Avoiding One Clinton Landmine

.
Whatever the new guidelines for gays serving in the military end up being, they’ll be harder for the GOP to attack as they will now be drafted by one of their own.
.
Really? Have you checked with spob and rusty? How about Rush and Newt?
~

Jay Newton-Small:
.
…harder for the GOP to attack as they will now be drafted by one of their own…
.
Harder for which GOP to attack? The GOP that exists in DC, or the one that represents the Republican base?

I gotta agree with stuart and theunderdont on this one. Having a Republican serve as Secretary of the Army won’t slow Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly down one bit.
Charges claiming McHugh isn’t a Real Republican in 5, 4, 3, 2….

I just wondering what or who is going to make it harder for the GOP to attack anything they please. Is the media going to call them out? Because history and really recent history shows us that they can pretty changes positions on a whim with little push back from the media.

So if the Democrats can beg one representative of the GOP to stick his head in the class picture they’ve avoided a history changing “landmine”. I suppose if the GOP can get a few seat warmers in blackface positioned at their rallies they’ve solved the small annoyance of “diversity” according to the Washington Press Corps… just say’in.
-
If the Republicans have talked their way out of political power, why is any issue they bring up a political “landmine”?

Certainly you know by now that any Republican who does business with Obama is no longer invited to the Purity Ball!
.
The attacks will continue until our Unity improves!

Headline FAIL:
.
How is it a “Clinton Landmine”? As you suggest, he was victim of this right-wing, Christianist landmine, just as are Obama, gays who serve (or want to), the military itself and our national security in general.

It’s not going to be harder for the republicans to attack. They’ll just brand McHugh as a traitor and say he wasn’t a republican anyway. They don’t learm from their mistakes. They just keep repeating them. Their quest for party purity isn’t going to be derailed just because the party keeps shrinking. If they think launching the re-branding of their party from a pizza joint was a good idea, they’re not going to be satisfied until they can hold their nominating conventions in somebody’s garage.

Adding to shepherdwong’s point, this is nowhere near the “land mine” it was in 1993. Not even all Republicans hate and fear gays anymore. And Republicans are only about 1/5 of the population.

Why exactly does it matter what the Secretary of the Army says about gay service? The President is commander in chief. i.e. he outranks the SoA.
-
Seriously, if Obama wants to end DADT, he needs to just sign an executive order a la Truman and desegregation. You only farm a policy decision out to a subordinate if you want to let it die or avoid it.

Jay N-S: I think Obama’s a step ahead of you. It’s a fair assumption they Republicans will attack, just as they have on every other issue/appointment/statement; they just can’t fight the impulse. The key is that they’ll sound increasingly out of touch when they do attack, and each time they attack they lose more credibility on any and all issues.

Asked:
.
“Why exactly does it matter what the Secretary of the Army says about gay service?”
.
Answered:
.
“You only farm a policy decision out to a subordinate if you want to let it die or avoid it.”

Elvis:

Any bets on exactly when gays will outnumber Republicans?

Well, FlownOver, any Republican would tell you that the gays are better at recruiting than they are, so… probably by October.

Whatever the new guidelines for gays serving in the military end up being, they’ll be harder for the GOP to attack as they will now be drafted by one of their own.
.
I get this image of Lucy yanking the football away from Charlie Brown. In this case Lucy is the GOP, Charlie is the media, and the football is logic.

It’s a “Clinton land mine” because in DC the only respectable opinions are Republican opinions.
.
And the GOP attacked Gates, why would they stop at McHugh?

“Any bets on exactly when gays will outnumber Republicans?”
.
That questions assumes they are two different animals, which is belied by quite a bit of often hilariously hypocritical behavior by Republicans.

