« David Brooks Just Now Figures Out Barack Obama is a Leftist | Main | Marine Corps punishes 13 for San Diego jet crash »

The Trust Deficit

Perhaps the most immoral choice made by democrats in the last ten years was the decision to attack Republicans solely on the basis of partisan goals. Consequently, the hundreds of democrats in the House and Senate who voted for the Iraq War feigned indignation at the war's costs, ignoring success and the threat of terrorism in order to gain political leverage. Pleas by Bush to address Social Security and Medicare reform went unheeded, although democrats would later blame the President for their own dishonesty. Democrats nominated a man they knew to be unprepared for the office, simply because their lust for power was far greater than their last few glimmers of love for their country. Nine of every ten democrats has sold his soul for power, and could not care less how many Americans he hurts, so long as he gets re-elected.

Republicans see the rising anger in the eyes and voices of Americans, and many of them think they can turn this to their advantage in 2010 or 2012. But they forget how far they have left the road of moral leadership. The GOP tolerated Larry Craig, they resisted President Bush when he led like a conservative but rode along when he proposed liberal budgets and found no voice to oppose earmarks or corruption in politics. The GOP likes to imagine they are the party of Reagan, but not one of them evokes comparison with the Gipper. True, John McCain would have been a significantly better choice for President than Barack Obama, but that is only because Obama is so horribly incompetent and dishonest; there was no real conservative among the leading candidates, partly because none of the GOP leadership wanted one. America has not yet forgotten how few of its promises the republican party kept during the years it held power. So only a great fool, which is to say a politician, would imagine that incompetency and dishonesty by democrats would mean a return to the pachyderm's glory days. It's just not going to play out that way.

Ronald Reagan was probably the greatest President of the twentieth century, not least because he was the only president to rebuild much of the public trust in the office. But since he left office, the brand has quickly eroded. Some of that comes from character assassination, especially by the mainstream media, but it was also spurred by an incredibly clumsy history of bad judgment, personal arrogance, and rejection of common-sense thinking. It's difficult to imagine a president counting terrorists and despots as moral equals to democratically-elected leaders, or imagining that Moscow would hold a worldview comparable to that of the average American, or promoting laws to essentially cause banks to ignore risk evaluations in mortgages, or to ignore radical terrorist groups which publicly declare their desire to kill Americans, or that massive government programs would result in effective improvements in education and medicine, or that terrorists should enjoy the same civil rights as decent citizens, or that the best way to create new employment would be to punish the people who create and run companies, but all of those things have happened.

To put it plainly, the American people do not trust the politicians. Democrats grabbed power in 2006 and the White House in 2008 largely by lying about the situation and what they promised to do, but they will only be voted out if the public sees a more trustworthy alternative. If republicans truly want to regain the power they had before, they will have to show that they have reformed and are worthy of the responsibility. As for the democrats, they can and will play on fear and prejudice to hold onto their seats, but in the end this will kill their party unless the few democrats with scruples left, the ones who remember what their party once stood for, reform their party as well. It has become difficult to kill off an obsolete party, but the Whigs died because they became completely useless to the nation; the republicans and democrats had better learn from that history. If things continue as they are now, then no matter who hold office, the public will treat the federal government with all the contempt it has richly earned, and eventually no policy or program will have a chance of success, because its source is an illegitimate government, a bastard set of dictators.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/34723.

Comments (27)

This is almost as dead-on a... (Below threshold)
Hmmm...:

This is almost as dead-on as your polling analysis for the 2008 election. You guys are doing some good work here for the Republicans. Keep up the good work!

Nine of every ten democr... (Below threshold)

Nine of every ten democrats has sold his soul for power, and could not care less how many Americans he hurts, so long as he gets re-elected.

Where would you rank republicans here, DJ? I'd say somewhere around 5 for the House and 8 or 9 for the Senate GOPers.

