Cheney: rather have Limbaugh than Powell

[winterbadger]

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday took a shot at former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell by accusing him of turning his back on Republicans, adding that conservative broadcaster Rush Limbaugh is a more loyal party member than the retired Army general.

"If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh," said Mr. Cheney on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Mr. Powell recently said that Republicans need to move to the center politically and said that Mr. Limbaugh's conservative rhetoric is polarizing and hurts the party's image. The radio talk-show host fired back by accusing Mr. Powell of being "just another liberal" and said he should become a Democrat.

Because who wouldn't rather follow a blowhard drug-addict, college drop-out, and failed comedian then a serious, honourable, and thoughtful military hero and statesman? And that's the version of the story from the ultraconservative Washington Times, not from some "liberal" news outlet...

I was just saying to my friend Justin today that I keep expecting someone in the GOP to say, "Look, being the party of war and hate speech has proven to be a disastrously bad idea; let's try moving back to the center" but that I got the impression that they had managed to chase everyone out who might say that. Seems like I'm right.

I don't know whether to hope the Cheneyists actually manage to drive out all the non-ultraconservatives. If they do, it will seal the GOP into irrelevance for a generation at least. OTOH, it's not terribly good for the country to have no credible opposition party.

Comments

[wcg.livejournal.com]

It's sad to see, that's for sure.

[winterbadger]

I can't even begin to guess what my granny, who was a ward heeler for the GOP in New Haven, would say about this bunch of criminals, demagogues, and idiots running the party.

[keethrax.livejournal.com]

"I don't know whether to hope the Cheneyists actually manage to drive out all the non-ultraconservatives. If they do, it will seal the GOP into irrelevance for a generation at least. OTOH, it's not terribly good for the country to have no credible opposition party."

I don't think there will ever be no credible opposition party for any real length of time. If one ever gets that irrelevant (I suspect the GOP will flail about for a bit more and then recover though, but right now they sure seem to be doing their level best to race themselves to the bottom) I think you'll see the remaining party split as the groups that banded together see less need to do so.

Briefly having one party might even (but I doubt it) be just the kick we need to break the two party system if the remaining party fractures "properly".

[winterbadger]

(I suspect the GOP will flail about for a bit more and then recover

I think you're right. I think they're just going to talk themselves into irrelevance for a decade or so, the way they did in the late 1930s and early 1940s. In fact, given that during that period the GOP was the party of (a) rich men and (b) populist hate-mongers (they even had their own Rush Limbaugh) the parallel may be considerable.

[sun-in-splendor.livejournal.com]

Scenario 1: After a few years in the center the Dems move leftward and the GOP becomes more moderate and moves back towards the center.

Scenario 2: GOP continues to the right and Dems continue to hold the center. Eventually the left of the Dems break away to form a new party.

Scenario 3: New party forms taking the center between the GOP and the Dems. GOP stays ultra right or disappears and the Dems move or are pushed leftward.

[winterbadger]

I'm skeptical of any scenario that involves a new party being formed. It hasn't happened in 150 years*, and I can't see it happening now; there's just not enough vitality and imagination and commitment in the American electorate overall, IMO, to sustain an effort large enough and long enough for it to become truly national and credible. And with the current campaign financing laws, it's going to be hard for any new party to compete for the $that go to the established parties.

I think Scenario 1 is the most likely. But I think on present evidence, it will be a long time coming...



* And that's only if you count the Republicans as a really "new" party; organizationally, they may have been, but in most ways they were just a revitalized Whig Party.

[sun-in-splendor.livejournal.com]

I agree that scenario 1 is most likely. The US seem to enjoy being bi-polar ;-P

[winterbadger]

Agreed; we're crazy about it! ;-)

There have been lots of third or even fourth parties over the centuries, and I think some people are surprised sometimes to find out how popular some of them have been, but in the end they seem to mostly have been at root either single-issue, fringe interest, or charismatic (more about an individual leader than about a platform).

[keethrax.livejournal.com]

I'm skeptical of any involving a new party coming up to compete with the big two.

But if one becomes irrelevant enough (which I don't expect to happen this time around), I can see the remaining one fragmenting.

Without a bad guy (ie second party) to focus efforts, I think infighting could break up the remaining party.

In other words, I don't see any of the current alternative parties being the driving force behind getting a newly relevant party (2nd, third, or otherwise). If it ever happens, it will have to come from within the existing power structure. And the polarizing fear of losing to the other party ensure this won't happen unless one party ebbs very, very low.