Archive for ‘Republicans’

April 25, 2009

Charlie Crist in trouble in Florida?

Months ago, a conservative Florida Republican named Javier Majarres began e-mailing me to complain about his dissatisfaction with Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and the state GOP chairman, Jim Greer.

Majarres was a big supporter of Lt. Col. Allen West‘s FL-22 congressional campaign. (I profiled West for The American Spectator and blogged about his campaign through the fall.) Manjarres felt that Crist and Greer didn’t do enough to support West.

Manjarres formed the Conservative Republican Alliance, and blogs at Red County. So today, Kid From Brooklyn has a post at the Hot Air Green Room, linking this Orlando Sentinel story:

Before last fall’s election, Crist took time out of his work schedule to campaign for McCain, appearing at rallies, raising money for him in Texas and California and visiting the GOP candidate at his ranch in Sedona, Ariz.
“He was with him so many times I thought he was an adopted member of the family,” said Mitch Ceasar, Democratic chairman of Broward County.
Back home, Florida’s economic crisis was deepening. But Crist did not step up his workload, according to his schedule.

Florida is one of the states hit hardest by the bursting of the housing bubble. There’s been lots of noise about Crist running for Senate next year, but as it is, he might be lucky to be re-elected as governor. Manjarres writes:

Crist’s indecision is, in all likelihood, delaying the entrance of several candidates into either the Gubernatorial race or Senate race. . . .
In my opinion, I think Governor Crist is very beatable in a primary election. If the right conservative candidate steps up and directly confronts him on both his record and his lack of leadership, he will force Crist to answer to the base of the Republican Party in a primary election. I think he could very well lose because he has disappointed those who elected him, time and time again during his tenure. . . .
Governor Crist is a wounded deer who has fallen completely out of favor with the base of the Republican Party — the political cover he gave President Obama by supporting the reckless “stimulus” plan was the final straw for many. [Emphasis added.]

Majarres notes that Dr. Marion Thorpe has declared as a Republican candidate in the Florida Senate race, and former state House Speaker Marco Rubio might also get in the race. There may be a Tea Party conservative rebellion brewing against “me too” Republicans like Crist.

April 21, 2009

The RINO Coalition?

Is your local Republican supporting Arlen Specter?

The five-term Pennsylvania Republican, who faces a tough primary challenge from conservative former Rep. Patrick J. Toomey, received donations from 10 Republican senators in the first three months of this year.
The pro-Specter senators, who donated from either their candidate committees or their leadership PACs, include Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky; John Cornyn of Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee; and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the Senate GOP Conference chairman.
Specter’s campaign report also showed that he received funds from committees linked to Richard C. Shelby of Alabama; Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia; Bob Corker of Tennessee; Michael D. Crapo of Idaho; and George V. Voinovich of Ohio, who’s not seeking re-election next year.

(Hat-tips: Jason Pye and Club for Growth.) Any Republican who is even thinking about supporting Specter should first take a moment to ponder the warning from Stephen Gordon.

Johnny Isakson is up for re-election in Georgia next year, and I know a lot of Georgia conservatives are sick and tired of him already. When they find out Johnny’s been giving money to that worthless pro-abortion Big Government crapweasel Arlen Specter . . .

April 21, 2009

‘Party of the rich’?

Republicans get angry that they are always seen as the party of the rich. I don’t believe that. They are not the party of the rich. They are also not the party of the poor. Both parties ignore the poor, and both are headed and ruled by elitists. The general public gets that and that is why most people don’t vote and the ones who do are more inclined to identify as independents.”

April 14, 2009

Meghan loves her some Log Cabin!

Via Hot Air, and as promoted yesterday via Twitter, here’s Meghan McCain’s magnum opus:

So why are gay issues so important to me? At the most basic level, sexual orientation should not be a factor in how you are treated. If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric. . . . A dear friend of mine who’s both gay and Republican told me, “I find myself constantly being asked how I can reconcile who I am as a person with a party that lately has had such a gay-unfriendly message. Where I stand politically doesn’t begin and end with my sexuality.”

Meghan’s “sexuality,” BTW, is slut . . or so one hears. But who am I to repeat mere gossip? Of course, even if it were true that she puts out like Pez dispenser, that sort of ad hominem attack is invalid as logic and has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of Meghan’s argument for . . .

Wait a minute. What, exactly, is she arguing for? And what is her argument? Let’s see: She has a “dear friend” who is gay, and she is concerned about “anti-gay rhetoric” and a “gay-unfriendly message.”