Many Democrats such as Hill... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

Many Democrats such as Hillary Clinton trusted in President Bush when he claimed that going to war with Iraq would be a last resort, and hoped that by giving Bush war powers authorization would lead to Saddam opening up to more inspections. although UN inspections had destroyed most longer range missiles or other arms. Opposition to Iraq only built when it was discovered that a path of bad intelligence as well as misleading views coming out of the White House led the U.S. into a serious mess that will keep U.S. troops in this nation for many years. It was not going to be a quick U.S. mission such as Grenada or such.

Mr. Bush had the common support of many Democrats on many issues, but he himself wore down that trust with too many bad revelations, too many mistakes, and bad reality. And the public agreed by 2006 and 2008, when the Republicans suffered twin election setbacks.

By the way, when are the Republicans going to offer up serious opinions on how to run the country themselves? Simply opposing economic recovery efforts isn't offering up much in the way of answers or hope to those whose jobs are lost or their homes are being foreclosed.

Uh, Paul...watch olberdouch... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Uh, Paul...watch olberdouche much? Vomiting those tired old democrap talking points is effing ponderous and well....just hell-a-lame!!

"By the way, when are the R... (Below threshold)

"By the way, when are the Republicans going to offer up serious opinions on how to run the country themselves? Simply opposing economic recovery efforts isn't offering up much in the way of answers or hope to those whose jobs are lost or their homes are being foreclosed."

Nice try, troll. Except that they HAVE proposed alternatives...in the House they weren't even allowed to sit at the table and in the Senate nearly every amendment they proposed was voted down. When you're not ALLOWED to propose an alternative, you have nothing left to do but vote 'no', now don't you? Why didn't the Democrats propose alternatives when the Republicans were in the majority instead of just voting 'no' to stuff like the things that would protect the US from terrorists? Hmmm? Because the Republicans didn't let them. Get over yourself and go spread your propaganda somewhere where the readers aren't light years ahead of your tired lies.

Paul H. I am still laughing... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Paul H. I am still laughing. Gosh you lefties don't fail to crack me up with your selective memory and outright denial. Senate intelligience leaders had the same reports about Iraq as GW did. They supported the military move. They continued to fund it since. You lefties fail to take responsibility for anything. You are a party of "I did not have sex with that woman".

DJ. Right on. I do not trust government at all. I would be hard pressed to find anyone there that has my family's best interest at heart. ww

"Democrats grabbed power in... (Below threshold)

"Democrats grabbed power in 2006 and the White House in 2008 largely by lying about the situation and what they promised to do, but they will only be voted out if the public sees a more trustworthy alternative."

Bingo. Republicans win BIG when they provide a specific, trustworthy alternative to Democrat dishonesty and incompetence to the American people.

Paul,Many... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Paul,

Many Democrats such as Hillary Clinton trusted in President Bush when he claimed that going to war with Iraq would be a last resort, and hoped that by giving Bush war powers authorization would lead to Saddam opening up to more inspections.

I believe that Bush was also hoping Saddam would come clean, but he didn't. So that left Bush two choices, pullback the forces he amassed or attack. Had Bush pulled back, Saddam would have won a significant victory in breaking the will to contain him. Saddam was secretly bribing UN, French, and Russian officials and if he had won the standoff with Bush it wouldn't be long before UN sanctions would be lifted or just not enforced.

So what would have happened if Saddam and his sadistic sons had been left in power? No one can say for sure, but we know what kind of man Saddam was. We know he supported terrorism against Israel by paying money to the families of suicide bombers. We know Saddam was a mass murderer willing to use chemical weapons on his own people. We know Saddam will willing to send hundreds of thousands of his troops to their deaths to further his aggression. We know Saddam was vengeful even to the point of executing family members. We know Saddam was quick to put his dispute with Iran aside when the United States became the enemy, a point of view Iran shares.

