A Republican Autopsy and the Changing Conservative Media

If anything, the rise of the youthful Ron Paul movement that also includes many old Libertarians has decisively and justifiably harmed the Republican Party by delivering painful ballot box defeats. As one who abandoned the Republican Party after 2004 because I viewed the GOP as statist, interventionist, fascist and and anti-civil liberties, separating myself from the goons and loons comprising conservative mob was a most liberating experience.

Can the Republican Party ever get back to its conservative small government roots?  While the GOP's definition of conservatism has certainly become shamefully twisted over the years and decades, there really is nothing conservative or even constitutional about the Republican Party as it is presently constituted.  The Republican Party is a party that must change or die.  It really is that simple.

The conservative media is taking notice because, well, the painful medicine of GOP election losses has taken effect.  The Washington Examiner, a website I consider a cheerleader for all things statist Republican neocon, is suddenly changing its tune and actually raising the foreign policy issue.

Tim Carney, who has actually done excellent work on the issue of crony capitalism, directly confronted the Iraq War.

The mistake of Iraq and the education of the Right

Then Philip Klein let loose with a piece blaming Republican foreign policy for Obamacare.

Iraq War made Obamacare possible

Both Carney and Klein are right.  Foreign policy is killing the GOP and is directly responsible for back to back presidential election losses.  That said, the Republican Party does indeed have problems besides its non-stop interventionist wars.

Few folks even understand the conservative base, least of all Republicans and the RNC/GOP machine that engineered the disastrous defeat of the Republican Party.  Although liberals and Democrats do indeed plunge themselves into endless tirades on Republicans and the Republican Party, it took a well known liberal election pundit to nail it.  Stu Rothenberg penned an extraordinary piece.

The GOP: A Party Increasingly at Odds With Itself

The Republican Party continues to fracture more seriously than I expected following last year’s re-election of President Barack Obama.....

Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee entered the discussion with a lengthy report that dealt with everything from message to campaign mechanics and the presidential nominating process....

But while the report proposes a big tent strategy, others in the party — Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth, Sean Hannity, Tea Party Express and Jim DeMint — have a different agenda. Bliss did not have to deal with similar non-party groups 50 years ago, and their existence today undercuts the authority of the national party.

Allies of Ron Paul and “movement conservatives” have already criticized the RNC report, portraying it as little more than the establishment’s attempt to remake the party in the image of the Democratic Party.

Because the RNC cannot dictate message or mechanics the way it once could...

Since the GOP brand is damaged, it has little credibility with certain voters....

That the Republican brand is badly tarnished is no understatement.  In fact, it's a glaring and bitter truth.  Daniel McCarthy at The American Conservative also nailed it.

The GOP’s Vietnam

How Republican foreign policy lost the culture war—and a generation

America doesn’t really have a two-party system. It has a one-and-a-half-party system, where one party at a time tends to dominate the national agenda while the other becomes a half-party—one that might hold onto the House of Representatives and some state governments, but that isn’t trusted by voters to run the country.....

The root of the GOP’s problem now is the same as that of the Democrats in 1969: the party’s reputation has been ruined by a botched, unnecessary war—Vietnam in the case of the Democrats, Iraq for the GOP. This may sound implausible: every political scientist knows that Americans don’t care about foreign policy; certainly they don’t vote based on it. But foreign policy is not just about foreign policy: it’s also about culture.

The Vietnam War cost the Democrats dearly, just as it is costing the Republicans dearly.  The 'WAR PARTY' label doesn't win elections.  In fact, the 'WAR PARTY' label is a ballot box loser.

As for Republican styled fiscal conservatism, it's a total farce and a joke.

The Tea Party Republicans Spent More Than the Dems They Replaced.

The Republican Party has big problems because it doesn't stand for anything except endless wars, bigger government, more deficits and more debt.  The RNC's pathetic autopsy on itself was one whopper of an exercise in delusion and it's a delusion that can no longer be sold.

Meanwhile, the message of the rising Libertarian/Paulite elements within the GOP actually stand for something that does appeal to voters:  peace, liberty and prosperity.  Will Republicans drink the medicine that is the antidote to the poison they've been ingesting for decades?

Are the Neocons Changing their Stripes? Don't count on it and here's why.

Like the Bob Dylan song, Times They Are a-Changin, Senator Rand Paul struck a raw nerve in GOP circles with his famous, media and Twitter viral filibuster.  Rand Paul didn't succeed in stopping John Brennan, the godfather of murderous drone strikes, from being confirmed as the new head of the CIA but he definitely succeeded in bringing drone use and US foreign policy out of the GOP's closet. For that he was cheered and jeered but mostly cheered by civil libertarians on the right and left.  The jeers flowed from old guard neocon whackjobs like John McCain, Lindsay Graham and their reliable partners on the left.