Free markets, low taxes, limited government, traditional values and a strong defense — if you’re for that, you’re a conservative Republican same as anybody else. Nobody cares whether you’re hanging out in gay bars or, in Meghan’s case, pulling a train at the Teke house. (I don’t personally believe those rumors, but I’m just saying that this is politically irrevelant.)

So whether you’re gay or straight, married, divorced or single, monogamously chaste or promiscuously Meghanesque — well, these sorts of personal sexuality issues should be no deterrent to voting Republican. What really matters is solid conservative principles, like not pissing in the cornflakes of all those evangelicals and Catholics who make up the hard-core party base in the Red States.

Meghan’s argument is not to be taken lightly because it was ghost-written by someone else, or because she’s said to be a pushover for any guy who can afford the price of three vodka tonics. In fact, Meghan doesn’t really have an argument in any forensic sense.

Which is to say: Megan, you ignorant slut.

UPDATE: Donald Douglas at American Power:

Much of the meme on the left (alleging conservative bigotry) is in fact progressive totalitarianism and intolerance toward the traditional culture. That’s why so many regular folks get turned off by the debate: They are hesitant to wade into the culture wars for fear of being attacked and browbeaten as homophobic when they are anything but.

Stogie at Saberpoint links with an unfortunate headline: “Meghan McCain on Gay Republicans.” (Gay Republicans: “Help! Get that fat cow off us!”)

Stogie’s argument, alas, falls into the problematic tendency of, “Look, here is a gay person who is an admirable citizen.” And therefore . . .?

This does not address the issue of same-sex marriage. The question under consideration is not whether gay people are admirable citizens, either as individuals or, in comparison to heterosexuals, on average, whether gay people are better or worse citizens. There is a matter of law and policy at stake, and one’s position on that matter does not necessarily reflect a value judgment on any given person affected by the policy.

Such arguments are reminiscent of those who, when you try to debate immigration policy, will immediately say, “Oh, my grandfather came over from Ireland!” or “I know a nice Mexican man!” And therefore . . .?

Have you read Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed or Friedrich Hayek’s The Mirage of Social Justice? I’m trying to think of some other books that argue against this kind of thinking. Reader suggestions are welcome.

April 8, 2009

Paul Ryan: Looking Good!

“If you believe in freedom, liberty, self-determination, free enterprise, I don’t care if you’re a Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic, Christian, gay, straight, Latino, black, white, Irish, whatever. Join us.”
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Good Looking)

Yeah, it’s easy to see why Ryan’s a rising star for the GOP. C’mon, ladies: Those blue eyes? That thick hair? That aw-shucks grin?

A dude like that could tempt Cynthia Yockey. Oh, what the heck — he could tempt me.

This was one of my basic insights into the massive fail of Crazy Cousin John. Even without his RINO deviations, Maverick had the problem of being old, short, grumpy and, worst of all, bald.

When was the last time America elected a bald president? Ike. Welcome to the TV age. Therefore, when in doubt in a GOP primary, always vote for the guy with the best hair.

Unlike Mitt Romney, however, Ryan’s not only got great hair, he also seems to have conservative principles. He’s also very shrewd. I remember being in the press lounge at CPAC this year while Ryan was giving the keynote address. I was checking my e-mail and moderating comments, and the TV was on behind me, so I heard, rather than saw, Ryan’s speech, when I made this update:

In his keynote address, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) just called for “sound money” — evincing cheers from the Paulistas.

Ding! That impressed me, even before I turned around and saw this good-looking Irish kid who’s got “telegenic” like I’ve got “crazy.”

The Paulistas were a well-organized presence at CPAC this year, with young volunteers handing out fliers in the hotel corridors and various events scheduled throughout the conference. The phrase “sound money” is like magic with Paulistas and, whether it was pre-planned or ad-libbed, those two words were the smartest thing Ryan said.

If there is one lesson to take away from the 2008 campaign — besides the hopeless folly of running an old bald guy for president — it’s that Republicans can’t win unless they unite their base as the foundation of a broad coalition strategy.

Ron Paul got 1.2 million GOP primary votes and raised $35 million. Compare that to Rudy Giuliani, who spent $59 million to get fewer than 600,000 votes. Giuliani represented no constiuency that John McCain did not equally represent. Watching those two during the GOP debates was like watching Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy.

Given the current political realities, the Republican Party simply can’t afford to ignore the votes, the money and the grassroots energy that the Paulistas offer. And with two words — “sound money” — Ryan acknowledged that fact. Very smart.

