Which reminds me, he promised a sequel for today.

Oh, really. You’ve had your way with everything since Ronnie’s first tour and you are the marked mens?

Yes, the so-cons day dream about a Mau Mau uprising, a Boxer rebellion, a Sepoy mutiny, but nothing of the sort has ever been a risk.

Not only are the Big Tenters feckless cowards, they are paranoid delusionists.

Victory is a sham goal. All you really want is to keep the plantation watered and your mint juleps coming.

As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned

On January 1, 2013 one third of Republican congressmen, following their leaders, joined with nearly all Democrats to legislate higher taxes and more subsidies for Democratic constituencies. Two thirds voted no, following the people who had elected them. For generations, the Republican Party had presented itself as the political vehicle for Americans whose opposition to ever-bigger government financed by ever-higher taxes makes them a “country class.” Yet modern Republican leaders, with the exception of the Reagan Administration, have been partners in the expansion of government, indeed in the growth of a government-based “ruling class.” They have relished that role despite their voters. Thus these leaders gradually solidified their choice to no longer represent what had been their constituency, but to openly adopt the identity of junior partners in that ruling class. By repeatedly passing bills that contradict the identity of Republican voters and of the majority of Republican elected representatives, the Republican leadership has made political orphans of millions of Americans. In short, at the outset of 2013 a substantial portion of America finds itself un-represented, while Republican leaders increasingly represent only themselves.

…The ever-growing U.S. government has an edgy social, ethical, and political character. It is distasteful to a majority of persons who vote Republican and to independent voters, as well as to perhaps one fifth of those who vote Democrat. The Republican leadership’s kinship with the socio-political class that runs modern government is deep.

…Thus public opinion polls confirm that some two thirds of Americans feel that government is “them” not “us,” that government has been taking the country in the wrong direction, and that such sentiments largely parallel partisan identification: While a majority of Democrats feel that officials who bear that label represent them well, only about a fourth of Republican voters and an even smaller proportion of independents trust Republican officials to be on their side.

…The civilization of the ruling class does not concede that those who resist it have any moral or intellectual right, and only reluctantly any civil right, to do so. Resistance is illegitimate because it can come only from low motives. President Obama’s statement that Republican legislators – and hence the people who elect them – don’t care whether “seniors have decent health care…children have enough to eat” is typical.

Republican leaders neither parry the insults nor vilify their Democratic counterparts in comparable terms because they do not want to beat the ruling class, but to join it in solving the nation’s problems. How did they come to cut such pathetic figures?

As Prof. Codevilla points out in another part of his article, the GOP leadership never defends its base from charges of being “greedy, racist, violent, ignorant extremists.” But when they won’t even defend themselves from those charges how could you expect that?

The truth of the matter is that they believe it to be true. Which is why McCain and other members of the GOP leadership happily joined in with them calling their own base racists the last time they tried to pass an amnesty under Bush.

The fact is the establishment GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats in doing the two things that have destroyed Constitutional government. They’ve usurped the powers of the states and concentrated power in DC, and they’ve delegated legislative power to unelected executive branch departments.

This is why Karl Rove is no conservative when he brags about “no child left behind” as great election strategy for Bush’s reelection. Because again, that was the Federal government concentrating more power within itself to take over what should be a state and local function. And it delegated regulatory authority, which has the force of law, to the Department of Education.

Saying that’s not conservative isn’t a matter of opinion. It is a fact. Because if what you wish to conserve is Constitutional government, and big “C” conservatives say they do, then you don’t run around destroying federalism and the separation of powers.

I don’t recall exactly at what point the Republican establishment became an advocate for big government against the wishes of its base, but its been quite awhile.

Boehner isn’t “caving” to Obama when he agrees that sequestration will cause “deep” and “painful” cuts to government. He believes it. Which is insane because as Rand Paul points out all sequestration means is that over the next 10 years we’ll spend $44 trillion instead of $45T. But government is Boehner’s constituency.

McCain isn’t “caving” when he votes for Hagel or demands more gun control. It’s what he wants to do. Like with Boehner, you can’t really call it “caving” if it isn’t against his will.

