The Bubble Party

August 8, 2005

Ron Brownstein had an excellent column today on the Republicans’ powerful position and the inherent risks therein. As Brownstein put it, Republicans appear, at times, to “confuse consensus in their coalition with consensus in the country.”

Steering solely by the preferences of Republicans can lead the party toward policies far less popular outside their coalition — such as intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo or Bush’s push to restructure Social Security.

That helps explain why the approval ratings for Bush and Congress are sinking ominously this year, especially among independents, even amid legislative achievements.

Republicans are talking mostly to each other now. But to maintain power, they may need to broaden the conversation before long.

And there’s the rub: Republicans don’t want to. Just as the president embraces “Bubble Boy” policies and refuses to even be in the same room as those who might disagree with him, the rest of the party is following his example. Indeed, we’re looking at a “Bubble Party” that’s more than satisfied talking to themselves and pretending no one else exists.

Consider the GOP summer retreat, held over the weekend.

The theme of the Republican Party’s summer meeting this weekend was expanding its base. The keynote speaker was a GOP senator who blames radical feminism for wrecking the home, equates same-sex marriage with bestiality, finds public schools suspect and believes that abortion is worse than slavery.

Republicans see no inconsistency.

Of course they don’t. For today’s GOP, “expanding the base” doesn’t mean reaching out to moderates and independents; it means motivating more right-wingers to join the cause.

It’s worked fairly well in the very recent past, but in order for Republicans to keep their hold on power, it seems they’ll have to hope desperately for three things: 1) that the remaining moderates don’t get sick of the party’s radical direction; 2) that there are still persuadable conservatives out there who haven’t been reached; and 3) that the backlash to their agenda is smaller than wave of right-wing activists they bring in. A problem with any combination of the three would burst the bubble rather dramatically.

2006 will be an interesting test, won’t it?

Bubble party? One of the best illustrations yet.

  • The bubble’s getting feisty.

    Over on Daily Kos there’s a story now that Cindy Sheehan–the mother whose son had been KIA in Iraq and who Bush treated so offensively–has been informed that if she doesn’t leave the 4 mile blast radius from Bush’s ranch, she’ll be arrested.

  • Well I suppose in Bush’ World she would be considered a national threat because she had the temerity to call the pResident on his actions.

    Gads! and consider the affect she would have on people who are just waking up to the truth about this administration. Now they would consider that to national security.

  • Does it matter?
    With Diebold & other corruptable forms of voting apparati available, with the ‘Thugs in charge, and with the majority of us too fat and satisfied with the status quo to riot (a la Ukraine), perhaps they don’t need to talk to anyone else.
    A sad & dismal view, I know, but does anyone out there have 100% confidence that Chimpy was really elected?

  • 2004 was an interesting test, but after all was said and done, interesting isn’t what I would call it. Bush won reelection, GOP gained more seats in both houses, and a dozen or so states outlawed gay marriage, including my own Oregon, which also passed Measure 37, which gives everyone who wants it an exemption to any land use planning on any sub-federal level and threatens our beloved urban-growth boundary. No, in spite of all our hopes the 2004 election was DEPRESSING. So I would be more cautious than optimistic on 2006.

  • I see nothing “official” on the Cindy story-no majors, nothing. Just a post and the resulting innuendo across the net…

  • BuzzMon: Amen to the voting problem. We have to try to keep this front and center until the Dem leadership starts raising hell 24/7 to fix it. All else is futile if we don’t fix the voting. And even after that’s fixed, we’re still in deep caca until we can get people to recognize propaganda, but that’s a detail if the elections are rigged anyhow.

  • BuzzMon and Rian,

    Last week (August 4) a commenter “jen” posted an intriguing tease about a soon-to-be-released report on election fraud, especially on the electronic voting aspect. The comment was rather vague, just that it was going to be “amazing” and shocking, and was posted in response to CB’s thread on Sen. Harry Reid’s political use of his pugilistic background.

    For what it’s worth, I taken the liberty of reposting the relevant portion of her comment:

    “In another week or two you’re all going to be treated to a most amazing report on election fraud that’s been in the works since last November. A few intrepid Clarkies have put their heart and soul into this work. It’s extensively researched and referenced. People are going to be shocked at the number of convicted felons who started and run these companies! I will send a copy to Sen. Reid and hope he’ll take the time to read it. I’ll also bring the link here and we’ll be asking everyone to spread it around other blogs and to everyone they can. We WILL take our country back!!”

  • Am I the only one who actually thinks Bush won
    the 2004 election?

    The enormity of his margin convinces me.

    I know they cheated, but to produce such a
    convincing margin by illegal means would
    be next to impossible, in my mind.

    But, I go way back to the Equity Funding scandal
    of 1973, and I doubted that one, and I was an officer
    in one of the companies held by this organization,
    the perpetrators of the greatest corporate fraud
    in history at that time.

    So what do I know?

    Ed – if you’re still there. It was Equity Funding
    Corporation of America, the “darling of Wall Street,”
    based in Los Angeles. Do you remember it?
    The Wall Street Journal broke the story at
    the beginning of April in 1973. Books were
    written about it, and there was even a one hour
    tv special on it.

  • So Truthout says the State of Texas will arrest her. See, nothing old W can do about it. States rights, and all.

    • Comments are closed.