Ryan’s a married Catholic father of three, so he can count on the family values vote. If he can sound like Peter Schiff on economics and sound like Mark Krikorian on immigration, he would have no problem getting the rest of the Reagan coalition on board for 2012.

Yes, I said 2012. This doesn’t mean I’m abandoning Sarah Palin. But tempus fugits, and if she doesn’t have time to attend CPAC or the GOP congressional fundraiser in 2009, then if she’s going to run for re-election as governor in 2010, it’s going to be hard for Palin to catch up with all the Republicans who are organizing 2012 presidential campaigns now.

If conservatives don’t want to be faced with a choice between Romney and Jeb Bush — No More Bushes! — we’re going to have to get behind somebody PDQ, and Ryan is definitely somebody. He’s extremely young (only 39), and he’s only a congressman, not a senator or a governor, but he’s from a Midwestern swing state (and attended college in Ohio), so he’s got that Electoral College factor going for him. Plus, the Heritage Foundation loves the guy.

Lots of Republican strategists harbor little hope for beating Obama in 2012, so if Palin wants to wait for 2016 or later . . . hey, why not let the Irish kid take a shot? You gotta admit: Ryan’s looking good.

April 8, 2009

If the GOP is pandering to right-wing extremists, why isn’t my phone ringing?

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs:

This turn toward the extreme right on the part of Fox News is troubling, and will achieve nothing in the long run except further marginalization of the GOP — unless people start behaving like adults instead of angry kids throwing tantrums and ranting about conspiracies and revolution.

Christopher Orr of The New Republic:

I was trying to think of a framework that captured the no-enemies-on-the-right dynamic that seems to be pushing the GOP further and further into the political wilderness. . . .
Everyone tries to outflank everyone else to the right–zero votes on any Obama-supported bill! a hyperconservative budget with no numbers! a hyperconservative budget with made-up numbers!–because there’s no obvious, non-heretical way to establish yourself as a player otherwise. Denied the opportunity to govern (by their own intransigence as much as by the size of the Democratic majority), they have nothing to do but campaign 24/7.

So there seems to be a certain sort of bipartisan consensus that the GOP is now fully committed to pandering to Buchananites, Birchers, goldbugs, gun nuts, Paulistas and sundry fringe types, and yet . . . I dunno. I’m not feeling the love here.

Do any of my fellow right-wing extremists share this perception? You there — reloading your 7.62 ammo in the Idaho cabin while listening to the short-wave militia broadcast — do you feel as if you’re now part of the woof and weave of the GOP tapestry?

How is it that Charles Johnson and Christopher Orr both think Glenn Beck (whose Fox show I’ve never watched, BTW) represents the camel’s nose in the tent, a dangerous intrusion of crackpottery into the Republican mainstream, while the genuine wingnuts still feel as ostracized and alienated as ever? Is this a consensus or . . . a conspiracy?

Are Johnson and Orr just mouthpieces for the Council on Foreign Relations, the WTO and the Bavarian Illuminati?

I’m just askin’ questions. BTW, does this tinfoil hat make my butt look big?

UPDATE: Linked by Dan Collins at PW Pub and by Jimmie Bise at Sundries Shack, who supplies the quote of the day: “Dude, it ain’t the hat.”

UDATE II: Memeorandum has a thread, Donald Douglas has related thoughts, and Pam Geller is not a fan of the LGF “CounterJihad of One.” What we’re dealing with here is a basic problem of organizational dynamics in coalition politics. Absent strong leadership and mission-focused cohesion, schisms are inevitable, and you will always have self-appointed hall monitors who take it upon themselves to say to otherwise enthusiastic coalition supporters, “We don’t need your help!”

A successful movement cannot be built by a process of subtraction, and this “urge to purge” inevitably weakens the movement. There will always be grassroots elements whose motivations and beliefs would be embarrassing to discuss on “Meet the Press.” Yet the Democratic Party never bothers to apologize for the support they receive from, inter alia, MALDEF or Code Pink, while there are always Republicans denouncing and repudiating some grassroots constituency of their party.

I attended both the LGBT Caucus and the Women’s Caucus at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and those kooks were by no means ready for prime-time. Yet the Democrats pander to them shamelessly, while the GOP is always snubbing its kook caucuses. Am I the only one who sees this difference as indicative of a want of confidence among some Republicans?

Don’t let your enemy define who you are. Kooks and wingnuts can vote, too, ya know.