I find it moronic to suggest that the GOP extreme wing is the only wing that assaults. Both parties are publicly vocalized by the far-extremes of their movement. When GOP assaults coming from the far-right surface, liberal bloggers pounce and suggest that the GOP as a whole will attack anything, is out of touch, and lacks any mainstream support. But when leftist nutjobs dissect every word of a conservative administration where are the rants about the out of touch democratic party? Not every statement issued by a member of the Republican Party represents the views of the GOP majority, nor does every statement by members of the Democratic party speak to the overall ideology of the party. Everything is on a spectrum, from far left, anti-religion radicals to far right, Christian extremists. There is an overwhelming middle ground, however, that gets lost in the daily humdrum of far-wing minorities.

neo: I agree that there is an overwhelming middle ground. They went solidly for the democrats in the last two elections. It looks like they noticed that the republican party isn’t tolerating any dissent within their ranks and attack members of their own party who disagree with them. In the battle of extremists, the republicans out-extremed the democrats and paid dearly for it. We see elected republicans apologizing publicly to Rush Limbaugh. Have there been any democrats who felt compelled to apologize to John Stewart?

sacredh: John Stewart is a lot more mainstream than Limbaugh, and his form of entertainment doesn’t rely on flame wars with public figures.
.
What everyone seems to be missing here is that it was not the GOP who was the key to preventing gays from serving openly in the military. The core of the opposition came from within the uniformed ranks as expressed by the flag corps. The GOP simply saw an opportunity to score some easy political points. This time around we’re much less likely to see the threat of mass-resignations among the uniformed force, which makes a repeal of the don’t ask/don’t tell policy much more likely. Anything said by Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, et. al. is largely irrelevant.

Peter: I used John Stewart because I couldn’t think of any of the liberal entertainment talkers who have a larger following. I can’t think of a single one who has even been mentioned as a leader of the party. I disagree that anything said by Rush, Hannity or O’Reilly is irrelevant. If they were in fact irrevlevant, why would so many GOP lawmakers go out of their way in an effort not to offend Rush? Even the head of the RNC has had to publicly apologize because he offended Rush. Vice President Cheney has publicly backed Rush over Colin Powell. Limbaugh is a force in the party if not the major force.

Limbaugh is the keeper of the holy conservative words and, conveniently, has a platform to spout from every weekday. He keeps it all marked and ‘membered.
-
To challenge the script would cause the faithful to run into the sides of buildings or burn themselves on bright lights. The RNC is strictly mass production, hammer the talking point, Mc-conservatism now. That’s why they can’t get the nose up on their own.
-
And neo; I challenge you to find three true far left-wingers that can agree on which fork to use for shrimp. It’s nothing if it’s not about “do your own thing” and free expression with them. Entirely opposite of the right-wing.

Getting the democrats to agree on anything is like trying to herd cats. We just go off in every direction because our party does tolerate dissent. Hell, Arlen Specter is more of a moderate than our own Ben Nelson. Susan Collins will fit right in with our moderates. Susan, if you’re reading this…we’ll let you slap Harry Reid if you switch parties. If you don’t switch parties, slap him anyway. Not many of us are all that fond of him.

centfan, sacredh…

Point taken that the far-left is far broader ideologically than the far-right. My point is this, that the GOP is held accountable for every word that extremists utter, while the far larger, and ultimately far more vocal leftists are never purported to represent the Democratic Party. And to be fair, there do exist a fair number of Democratic Congressmen who pander directly to the radical left, just as some GOP Senators may have publicly supported the likes of Limbaugh to pander to the far right. Rep. Woolsey (D-Cal) for example urged anti-war activists to go after centrist Democrats in 2007 to move the party to the left. And what of the Democratic Progressive Caucus in the House led by Rep. Barbara Lee? Then there are extremely influential organizations that pressure Democratic Congressmen behind the scenes, such as Democratic Alliance (a millioniares association) and the Sierra Club, plus less influential, yet more vocal groups such as CodePink and Cindy Sheehan’s circle. These do not represent the Democratic Party as a whole, but some wield great influence and others have a significant number of Democratic Congressmen pushing their agendas. The only reason there are no public apologies is due to the Democratic Party’s resistance to ever publicly denouncing or opposing these movements. If you do not offend, you need not apologize.