Given what we know about Saddam and without effective UN sanctions and with billions of petrol dollars, it's a safe bet that Saddam would have rearmed and sought the means to strake back at the United States for the humiliating defeat he suffered in the first gulf war. Not wanting to confront the United States directly he would likely support terrorism with cash, weapons, and safe-havens. Saddam could have allied with Iran and Syria to form an alliance that would dominate the region militarily, and politically to a far greater degree than the individual countries that made up the alliance. Instead of having troops in Iraq we would have troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the oil supply. And remember, Osama bin Laden cited U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia as the justification for 9/11.

For all those who opposed Bush removing Saddam you have to consider the ultimate cost of leaving Saddam and his sadistic sons in power compared to the current and likely situation in Iraq. An honest assessment might find that removing Saddam was the better choice facing Bush. Historians not infected with BDS may well judge Bush on that basis.

"Democrats grabbed power in... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

"Democrats grabbed power in 2006 and the White House in 2008..."
Those power grabs are called "elections."
"Nice try, troll. Except they HAVE proposed alternatives..."
Really? What are they? Why haven't I heard them on the Sunday talk shows? All I've heard is whining and buzz words about "socialism" and "generational theft."

Compliments to you Mr. Drum... (Below threshold)
CZ:

Compliments to you Mr. Drummond. Very well said, and one of your best.

Ronald Reagan was... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Ronald Reagan was probably the greatest President of the twentieth century, not least because he was the only president to rebuild much of the public trust in the office.

It is interesting to me, that you bring up Reagan because it demonstrates the insanity, passing as logic, that I see coming from the right these days.

When Reagan entered office, the United States unemployment rate stood at 7.5%.

A full two years later, unemployment peaked at 10.8% percent in December 1982, the highest rate since the Great Depression.

So basically, the man republicans consider the greatest president of the last 100 years, took the economy from a 7.5% unemployment rate to a 10.8% unemployment rate his first two years in office.

So I ask, If the greatest president since probably Lincoln (by your rationale) couldn't fix the economy in two years, why is it you you blame Barack Obama for not having made progress in two months? And shouldn't Reagan's first two years have been one of the wrost disaters ever by the standards you are holding Obama?

Bruce Henry"Why have... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce Henry
"Why haven't I heard them on the Sunday talk shows? "

Come on Bruce. You think someone at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, or MSNBC would actually let something like that appear on their networks and dare challenge the ONE.

GIve us a break.

THe Sunday talk shows are run by liberals for liberals.

I do have a question for you.


What does this represent?

-
..|
...|
....___
.......|
........____
............|
.............--->

Answer:

The Dow Jones after an Obama speech.

JMC, try to have a little h... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JMC, try to have a little honesty. Jimmah Carter is famous for the triple double. Inflation, interest rates and unemployment. If you were an adult through those times, it was a miserable terrible time. Jimmy backed down and ran like a scared rabbit when our embassy in Iran was overun and they had americans prisoner for more then a year. Gas lines were very long for a long time. Carter was kicked out for the loser he was. Also at this time, it is good to remember we had a democratic lead congress. HMM? Barry is toast. ww

I, like many, are coming to... (Below threshold)
Deke:

I, like many, are coming to the conclussion it isn't about letters after names anymore but about honesty and integrity. My example is my local Cogressman, he is one of those "Stauch" conservatives with an R after his name. He has made the talk show rounds bemoaning the budget and putting vowing to fight to the end. The sad part is we found out this week he has included several million dollars in ear marks for his district, when questioned by local media his response, to paraphrase "It's gonna pass anyways why not bring some home?"

When I heard this I promptly called his office and explained I would have more respect for him if he stood up and said no than I would for having a new library wing with his name on it built. His office just gave me the "We apprectiate your opinion what is your zip code?" thing.

After this I'm not going to support any candidate of any party, this we gotta vote for the R b/c it's better than the D crap has gotta stop. Neither party has the interests of Americans at heart and only care about the gaining of power for themelves. Wake up America before it's too late.