As Ronald Reagan once said, for the Republican Party to win, it must have the full support of both its right wing and its far-right wing.

UPDATE III: Paleo Pat likes the big butt joke. (My wife liked it, too.) As I said in “How to Get a Million Hits,” the Right has to try to avoid become humorless assholes like those Democratic Underground moonbats.

Humor wins, and laughter is never so powerful as when you’re laughing in the face of disaster. It’s like Gen. McAuliffe replying to the German demand for surrender at Bastogne: “Nuts.”

Everybody in the GOP nowadays invokes Reagan, but none of them seems to have his knack for using humor to deflect charges of extremism. Reagan knew who he was. He knew he wasn’t a kook or a hatemonger, and so he always had confident good cheer when the smear merchants came after him. During the 1966 California governor’s race, there was some fringe group that endorsed Reagan, and the Democrats tried to make that an issue, but when the press asked Reagan about it, he just smiled and said, “They endorsed me. I didn’t endorse them.” Scandal over.

If Republicans would stop acting so defensive and guilty, like they’ve got something to hide, the “ransom note” hooligans wouldn’t be able to roll them like they rolled George Allen in 2006. Nobody ever credibly asserted — or ever could credibly assert — that Allen hated Indian-Americans. And yet his campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, hit the panic button and next thing you know, Allen’s on an “apology tour,” begging forgiveness from people who’d never even heard of a “macaca” before. (Final irony: Leading members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans actively campaigned for Democrat Jim Webb, who was far more “neo-Confederate” than Allen ever was.)

Sometimes I think that the real problem with some Republicans is that they’re just not right with God. They’ve got a guilty conscience and that naturally makes them cowards. “Ask and it shall be given you.” Pray for courage, pray for wisdom and, above all, pray for faith. Even a tiny mustard seed of faith can move mountains.

BTW, how about some tip-jar hitters out there? My wife’s worried because the phone bill is past due. She’s a praying woman, but she’s also a worrying woman. She’s got lots of faith in God, but a little less in me.

March 13, 2009

Headline of the Day

Will Everyone Named McCain
Please Leave the Republican Party!

Well, don’t you just wish, a$$hole? (And hey, Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Bob Barr!)

I started this blog and named it with the specific idea of distinguishing myself from the short, old, bald, grumpy geezer who — exactly as I said from the get-go — (a) was not conservative and (b) could not win in November.

This is clear proof that Crazy Cousin John’s RINO ways have imparted a stain to the family honor — and let’s don’t even talk about Meghan and “stain” in the same sentence, OK? A long-serving U.S. Senator and war hero has now become more of a disgrace to our name than me, perhaps the most notorious right-wing journalist in America.

I long worried that all the moonshine runners, snuff-dippers and bar brawlers in the Alabama branch of our family tree might feel I had failed to uphold our ancestral honor by working in the disgraceful racket that “journalism” has now become. Yet the two-faced, backstabbing, open-borders, bailout-endorsing crapweasel, Crazy Cousin John, has brought such odium upon our name that no one even pays attention to me.

Rush Limbaugh won’t even mention my American Spectator articles on his radio show, because the very name “McCain” has become an epithet among conservatives. If it weren’t for The One Thing Crazy Cousin John Did Right, I could never forgive him for the shame and embarrassment he has cause me.

And I should mention, BTW, that this Fox Forum article was sent to me by Atlanta’s lovely Carol Purdy Fields, whom I had a crush on in third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade . . .

March 13, 2009

Meghan McCain in ‘Friday 13th. . . .’

“. . . Part XVIII: STFU, Ditzy Bimbo From Hell!”

.msnbcLinks {font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 391px;} .msnbcLinks a {text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px;} .msnbcLinks a:link, .msnbcLinks a:visited {color: #5799db !important;} .msnbcLinks a:hover, .msnbcLinks a:active {color:#CC0000 !important;}

March 9, 2009

Meghan and ‘progressive Republicans’

Meghan McCain announces she’s a “progressive Republican,” prompting Jimmie at Sundries Shack to say that a “cute caboose” is the only difference between David Frum and Crazy Cousin John’s daughter.

As I told Jimmie, I’ve never actually seen Meghan’s caboose, so he’s probably giving her too much credit. And Donald Douglas writes:

I’m waiting to hear back from Robert Stacy McCain about all of this. McCain’s been making the case that Barack Obama’s economic policies will fail, and Republicans will be positioned sooner rather than later for a return to power, in Congress and perhaps the executive. But a lasting Republican electoral model needs to be more than about protecting the interests of “economic man.” The roots of conservatism are found in traditions and institutions that limit governmental power and unlock the potential of the individual.

