comparing their grassroots fundraising attempts is a bit more telling of the value people place in it.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
He finished near the bottom of his class in both undergrad and law school, plagiarized a paper, and was relatively unaccomplished until rising to prominence as a bomb-thrower during the Thomas hearing.

I'd consider that unintelligent and biased.

You're conflating academic success with intelligence, which is itself rather unintelligent. And, considering who we're discussing, likely the result of bias unrelated to Mr. Biden's intellectual abilities. Of course, if you want to discuss specifics, class ranking is basically irrelevant without an understanding of the grading system being used, or the average grade attained by any given student.

But then I'm being silly, everyone knows that class ranking is how responsible employers determine the ability of candidates to do the job for which they are applying.

As for him being unaccomplished, he was at the Thomas hearing because he had been chair of the Judiciary Committee since 1987 (at which time there was some noise regarding the Bork confirmation), and had been a Senator since 1973. There's also the Biden Crime Law, and the Violence Against Women Act.

biccat wrote:
No, that's not "essentially how you reach national office." Because no one says this when the accusation is made about a Republican, in that case it's evidence that they're corrupt etc. When someone makes the allegation against a Democrat it's "essentially how you reach national office." It's an appalling double standard and you're providing a great illustration, particularly given the rest of this thread.

How can I illustrate a double standard without actually making a comment about any Republican regarding corruption?

It seems like you're trying to attribute the words and opinions of others to me, which is really quite rude. You should probably stop that.

biccat wrote:
Admittedly, you could also point out that the field of good politicians is pretty slim

There's at least 585, give or take a few.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:Not sure what you mean as to "actual value."
I know you don't Biccat. I'm not bored enough to try to explain it to you again

So what you mean by "actual value" is what you consider valuable. NFL stars don't provide value in your eyes, so you see their salaries as unnecessarily high. The best way to measure someone's value is how much someone else is willing to pay for it. That is high for sports stars and low for scientists.

dogma wrote:It seems like you're trying to attribute the words and opinions of others to me, which is really quite rude. You should probably stop that.

No, I'm merely noting your conspicuous absence in threads where Democrat absurdities are pointed out.

Speaking of which, where are all the threads on Solyndra?

dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:Admittedly, you could also point out that the field of good politicians is pretty slim

There's at least 585, give or take a few.

I wasn't using the term "good" to mean "effective," but rather in the subjective ethical sense.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
No, I'm merely noting your conspicuous absence in threads where Democrat absurdities are pointed out.

There aren't very many of them. Threads, I mean, not absurdities.

biccat wrote:
Speaking of which, where are all the threads on Solyndra?

It hasn't been a big news topic.

**Melissia**

No, Biccat, I know that's what you always interpret it as, but that is not what I meant. After last time with your complete and utter refusal to comprehend the idea of someone contributing to society, especially the long-term health and knowledge of society, provides more valuable services than someone who merely leeches off of society's resources to earn millions... I don't intend to go in depth explaining it again.

You'll just say "but that's what you think is valuable" anyway, and that'll just piss me off. The idea that value is entirely subjective is stupid. Don't try to push it on me.

**LordofHats**

Melissia wrote:The idea that value is entirely subjective is stupid.

It is subjective in so far as how much people will pay for it.

The irony here may be that the monetary value of what scientists and scholars do is not as easily measured as say, Tom Cruise. I wonder how much money Thomas Edison would have by now if we accounted for every light bulb ever purchased.