There is no alternative to Obama--for now
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 12:04AM 
That is one superior cartoon, and I assume you can name the trio of cartoonish characters left to right. The "nonsense 24/7" is especially cute.
Economist editorial lamenting the state of the Right.
First the ambivalence on Obama:
Mr Obama deserves to be pegged back. This newspaper supported him in 2008 and backed his disappointing-but-necessary health-care plan. But he has done little to fix the deficit, shown a zeal for big government and all too often given the impression that capitalism is something unpleasant he found on the sole of his sneaker. America desperately needs a strong opposition. So it is sad to report that the American right is in a mess: fratricidal, increasingly extreme on many issues and woefully short of ideas, let alone solutions.
Fair enough. Now the plea:
This matters far beyond America’s shores. For most of the past half-century, conservative America has been a wellspring of new ideas—especially about slimming government. At a time when redesigning the state is a priority around the world, the right’s dysfunctionality is especially unfortunate.
I couldn't agree more. The progressivism, just like at the beginning of the 19th century, is more likely to arise from the GOP than from the Dems.
And yet:
The Republicans at the moment are less a party than an ongoing civil war (with, from a centrist point of view, the wrong side usually winning). There is a dwindling band of moderate Republicans who understand that they have to work with the Democrats in the interests of America. There is the old intolerant, gun-toting, immigrant-bashing, mainly southern right which sees any form of co-operation as treachery, even blasphemy. And muddying the whole picture is the tea-party movement, a tax revolt whose activists (some clever, some dotty, all angry) seem to loathe Bush-era free-spending Republicans as much as they hate Democrats. Egged on by a hysterical blogosphere and the ravings of Fox News blowhards, the Republican Party has turned upon itself.
Some say this is the vigorous debate begun. I--and The Economist--lament the lack of rising stars worthy of the designation.
Ah well, we can only hope that the saviors will emerge from obscurity, replacing the current American "idols."
Reader Comments (7)
Looking back on your brief it is cool to think of this at a high level and think about the shocks. September 11th gave us the post 9/11 Bush which was quite different from the pre 9/11 Bush. The reaction to that was Obama (far left). The reaction to Obama, in my opinion, will be someone far right that the country will embrace...and of course there will be a reaction to that and so on.
"I--and The Economist--lament the lack of rising stars worthy of the designation."
Have YOU considered becoming one of those "rising stars"? Hmmm...
Chris Christie appears to me to be a strong candidate. I expect them to unite around him.
But . . The Democratic party is in as much disarray . . Clinton Vs. Obama on several state candidates, Moderate Democrats abandoning Obama and the main party, some even mingling with the Tea Party and their conservative Tax ideas . . Some considering party switches just to hang onto their offices . .
Neither Party exhibits outstanding traits that would make one want to belong . . But apparently, with all their faults, the Republicans are winning in the polls . .
Better political analysts than I have mourned the loss of John Heinz, as the potential leader of centrist part of the Republican party. I have to think that someone will emerge from the intellectual vacuum of the right, it's happened before (I'm thinking TR, of course.)
Until then, I think I'll continue to characterize myself proudly as a RINO :-)
The TEA Party is a polyglot of people who seldom cared much about politics until Obama began spending on steroids. (Over three times the largest deficit that Bush turned in.) They also object to treating terrorism as a crime problem.( "Overseas contingency operations," reading battle field POWs their Miranda rights, and trying KSM in a civilian court.)
They will back any candidate (R or D) who advocates less government spending, keeping the Bush tax cuts intact, and treating terrorism as a military issue.
A majority of citizens were opposed to the health care reform that was passed on a strictly partisan basis. Many are angry about that, but are waiting to see what's actually going to happen to medical care. That said, many TEA Partiers are looking for candidates who will pledge to either repeal or fix the HCR bill.
It amuses me to that the Economist is just as clueless as most of the MSM in this country. They depict the TEA Party as a bunch of ignorant hicks. I'm a retired military officer with a bag of scholastic and practical training in my background. Many of the people I meet at the TEA Parties make me feel like an ignorant hick. Do not confuse those with differing political philosphies as ignorant. They aren't.
Need to correct misinformation in wishful GOP comments above.
Obama's deficit is not 3 times what Bush turned in. 1) TARP occurred under Bush. 2) Obama's stimulus plan, (787 billion) which adds to Bush's deficit was less than the Bush deficit, not more. You forget the off the books (now on the books contributing to deficit) Iraq war, cost almost a trillion $$ all by itself. Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy also contributed.
Second, more Americans (48%) according to several polls including Gallup now support Health Care Reform than oppose it (41%).
Don't be delusional about what happened under Bush and his GOP enablers. 9/11 happened under Bush, not Clinton. The financial and economic crisis also happened under Bush, not Obama.
And please distinguish the difference between pre and post 9/11 Bush. Pre 9/11 Bush was mostly on vacation, and could have cared less about Bin Laden.