The Jeers:

McCain, Graham Attack Rand Paul for Anti-Drone Filibuster, Antiwar.com that stated "Paul's question about Obama's authority to kill US citizens doesn't deserve an answer, Graham said".

James Carville: Rand Paul’s ‘Nutty’ Concerns About Drones Akin To Birtherism, Evolution Deniers Mediaite

MSNBC Hosts Mock Rand Paul: Made Serious Issue Of Drones Sound ‘Absurd,’ ‘Crazy,’ ‘And On The Fringe’  Mediaite

It should come as no surprise that the far left and far right were at the forefront in attacking Rand Paul. These bat shit crazies have no respect whatsoever for the constitution, civil liberties or peace.  They are a pox upon humanity everywhere.

The Cheers:

While the cheers were loudest among civil libertarians, the cheers also hailed from some surprising places like the traditional standard bearers of neocon foreign policy.  Rush Limbaugh, the icon of Republican talk radio, actually smacked McCain and Graham while defending Rand Paul.

Limbaugh Hits McCain And Graham For Opposing Rand Paul, Dining With Obama: ‘Who Are They Siding With?’

Laura Ingraham, another popular neocon icon of Republican talk radio wasted no time praising Rand Paul and promptly interviewing him on her radio show.

Laura Ingraham: Neoconservative view has clearly hurt the GOP (Rand Paul interview 3/08/13)

The neocon armor is slowly cracking. With both Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham standing with Rand, the foreign policy debate will be brought out of the Republican closet and this will not bode well for Republican foreign policy hawks. It's not that either Limbaugh or Ingraham even care about peace, liberty or the constitution but they are apoplectic over back to back Republican general election losses. Folks like Limbaugh and Ingraham are not motivated by ideology; in fact, they are merely weathermen who sense and follow the political winds. Right now in America, the political winds are strongly blowing away from costly foreign interventionism and non-stop wars.

Despite all the glowing and supportive tweets, as well as the right wing media professing its undying love for Rand Paul, we have to ask ourselves if any of this in any way signals that the Republican Party and its pundits are serious.

Or is it more like a stealth date when the guy has a romance strategy to get in her pants because he really only wants to screw her?

Despite the barrage of poetic wing nut words, the neocons can never be trusted.  Every conservative, constitutionalist and small government advocate has been down this road many, many times and drank the Koolaid with the flavor FOOL.

How will we ever know if they are serious?  That's not difficult.  Just look back in history and how the Vietnam War finally ended.

How Congress Ends Wars, It always comes down to money

As the Democratically-controlled 110th Congress searches for a way to end the Iraq war authorized by the Republican-controlled 107th Congress, it seems appropriate to recall how the U.S. Congress ended the Vietnam War, and more recently, further U.S. military combat involvement in Somalia. At the end of those dark days, ending the battle came down to ending the money.

On Aug. 5, 1964, Congress enacted the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, authorizing President Lyndon Johnson to use "all necessary measures" to repel armed attacks against U.S. forces in Vietnam. The resolution passed easily, 466-0 in the House and 88-2 in the Senate, with the only dissenting votes coming from Democratic Sens. Wayne Morse (Oregon) and Ernest Gruening (Alaska).

Unlike the resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military force in Iraq, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution contained language allowing Congress to repeal it at any time. Unsuccessful congressional efforts to repeal the Tonkin Gulf Resolution began as early as 1966, just two "quagmire-ish" years after its passage. Finally in January of 1971, Congress succeeded in passing a measure repealing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. While he did not veto it, President Richard M. Nixon refused to honor the measure and continued to wage the war, claiming presidential authority to do so as commander in chief of the military. But, another far more effective act of Congress would ultimately end the Vietnam War by closing the federal purse strings.

In December 1970, Congress reacted to the U.S. invasion of Cambodia by passing the landmark Cooper-Church amendment to the Foreign Military Sales Bill. The amendment, named for and sponsored by Sens. John Sherman Cooper (R-Kentucky) and Frank Church (D-Idaho), prohibited the use of any funds already appropriated for military spending on the introduction of additional U.S. troops into Cambodia. While President Nixon denounced Cooper-Church as harming the war effort, he failed to veto it. Today, the Cooper-Church amendment is regarded as the first congressional action taken limiting presidential powers during a war.