“Getting the democrats to agree on anything is like trying to herd cats. We just go off in every direction because our party does tolerate dissent.”
.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. The other way to look at it is that Republicans are mostly authoritarian followers who will pretty much believe and do whatever their authority figures say. That’s why they always follow Limbaugh (why politicians fear him) and also why they all march in lockstep against teh gays, whether inside or outside of the military.

shepherdwong-

Having no coherent agenda and and overly tolerating any number of ideas IS a negative. You MUST have a solid philosophical framework. There must be a certain standard in the principles you base your opinions on. The GOP can be faulted for being too narrowly defined, not inclusive enough, and at times ideologically rigid. But, they must remain true to conservative principles, namely fiscal restraint, reduction of federal government, constitutional authority, strong defense, freedom of religion (in all facets of society), abolishing the legality of frivolous lawsuits, and rejection of moral relativism. These principles define true conservativism in the United States. While the GOP has not always adhered to these principles, they are the framework of any conservative. We do not march in lockstep, there is a wide range of conservativism, in fiscal, social, and foreign policy areas. Most conservatives despise Rush Limbaugh, myself included. The Democratic Party simply encompasses TOO MANY philosophies to ever be truly effective, because there are too many contradictions. There is something to be said for a well-defined and narrowed rationale upon which to govern.

shepherdwong: I honestly meant that as a good thing. I get exasperated sometimes because we’re just so damned disorganized, but I’m very proud that the democrats speak with (and for) many voices. Our weaknesses are also our strengths. We sometimes manage a consensus, sometimes we just can’t get it together. I always hope that we can unify for the big items. If we can’t get it together for the little stuff, then that’s just the price we have to pay for being inclusive. Like the Rolling Stones said “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”. But if you’ll try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need.

neo: I think we have a semi-coherent agenda. I disagree that a party needs to have solid philosophical framework. When a party locks itself into a rigid framework it doesn’t allow itself the space and opportunity it needs to grow and thrive. I think semi-solid works there too. We encompass different philosophies because our country is comprised of many races, ethnicities, religions, beliefs, non-belief and customs. I would also dispute that the republican party as currently constituted came anywhere close to fiscal responsibility, constitutional authority, freedom of religion or the rejection of moral relativism. Bush/Cheney interpreted the Constitution as they saw fit, not by legal interpretation. They adopted the attitude that the ends justified the means and the law and our treaties meant nothing. I would also argue that the republican party is moving in lockstep. As an example I offer the stimulus package that Specter, Snowe and Collins voted for. They were threatened with the withholding of party funds and support. As a result of that threat, Arlen bolted the party even though he voted with the republicans 70% of the time. I think the republican you envision is pretty much history. To me, you sound like an old school republican (which I respect) but the current party bears little resemblance to the one I remember from my younger days. Thirty years ago a Sarah Palin wouldn’t have made it to the convention as a delegate, let alone the VP nominee. BTW, thanks for the rational discourse. I’ve enjoyed it. I don’t agree with you, but the discussion has been interesting.

sacredh…

I respect your opinion, however, I disagree with your assessment. I do not believe that the GOP platform should be linked solely to the Bush/Cheney administration. Because 2001-2008 were marred by an abandonment of conservative principles should not belie the overall conservative agenda at large. The GOP still stands for small government, as witnessed by the thrashing Specter, Snowe, and Collins took for supporting such an astounding spending bill as the most recent stimulus package. The stimulus package, the single largest spending bill in American history, was sold as an absolute emergency lest the America we know collapses. I find that to be a bit extreme, manipulative, and reminiscent of the Bush administration’s ‘mushroom cloud’ fear mongering. The Obama administration manipulated tough economic conditions to push through legislation filled with wasteful spending. I find it hard to believe that projects such as beaver studies in the midwest, Washington beautification projects, and millions in funds for the national endowments will turn around a flailing economy. What the bill should have SOLELY focused on was national infrastructure, job creation, and industry reform. This bill could have accomplished much had it not been brimming with congressional projects that would do little by way of job creation and over tailored to save mismanaged and corrupted corporations and industries. The bill was simply too large for any conservative to support.
.
While we may disagree as to whether the GOP resembles the Republican Party of the early ’90s, I would still contend that a large segment of the American populace still subscribes to traditionally conservative principles. Who wants an overbearing and intrusive federal government? Who wants nationally levied taxes to be spent on state benefited projects? Who wants unprepared defense capabilities? Who wants to be dragged to court in a lawsuit for practicing their religion in public and in some way offending the delicate sensitivities of the irreligious? Who wants unbridled immigration ignoring the legally sanctioned and socially important avenues of entry? Who wants a society of ‘anything goes?’ Who wants a single party monopoly of government (currently the situation)? Who wants the qualifications of more than acceptable candidates thrown out to meet some arbitrary ‘politically correct’ racial quota? Who seriously believes that post-racial world peace can be attained? Who does not take pride in their ethnic background and truly believes we should ignore who we are simply to avoid conflict? Who wants to live in a hypersensitive secularized milieu? Who really wants to follow Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Barbara Boxer? These are serious questions which I believe when answered illustrate that the conservative idea is alive and well within a large portion of Americans, who may just be hesitant to label themselves Republican for want of distancing themselves Bush/Cheney?