I disagree with the entire premise of “progressive Republicanism,” since it is nothing but a shadow cast by liberalism. I believe it was M. Stanton Evans who said that if the Democrats proposed to burn down the Capitol tomorrow, liberal Republicans would agree to compromise by burning down half of it next Thursday.

Having quit the Democrats about 15 years ago, I’m not going to let some halfwit milquetoast moderate like Meghan McCain lead me back into endorsing 60% of the idiot agenda that I opposed even when I was still a loyal Democrat. Compromising with evil may sometimes be necessary, but it is not a virtue, as the “progressive Republicans” would have you believe.

I may come back to update with more thoughts later. But there is a reason I didn’t jump on this earlier. Meghan just trashed Ann Coulter and if I know Ann like I think I know Ann, after she publishes her column Wednesday. there will be nothing but a radioactive crater where Meghan McCain’s credibility as a Republican used to be.

UPDATE: OK, so let me address Dr. Douglas’s comment about conservatism and the electoral necessity of the Republican Party mounting more than an appeal to homo economicus. This is true, but what is that “something else” we all agree on? And given that Obamanomics is driving the nation to ruin — It Won’t Work — why is that “something else” so important that we must agree on it now?

The argument for economic liberty has the tremendous merit of being true. We know that, ceteris parabus, a free economy is a more prosperous economy in the same way that we know the force of gravity to be 32 feet per second squared. This is a fact, and all effort to convince us otherwise is therefore a lie, and anyone who prefers lies to facts is a fool.

So when David Brooks conjured up his “National Greatness” nonsense, trying to convince Republicans congressional leaders that their idea of limiting government for the sake of economic freedom was a bad thing — “Oh, those horrid anti-government populists!” — the conclusion that any honest and informed person should have reached was: David Brooks is either a liar or a fool.

From the day I first laid eyes on “National Greatness,” I knew it was wrong, and I developed an instant distrust of David Brooks. He is an elegant writer; no one can deny that. His “Bobos in Paradise” was a delight to read. But the man’s political judgment is fundamentally unsound, and by presenting himself as a conservative — or “moderate conservative,” or whatever he’s calling himself this week — he has done more harm to the cause of liberty than any other intellectual now living, including Ward Churchill. He is certainly fully deserving of his most recent award.

A constitutionally limited government is either right or wrong. If limited government is right, then unconstitutional interventions in the economy are wrong. Brooks’s arguments for “Hamiltonian conservatism” (cue eye rolls) are arguments in favor of a constitution that the Founders did not draft, and which the states would not have approved. When Hamilton attempted, via his influence in the administration of John Adams, to impose his more expansive view of federal power, it sparked a backlash that led to the creation of the Democratic Party, an accursed wrong turn in American history that is with us to this day.

The term “neoconservative” has been wrenched out of context and turned into a meaningless epithet, but the allegation that neocons are “Straussian” involves the accusation that they are dishonest in argument, preferring Platonic “noble lies” to the blunt truth. Whatever label you slap on Brooks, he is a first-class peddler of “noble lies,” who labors tirelessly to create a myth of American political history that exactly suits his purpose. And he has exactly one purpose: The advancement and promotion of David Brooks.

Brooks’s obsession with “respectability” — a trait he shares with all “moderate Republicans” who express horror at Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin or any other genuinely popular conservative — is the hallmark of selfishness.

An unselfish and honest man — that is to say, a real man — does not give a damn whether other people think his opinions are “respectable.” He believes what he believes, he stays true to his beliefs, and if he changes his mind about something, he will begin by admitting that he was formerly wrong, and with that admission begin to convince those with whom he formerly agreed that they must now change their minds, too.

Brooks does not do this. He was a cheerleader for Bushism, then a cheerleader for McCainism, until he became a cheerleader for Obamaism, and he thinks that ordinary Americans are too stupid to notice that he’s just drifting wherever the winds of lucrative “respectability” lead him.

And, of course, Brooks suffers the ironic fate of all who make “respectability” their lodestar: NOBODY RESPECTS HIM.

In sum, then, Brooks is both a cause of, and a metaphor for, the sorry state of the Republican Party. And the Meghan McCains of the GOP, who think that there is something to be gained by further betrayals of the bedrock principles of economic liberty and limited government, are merely proposing to take Republicans from irrelevance to extinction.