Big government Republicanism isn’t conservative. That’s why Bush (although it was probably Rove’s idea) ran as a “compassionate conservative.” Conservatives want to cut the size of government. Big government Republicans don’t think cutting government is compassionate; expanding government is.

They just run as if they want to cut the size of government. And that’s the problem.

gary – If it’s not a purge of filthy RINOs and linguine spined establishment politicians to purify the right, what exactly are you suggesting? Please educate me.

Again, keep in mind that left-leaning sentiment is a major facet (or flaw) of human nature, evident throughout many societies, many peoples. It’s more polluted and corrupt today than ever before, and to be unaware of how corrosive it is, is analogous to theorizing that a coastal town will survive the impact of a big tsunami if it’s built strongly enough (ie, if a Republican or non-liberal candidate fits some presumed ideal or quality).

latimes.com, February 20, 2013:

President Obama goes into a busy spring of legislative battles holding the upper hand over congressional Republicans on key issues, a newly released poll shows.

In the fight over automatic spending cuts that are scheduled to begin March 1, Obama has a dual advantage: Almost half of Americans surveyed said they would blame the GOP if the cuts took place, compared with fewer than one-third who said they would blame Obama. Moreover, an overwhelming majority, 79%, say that additional tax increases should be part of any new deficit reduction deal, compared with only 19% who side with the Republican position that the deficit should be reduced solely with spending cuts.

The figures come from a new survey by the Pew Research Center, the first done as part of a new collaboration with USA Today.

The public was less united on whether other legislative goals were essential. Just over half gave that rating to immigration reform, another issue on which Obama holds a strong advantage in the poll… Over the last two years, the percentage favoring an enforcement-only approach has dropped, and Obama’s approval rating on handling immigration issues has risen.

Separately, a new Bloomberg poll finds that 55% of Americans approve of Obama’s job performance, the strongest support that poll has found since September 2009. By contrast, 35% held a favorable view of the Republicans, the lowest level since September 2009.

latimes.com, February 20: Californians’ optimism about the state’s future is down slightly since September, but is still higher than it has been for most of the past decade, according to a new Field Poll. The survey found that 48% of registered voters say California is heading in the right direction compared with 44% who believe the state is on the wrong track. That’s down slightly from a September survey in which 52% of state voters said they were confident in the state’s direction.

State voters give high marks to President Obama, whose approval ratings are higher than at any point since his first year in office. Sixty-two percent of those surveyed said they approve of the job the president is doing.

Obama’s job rating reached a low point in September 2011, when the Field Poll put his approval rating at 46%.

California’s view of Congress has also improved slightly, but is still generally negative. Just 23% of Californians surveyed said they approve of its performance. About three times as many — 68% — disapprove of the legislative body’s performance.

^ I often point to France, Greece or Venezuela — or certainly Argentina — as examples of how bad things can get or become, in which much of the electorate says nothing but, “why, me worry?”

Ultimately:

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves…”

Dustin, what I mean by “squish” is a person who is more likely to split his (or her) ballot — perhaps splitting for splitting’s sake — mainly because such a person becomes nervous if conservatism and right-leaning politicians become too ascendant. It may have absolutely nothing to do with whether a person’s principles are pliable and unformed or not (or what some people may think of when talking about “squish”).

Such a person will grumble about liberal politicians and policies, but it’s also very likely he or she will not help prevent things from falling further apart based on the belief that one can always vote with one’s feet—ie, “I’ll move to Colorado if things get really bad,” or “I’ll move to New Zealand if things get really bad.”

There are plenty of squishes throughout California right now who aren’t happy with the state (its economy and one-party leftist politics), and who’ve therefore relocated to other parts of the US, regrettably bringing their squishiness with them.

The Right has always been behind ‘adequacy’. Obviously, with the Cliff in the rearview mirror, the exact constituents of adequacy has changed a bit.

Only the candidate on fire with vision will bring in the bystanders, a la Reagan. Mere stage presence like Christie, or flat orthodoxy like J. Bush will not cut warm doo doo.

Plainly ‘compromise’, viz. R. Paul’s floor speech citing Cassius versus Henry, is an insidious practice and vacuous ideal.

I think even old farts like us will get to see the end.