Sunday, November 09, 2008

Resuming the Opposition

Well it was a nice eight-year interlude, wasn't it?

Actually it feels like it ended a bit early...

There's a lot of bad advice coming our way as to how to react. From Powerlineblog:

But this column is addressed to politically active conservatives who fear the worst and are now wondering how to cope. The key, as always, is to maintain one's equilibrium. To this end, I offer, unsolicited, the following suggestions:

Pray that President Obama achieves greatness in office. Our overriding concern must always be the country we love, not the success of a party or an ideology.

Don't assume that Obama is always wrong. Judge all of his positions on the merits; don't conclude that a position is wrong just because he takes it. Republicans tended to fall into this trap with President Clinton. For example, some opposed our military involvement in Kosovo based not on an analysis of the situation there, but rather on a knee-jerk anti-Clinton response. This approach is irresponsible and unpatriotic.

Fellas, one thing remains clear as glass: most Americans don't vote. Most Americans would like the Right and the Left to SHUT UP. If you don't think our positions, our "ideology", is vitally necessary to keep this country from real collapse down the road, then give them what they want. I don't tout what NEEDS to be done except because I care about the country. When you run around saying you value country above ideology, it means your plans aren't that important, even to you. If that's true, go away and let us worry about Socialism.

Clinton PLANNED the Serbs would fall down begging for a deal because they were being lightly bombed by the great, the all powerful Wizard of Oz. That was the PLAN. When they didn't fold in the first week we had a general lack of ammunition, because they hadn't PLANNED for a 8-day bombardment. It lasted 90 days and will probably be remembered as the stroke that launched the new Russia. The mission continues because having bet NATO's moral credibility on the issue, America can't admit that NATO is confused, stagnant and incapable of resolving it even after 10 years.

There's plenty of sound reasons to oppose that war, even without Clinton's dumb lies to sell it --"Two world wars started here". Don't throw rocks about the motives that lead people to a CORRECT conclusion.

Be loyal in your opposition. As my blog partner Scott Johnson puts it, paraphrasing Steven Decatur: "May he always be in the right; but our president, right or wrong."

I have no idea what that means. He has the job. BUSH is our president at the moment, you see how much that moves anybody.

From what will probably be my last visit to

The feds can, of course, print money and it isn't a bad thing to do when deflation is even a remote possibility. Significant public works --if they can get built over environmentalist objections-- are a great place to start if you are a new president seeking to cement your coalition, as is some aspect of health care "reform," though that will call out every deep division among Dems as well as thousands of lobbyists.

No one I have asked agrees with me, but I think the Obama Administration would be wise to try and jam through a quick immigration reform package that both regularizes the vast majority of illegal aliens already here but also delivers on the fence that the Bush Adminstration has, inexplicably, managed to barely get underway. Pushing on the immigration issue means delivering to one of the key constituencies that gave him the White House while also tempting some Republicans on the margin of the debate to renew their self-destructive rhetoric on the issue. Leading your institutional opponents into another meltdown while rallying your broad base seems to be a sure winner for Obama.

...The GOP had better be up and ready to respond with substance and a coordinated voice to whatever is unveiled as the new agenda of the new president. Every initiative will be an opportunity to distinguish and define the key differences between the parties moving forward. Letting the back benchers define the GOP on any issue --and especially on immigration reform if it surfaces-- will be disastrous for a party in need of political discipline and intellectual renewal.

I think Hugh is in the wrong party, if "party discipline" means defining the majority of the party as "the backbenchers" and "jam"ming policies down their throats.


clark smith said...

Based on the quote you included, I don't think that Hugh was advocating amnesty as good for America, but rather as a saavy move for Obama to make.

That having been said, Hugh's stance on immigration has--for some time--been spotty at best.

commoncents said...

Great site!

Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day? Check it out here...