UPDATE II: Excuse me for that digression into Brooks-bashing. As I explained today to my novelist friend Tito Perdue, I’ve become concerned for the health of my spleen.

Moderate Republicanism has a horrible effect on my spleen, causing the production of excess bile. The bile starts building up in my spleen, next thing you know, the ducts become blocked, it backs up into my bloodstream and I get the overwhelming urge to smack around some pathetic 24-year-old Kenyon College grad just for sport. So let’s actually quote little Miss Meghan:

To make matters worse, certain individuals continue to perpetuate negative stereotypes about Republicans.

(You mean the “negative stereotype” that Republicans are short, clueless old bald guys?)

Especially Republican women. Who do I feel is the biggest culprit? Ann Coulter.

(Note that she does not say, “Elaine Chao” or “Elizabeth Dole” or some other Republican woman less famous and popular than Coulter. You’re not going to get a Daily Beast column by announcing that the biggest problem with the Republican Party is Olympia Snowe.)

I straight up don’t understand this woman or her popularity. I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time.

(Funny, I said three of those things about your father. He was never radical. Crazy, yes. Radical, no.)

I consider myself a progressive Republican, but here is what I don’t get about Coulter: Is she for real or not?

(She is real, and she is spectacular. She is also funny. So that’s something else you don’t have in common with her. Say, Meghan, how about I set you up with a guy. He’s perfect for you. He didn’t much care for CPAC, either. Kid’s name is Evan Ramsey McLaren. Don’t say I never did you any favors.)

UPDATE III: Hot girl-on-girl action, as Monique jumps into the Jello pit with Meghan:

I’m waiting to see you on an episode of Maury ten years from now where you bring back the boy who wouldn’t kiss you to tell him how over it you are. Except, you’re obviously not over it because if you were you wouldn’t be concerned with bringing the guy on Maury and telling him about it.

Let’s go to the super-slow-motion video replay . . .

February 25, 2009

Thoughts on strategy

Over the weekend, I did a post whacking Rick Moran for his plays-well-with-others advice to Repuublicans. Tuesday night, I did Rick’s Internet radio show with Stephen “VodkaPundit” Green and Fausta “Rule 5” Wertz.

We talked about a lot of things, including Republican strategy — to the extent that “Republican strategy” is not a contradiction in terms. One of the points I made was that it is always good politics to be right.

I pointed out that, in 2003-04, the Democratic grassroots who supported Howard Dean were essentially betting that the Iraq war would prove a policy failure and thus a political liability for Republicans. Dean flamed out, but his grassroots supporters installed him at the DNC, and the party continued to double-down on its anti-war bet — which paid off big-time in 2006.

The challenge Republicans confront now is Barack Obama’s enormous popularity. However, as I have argued, the Obama/Reid/Pelosi economic plan won’t work. Republicans seem afraid to bet against that plan — that is, to stake their near-term political fortune on the probability that, on Labor Day 2010, the recession will be far worse than what we’ve experienced so far.

Studying the basic economics of the situation, it seems certain to me that Obamanomics won’t work. We might get a dead-cat bounce late this year, but the pressure on the bond market from all this deficit spending will be unsustainable. Everybody keeps look at the Dow Jones, but if the bond market goes wobbly — hello, Weimar America. At a very minimum, the path we’re on now will lead to a Gerald Ford/Jimmy Carter stagflation trap.

So, if Republicans know the economy’s going down the toilet, how about they hang that disaster around the Democrats’ necks? All this namby-pamby crap about how the GOP needs a “positive agenda” is about policy; I’m talking politics. Negative politics works. Scapegoat the Democrats for the economy without mercy or scruple.

Stephen argued that it is unlikely the GOP can recapture Congress before 2014, saying of the 2010-12 time-frame: “Brace yourselves for failure.” That’s defeatism or, as my late father always said, “Can’t never could.”

Forget what Obama’s poll ratings are in February 2009. Forget about “Big Picture” questions of grand strategy. What counts is what the generic ballot question shows on Labor Day 2010. Republicans need to raise money, organize and identify at least 50 seats currently held by Democrats that the GOP can win in 2010. Do that basic stuff, and the “Big Picture” will take care of itself.

Bet against Obamanomics, do the basic work of organizing for 2010, forget all the distracting chatter and — above all else — quit the hang-wringing and whining. A great opportunity beckons, if only Republicans will buckle down and focus on the task at hand.