Willie, the Republicans too... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Willie, the Republicans took the Senate back in the 1980 election. But that will be the answer. Reagan had to follow that awful Jimmy Carter while Obama could just continue in the fine conservative mold of economic genius George "Cut and Spend" Bush, instead of making the U.S. a socialist country (ha!).

Btw, this,

Obama is so horribly incompetent and dishonest

is comedy gold coming from a Bush cheerleader like you, DJ.

JMC, try to have ... (Below threshold)
jmc:
JMC, try to have a little honesty. Jimmah Carter is famous for the triple double. Inflation, interest rates and unemployment. If you were an adult through those times, it was a miserable terrible time. Jimmy backed down and ran like a scared rabbit when our embassy in Iran was overun and they had americans prisoner for more then a year. Gas lines were very long for a long time. Carter was kicked out for the loser he was. Also at this time, it is good to remember we had a democratic lead congress. HMM? Barry is toast. ww


WW, try to think a little. There is nothing dishonest in my post. I stated facts. It is a fact. unemployment was 7.5% when Reagasn took office. it is a fact, two years later, it was 10.8%. If you are going to accuse me of being dishonest better come up with something that disproves what I said.

The rest of the post I ask a question based on the logic DJ was putting forth. You really shouldn't answer a post when you don't even understand what is going on.

Answer:The D... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Answer:

The Dow Jones after an Obama speech

Thanks for admitting regan was one of the worst presidents ever.

How're the Republicans effo... (Below threshold)
mantis:

How're the Republicans efforts going, vis a vis that trust deficit?

The poll had bad news for the Republican opposition. By a margin of more than 2-1, Americans trust the Democratic Party over the Republicans to get the country out of the recession. Views of the GOP are near an all-time low. And more than half of all adults say that Republicans in Congress have opposed Mr. Obama's proposals more to gain political advantage, compared with 30% who say Republicans have done so because they are standing up for their principles.
jmc -Your focus on... (Below threshold)
apb:

jmc -

Your focus on only unemployment puts you squarely in the 'moron' category. Obomber's boy Volcker was the architect of tightened money supply during that time to try to control Jimmuh's disastrous inflation.

The side effect for the '80-'82 period was increased unemployment, but also downward pressure on inflation. Over '80-'84, CPI inflation dropped 9 points, with a 4 point drop in core inflation.

Isn't there a way we can set aside a "kid's table" here for these mush-headed lefties?

mantis -Those numb... (Below threshold)
apb:

mantis -

Those numbers are about right - the half that accuse the (R)'s of obstruction are the same half that voted in Obama. It's sad to see that the fraction of Moron-Americans has increased to over 60 percent, though - they ARE the group that are handily at home during the day to answer the pollsters.

Maybe find out what percentage of THOSE are also the proud owners of both the ShamWOW and SlapChop.

This is an illustration of ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

This is an illustration of the weird fantasy world Republican apologists live in:

"Greatest President of the 20th century Ronald Reagan"

What? Not a bad president, by any means, certainly no Dubya, but seriously? Iran-Contra, quadrupling the national debt, 12% unemployment in 1983, etc.

Ended the Cold War. Definitely great. Gave Saddam Hussein WMD. Not so great.

So-so president at best and this is the guy you people have shrines to in your closets, because you have not much else to pin your hopes on.

"Greatest President of the 20th century Ronald Reagan"

Harry Truman, Ike, FDR, JFK, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton should all take offense.

RE: "To put it plainly, the... (Below threshold)
kevino:

RE: "To put it plainly, the American people do not trust the politicians."

In a recent poll, Americans indicated that they trusted politicians more than they trust business people.


RE: "Democrats grabbed power in 2006 and the White House in 2008 largely by lying about the situation and what they promised to do, but they will only be voted out if the public sees a more trustworthy alternative."