Following Cooper-Church, and even after the Paris cease-fire agreement, Congress literally dropped the hammer on the Vietnam War with its passage in 1973 of a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 636) prohibiting any further appropriation or expenditure of any funds for any "combat in or over or from the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia.

And that's precise how wars end.  When Congress finally refuses to fund them through appropriations, they are over.

Let's get back to the GOP.  What Republicans are willing to defund the current wars?  For that matter, the same question also applies to the war friendly Democrats.  It would be nearly impossible to find a Republican or Democrat who would agree to defund the wars, let alone reign in executive powers.

When Republicans and their pundits start demanding that the wars be defunded along with military spending, that's when you know somebody is serious about ending the wars.  If a candidate is unwilling to vociferously and loudly campaign on ending war funding, then they are still fully committed neocons.

Who is talking about the cost of the wars?  Absolutely nobody but I blogged about war costs.

The Cost of America's Wars - $3 Trillion, $4 Trillion, $5 Trillion, $7 Trillion, $8 Trillion, Going Once, Going Twice, SOLD

If Americans want to understand why America is bankrupt and why the economy lies in ruins, look no further than war spending.

Meanwhile, it's definitely not time to start singing Bob Dylan's song, Times They are a-Changin.

The Vanishing American Middle Class

It's no secret that the Occupy movement was largely spawned by the left. Hence, it was viewed with disdain by most Republicans who perceived the Occupy activists as socialists clamoring for more socialism but that's only part of the story. The American middle class is indeed nosediving toward permanent extinction and any society that consists of the ruling rich and the eternally poor is doomed. But heck, it's America where we obsess over chicken sandwiches and pay scant attention to what is really happening in America.

The left isn't always wrong and in fact it gets a lot of things right. Actually, the left is quite good a diagnosing a problem but where it falls way short is in their proposed solutions to a problem which invariably calls for more government intervention and control.

Forgetting for the moment that liberals have radically different solutions than conservatives when it comes to solving big problems, we need to focus on a stone cold reality.  Contained in the jargon of the 99% vs. the 1%, there is ample documented evidence that the middle class is rapidly losing ground.

Real Wages Much Lower Than They Were Four Decades Ago

These charts do not paint a pretty picture. In fact they disclose that male wages are declining while the purchasing power of the dollar is simultaneously decreasing. That translates into direct hit on the middle class.

While the gap between the rich and the poor in America has been widening for decades, CEO compensation also continues to soar.

Average CEO Pay 2011 Nearly $10 Million At Public Companies: AP Study

The issue isn't so much about how much CEO's earn but what they earn in relation to worker wages.  The disparity between CEO compensation and worker compensation is incredibly wide and growing.

In 1982, the ratio of CEO pay to the wages of an average worker stood at 42 to 1. Today, it is beyond 300 to 1. If the minimum wage had increased as quickly as CEO pay since 1990, it would be $15.71 an hour today, here.

So when the left talks about economic injustice, it's not as if they don't make a very valid point.  So long as America continues to be a society where the rich get richer, the banksters get bailouts and the poor and middle class get poorer, that's a recipe for disaster and an eventual Marxist revolution.

Thus far, neither the Republicans or Democrats are motivated to confront America's dire economic situation.  Instead, they think the solution to everything is to just put everybody on welfare.

Over 100 Million Now Receiving Federal Welfare

Food stamps and Medicaid make up a large--and growing--chunk of the more than 100 million recipients. "Among the major means tested welfare programs, since 2000 Medicaid has increased from 34 million people to 54 million in 2011 and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) from 17 million to 45 million in 2011," says the Senate Budget Committee. "Spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach $800 billion over the next decade."

To further complicate matters, it's recently been reported that long term immigrants  in America are heavily entitlement dependent.

Slow path to progress for U.S. immigrants - 43% on welfare after 20 years

The study, based on 2010 and 2011 census data, found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits, a rate that is nearly twice as high as native-born Americans and nearly 50 percent higher than recent immigrants.

America is deliberately and massively importing entitlement dependent 3rd world labor and we've been doing it for a very long time.  Meanwhile, jobless and entitlement dependent Americans are stuck in an untenable economic situation from which there is no escape and no hope for the future..

For a nation that once proudly exhibited the strongest and most prosperous middle class in all of human history, it's clearly evident that political and policy decisions have been made at the legislative, fiscal, monetary and economic level that combined into a middle class conflagration.

While Americans are definitely not happy with Obama and the Democrats, they are even less trustful of the war obsessed Republicans who can't seem to campaign on anything except spending trillions more the murderous wars and foreign follies.