“Why exactly does it matter what the Secretary of the Army says about gay service? The President is commander in chief. i.e. he outranks the SoA.
-
Seriously, if Obama wants to end DADT, he needs to just sign an executive order a la Truman and desegregation. You only farm a policy decision out to a subordinate if you want to let it die or avoid it.”
.
Once again, Sean DeC shows that he is ill-informed. DADT is embodied in a statute, and therefore cannot be overturned by executive order. Of course, that DADT is enshrined in a statute makes it harder to justify all those silly ROTC bans on college campuses (after all, it’s not the military’s policy, but that of Congress), but banning ROTC is so much sexier than writing Congress.
.
Congress is going to have to repeal DADT. Expect a lot of Dems to balk.

On a follow up point, for all the criticism that the Bush Administration has taken in regards to a “disastrous” foreign policy, “unconstitutional” counter-terror policies, and “trampling” on civil liberties, the Obama Administration sure has kept a high level of continuity on many of these matters. The long awaited pull-out of Iraq continues to be ‘vaguely’ tied down and appears to be getting an extension; US bombings in Pakistan increased after Obama took office; increase in troop levels in Afghanistan; refusal to turn over interrogation photographs, memos, and wire-tapping information under ‘national security’ concerns; refusal to release the 17 Uighurs (Chinese Muslims) onto US soil, despite the acceptance by both Bush and Obama that they were erroneously picked up in Afghanistan and posed no threat to the US at the time. The list goes on. It would appear that for all the criticism the Left dished out to Bush, upon taking office and actually seeing intelligence reports, Mr. Obama is not so quick to do away with the Bush Administrations security policies. I can’t say that I am surprised. It is easy to criticize when you are not informed as well as the POTUS is in matters of security and intelligence.

Speaking of incoherent, is it:
.
“…they must remain true to conservative principles, namely fiscal restraint, reduction of federal government, constitutional authority, strong defense, freedom of religion (in all facets of society), abolishing the legality of frivolous lawsuits, and rejection of moral relativism…
.
or is it:
.
“…[they must] not march in lockstep, there is a wide range of conservativism, in fiscal, social, and foreign policy areas.”
.
Anyway, I hate to break it to you pal but those aren’t really principles, they’re a 30-year branding campaign designed to sell you approximately what you’ve witnessed these last 30 years. Sorry it wasn’t exactly as advertised (try changing the channel now and again). Anyway, after 30 years they are no longer principles or even ideology, they are immutable, amoral, nonsensical, political dogma.

My implication that there are certain conservative principles upon which to stand does not in any way contradict my later statement that there is a spectrum on which these principles lie, in areas of fiscal, social, and foreign policy conservatism. Furthermore, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that the conservative ideology is an “immutable, amoral, nonsensical, political dogma” as you stated.
.
I find this characterization to be more in tune with your own political/social philosophy and less a reflection of reality. By definition, immutable suggests the inability to change or reform. This would imply that the GOP or conservative movements are by nature static. However, conservatives are not opposed to change they simply recognize that in order to change you do NOT necessarily have to eliminate the past. Again, this is all a continuum in which there exists evolution rather than revolution. The left far too often pursues change in a revolutionary and reckless abandonment of the past.
.
You use the term amoral, I assume due to the GOP’s recent heavy-handed approach to security combined with its opposition to particular social activities that itself finds immoral. It is a bit counter-intuitive to suggest that opposition to immorality is in inherently amoral in and of itself.
.
The term nonsensical is purely relative and only suggests your misunderstanding of conservative values rather than an indictment of the GOP.
.
Finally, political dogma, well I should hope so! We are talking about a political ideology, which is one and the same with political dogma.

[...] Avoiding One Clinton Landmine [...]