1. Democrats didn't grab power: they won elections.
2. They didn't win by lying: they didn't have to. In the 2006 and 2008 they simply didn't say very much about what they would do, and neither the MSM or the American people asked specific questions.
3. This has less to do with trust than laziness. Americans are voting for Democrats because they are hoping that Democrats will make their problems go away. Many of the American people are tired and scared, and they want Democrats to make their lives better. When 51% of the people get direct benefits from the State; when more people work for the State than work for manufacturing; when people are in over their heads and want State help; when people haven't saved enough for their retirement; and when people are afraid of losing what they have, they'll vote for Democratic Socialism.
4. The GOP knows point #3 too. That is why they are moving away from conservatism. They need to be moderate, "compassionate conservatives" to appeal to voters: they can't ask the American people to work for themselves because the GOP would get wrecked at the polls.
5. If the GOP wants to present themselves are more trustworthy, it is going to be a long road back due to the simple fact that six years of GOP rule didn't work out very well. First of all, the Bush Administration is going to stick in everyone's mind as incompetent. Secondly, the GOP doesn't have a good track record in honesty, either. Both parties have proven themselves to hopelessly corrupt.
6. If the GOP wants to get out of the woods, they need to present real alternatives. They need to explain why the DNC proposal is a bad idea and why their proposal is better.

As an independent voter, I don't like either party. The American people need to learn quickly that the risks to our future are very real, and the DNC plan will end in disaster. If they don't, they're going to get an education, but until they wise up, they'll continue to vote for Democrats because they want the free stuff, and they want all the bad things to go away.

I hate the idea of the Nanny State, but most Americans seem to miss Mommy and Daddy taking care of them. And we get the Government that we deserve.

They didn't win by lying... (Below threshold)

They didn't win by lying: they didn't have to.

Pull the other one...

"I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we...the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up." -Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) after the 2006 elections

-not even going to bother to read any more of your comment...

JMC, I stand by my comment ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JMC, I stand by my comment about your comment.

Reagan, of course, encouraged and succeeded in growing businesses that in turn grew staff and increased incoming revenue to the national treasury.

You lefties are so pathetic in your absolute worship for a guy that has no track record.

The old cliche holds true: When your at the top, there is no way to go but down. I said this months ago, the MSM built Barry up so much, there is no way he can live up to the expectation. ww

our focus on only... (Below threshold)
jmc:
our focus on only unemployment puts you squarely in the 'moron' category. Obomber's boy Volcker was the architect of tightened money supply during that time to try to control Jimmuh's disastrous inflation.

Oh great, Wild Willie's intellectual equal has joined the fray to demonstrates how quickly he can miss the point. Inflation was already tumbling by 1982! Consider the inflation rates for those years:

Inflation (1)

1979 11.3%
1980 13.5
1981 10.3
1982 6.2
1983 3.2

Yet 1982 was the worst year since the Great Depression, with -2.2 percent growth.

So, stupid explain to me (pay attention this is the point I was making) Since Reagan clearly hadn't fixed the economy after two years in office (In which you assert he is picking up after carter) why is it you think Obama should have magically fixed the disaster that was Dubya in two months?

I mean if the greatest president of the last 100 years (I am stiffling my giggles) can't fix an economic calamity in two years shouldn't it take President Obama more than two months?

Don't worry, I don't expect you to understand the contradiction in your thinking. Congative Dissonace and lack of self-awareness seem the halmark of the far right.

JMC, this is the third year... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JMC, this is the third year of democratically controlled congress. Have they any blame in your world for the economic mess? ww

JMC, this is the ... (Below threshold)
jmc:
JMC, this is the third year of democratically controlled congress. Have they any blame in your world for the economic mess? ww

Tell you what: I will engage in the seperate debate (hich really has nothing to do with what I was asking) about the culpability of congress, when you:

1) Comprehend what I'm asking

2) Answer it.


So again, if Ronald Mcd... Er, Ronald Reagan, couldn't fix a very bad economy in two years, why is you are attacking Obama, for not having fixed it in two months? Doesn't it seem unrealistc to expect progress at this point, when the man you consider great, didn't have any for years?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy