Conservative Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia announced yesterday he would retire. Conservative Democratic Sen. Kent Contract of North Dakota also plans to retire. So does Joe Lieberman. Rep. Jane Harman of California is quitting asap. Hmmm. But retiring isn't all they're doing. In the South, so many conservative Democrats are converting to the Republican Party that the Democrats are in danger of going the way of the dodo. What is happening?
History loves irony. In 2008, the Democrats crowed about becoming the new majority party in the US. They were sure America had changed forever. The Republicans were destined to become a regional party, they chuckled. Nancy Pelosi was even hailed as the most powerful speaker of all time. But just like Hitler’s 1000 year Reich lasted only 12 years, Pelosi’s new reality lasted only one election cycle. So sad.
Indeed, not only was the last election a debacle for the Democrats, but it turned out to be the debacle that just keeps on debacling. Since the midterm, 24 state senators and representatives have switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Texas. In Louisiana, the number was enough to give the Republicans the majority in the state House for the first time since Reconstruction. In Alabama, these switchers gave the Republicans a supermajority.
This is happening at other levels too. In Northeastern Texas, nine officials switched. In Louisiana, the Attorney General James Caldwell just switched parties as well. Ten elected officials switched in Alabama, including a Sheriff, a District Judge, County Commissioners and a School Board Chairman. It’s going on everywhere.
So why is this happening? Well, check this out. Ashley Bell is a young (30) black lawyer. He served as president of the College Democrats of America. He was part of John Edwards’ campaign. He spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and his wife was a Barack Obama delegate at the 2008 convention. He just switched parties. Why?
Bell went on to explain that he believed conservative blue dog Democrats were bullied into voting for ObamaCare.“I think the midterms showed you really can't be a conservative and be a member of the Democratic Party. . . I had to make the decision that if I'm going to be arguing with Democrats at some point I realized I might as well do it as a Republican.”
New-Republican Attorney General James Caldwell (La) explains his move thusly:
Yep.“The truth is that this change of party is in line with thousands of everyday people who simply feel more comfortable with most of what the Republican Party represents locally and nationally.”
The key word there is “locally.” For decades, the Democrats survived by talking like conservatives on the local level, but voting far, far left in Washington. They pretended that their party was still the party of FDR rather than the party of Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton and Sean Penn. And with the iron grip the MSM had on information, this strategy worked, because little of what went on in DC ever made it back to home districts. But with the internet and blogs and talk radio doing an end run around this information blockade, Democrats are finding that people at home suddenly know what they’ve really been doing in DC. So now it’s becoming impossible to maintain the illusion that they’re just like the rest us, because people know when they vote to socialize medicine or give special rights to various Democratic interest groups: blacks, gays, feminists, unions, etc.
How bad are things getting? Said one Democrat in Georgia, a big part of his job is to “let people know it’s OK to be Democrats.” Good luck with that.
I'm not normally one to say that anything in politics is permanent, but this appears to be the finishing act of a trend that started in the 1960s and accelerated in the 1980s and only slowed temporarily under Bush II: average people have permanently abandoned the Democrats at all levels because the Democratic Party no longer represents (or even respects) average people. If I'm right, this could be game over for the Democrats for at least a generation.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Democrats Continue Abandoning Sunken Ship
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
77 comments:
These things tend to swing back and forth, of course (bad poetry intended.) Still, I think what is happening is that it is a bad time for moderates. Never have the choices been so stark. Welfare state vs. liberty and fiscal sanity. Luckily, our side is winning right now.
The now deceased, “Democratic Leadership Council,” was the organization whose job it was to cover for the loons. This was supposedly a gathering of “moderate” democrats (oxymoron). This group pushed the “Third Way,” an amalgamation of capitalism & socialism, much more palatable to moderates and conservatives…hooey! This was a direct response to the political earthquake that was Ronald Reagan, and the utter repudiation of Carter. Those of us old enough to remember, in ’76 the democrats had that same strut going that they had in ’08…oh well. I agree with what you’re saying, with one caveat, we must find, and nominate a fiercely conservative standard bearer, someone who will go hammer-n-tong dissembling the Imperial Federal government. Our bench needs depth as well, insuring conservative governance for decades.
Andrew,
I wouldn't count the Dems out just yet.
If they keep on purging conservatives from their ranks, to the point that only socialists remain, then they will go away. Until then, they will stay around and cause mischief.
In other news, did you see that AOL stock has dropped after they acquired Huffpo? Evidently Wall Street doesn't think highly of the deal.
Seeing the electoral map in the South and Border South is just awesome. Arkansas and Mississippi both swung from 3-1 Democrat to 3-1Republican in their House delegations; Tennessee doesn't have any House Dems left outside of Nashville and Memphis, Louisiana doesn't have any outside of New Orleans, and in Missouri, we've moved to a 6-3 split (soon to be 6-2, I think, after redistricting). The evidence you put up makes me hopeful that we're finally seeing a large-scale changeover on a local level, matching the shift in national elections this part of the country experienced in the recent past. Woo hoo!
Momentary threadjack: NBC News is reporting that Mubarak will step down as Egyptian president tonight. Here we go...
My worry is that the leftist dems get over to the Rep party and try to change it.
Jed, I think you're right on both points. Right now, the choice between left and right is as clear as it's been in my life and people aren't looking for anyone sitting in the middle.
Also, these things do tend to swing back and forth, though I think that (1) in middle-America (outside the large towns), this is a permanent swing, and (2) I think we've now see as far left as American will swing, and it wasn't very far (and it didn't last very long). So I think from here on out, it's only going to be further right. How far, I don't know? But I don't think it will ever swing further left than this because we just hit the furthest left that the American pendulum swings.
Stan, I disagree slightly about the DLC, I think compared to the Pelosi branch, they were much more moderate and I think their intent was to make the party more FDR-ish than Pelosi-ish, but they lost to the Pelosi branch and they may be finished now.
In terms of appointing a conservative, I totally agree. We need someone who understand how to shrink the government in a way changes the landscape of America and keeps it from growing back.
Joel, Trust me, I'm not counting them out, but I think we've seen the best they will ever achieve -- America just won't go further left.
And I think their actions have doomed them for quite some time.
Moreover, unless they find a way to move much further back to the center, without losing their left flank (an impossible task given the temper tantrum and selfishness of the left), they will become a smaller and smaller party. Because America has proven that leftism is incompatible with our culture.
Of course, all of this assumes that the Republicans don't do anything truly stupid, which is always possible.
Joel, P.S. On AOL, I was reading about it at a business news site and they were saying that AOL way overpaid. They paid 32 times forward earnings and the going rate for sales of something with Huffpo's revenue stream is 12 times forward earnings.
Also, people are now wondering what AOL's plan is. Apparently, NBC was trying to buy Huffpo -- which made a lot of sense because they could have married it to MSNBC, which is an openly leftist platform. But AOL doesn't have anything like that, so it doesn't fit their empire. People are now wondering what the point is unless AOL tries to add a right wing site to balance out -- which would really anger Huffington. They are also worried that if AOL doesn't add a right wing balance, then they'll start losing their existing audience (even faster).
T_Rav, It is great! And the Democrats are finished in the South, I feel pretty confident in saying that. What they are selling just runs counter to everything Southerners believe.
What disappoints me is the West. It should be just as bad for them out here, but it's not. And the reason is California, which shed liberals who didn't like what liberalism did to California. So rather than fix the mess they created, they infested places like Denver and promptly began remaking those places into the cesspool they just ruined.
Still, I'm hopeful that we'll catch up to the South.
And don't forget, redistricting is slowly stripping the liberal centers of their votes -- places like the Northeast, which is getting smaller every year.
T-Rav, Yeah, I just saw that. I guess we'll see what happens next? This is one of those moments that makes history so interesting.
I'm thinking the Muslim Brotherhood is being frozen out because they've been whining a lot in the past couple days about refusing to participate, etc. etc. That could be a really good thing.
Andrew, it is kind of disappointing. For every Utah, there's a Colorado (although I'm still convinced Harry Reid stole the Nevada race). But hopefully, with folks like the new New Mexico governor, we can build up a resurgence in that part of the country as well. And with parts of the Northeast and upper Midwest appearing to be coming around as well, things are definitely looking up.
ACG, That's always a problem, but I'm not worried about it. Here's why.
I spent a lot of time in one of these states where everyone was a Democrat for historic reasons. They instinctively voted "D" because that's what they had always done. . . "daddy and granddaddy were Democrats." That sort of thing.
But they were starting to wake up. Indeed, for the past 3-4 elections, they were already voting "R" for President. . . they just hadn't made the switch at the local level yet. But that was starting to change.
Here's the catch. When I spoke with these people, I was shocked to find out that they were further right than most of the Republicans I know -- both on fiscal and social issues. They just never connected the fact that they were conservatives because they grew up as old-school Democrats.
Those are the people who are jumping over and not going back. So I'm not worried about most of them. Some of them no doubt are opportunists, but the bulk probably aren't.
T_Rav, I'm very disappointed in Colorado and Nevada (though I also think Reid stole that election).
I wouldn't count on the Northeast ever changing (or California), and the upper Midwest is weak though it has promise -- especially as the union guys die off of old age or inactivity-induced morbidity. But the rest of the country has become solidly Republican, and right now that's more than enough to carry the country.
Wow! I had no idea it was that many people switching parties. That does smack of more than just opportunism. If you thought that O was going to be reelected and your party would just be out for the next couple years, you wouldn't switch.
And I LOVE the cartoon!
Oh, and I don't know if you saw yet about Rep. Lee (R-NY) and he's resigning because of a shirtless picture he took and sent someone. If he were a Dem -- yaaaawwwwwwnnnn...
But frankly, I'm glad he's resigning, whether he decided to do it or whether he's being forced to. I like that our party isn't going to put up with any sort of shenanigans.
Crispy, I like the cartoon too. It's too bad we don't have a cartoonist on staff because I'd love to use more cartoons, but good ones are hard to find.
I agree that this is much more than just opportunists. I think this is a continuation of a realignment. And you're right, if they thought Obama was going to recover, they wouldn't be changing sides right now.
We must be very cautious about overconfidence and the "death" of the Democratic Party. That party is taking on water faster than the Titanic, but we have a history lesson that the Republicans may or may not have learned. 1994. The Republicans didn't recognize that it was a conservative revolution, and when they mistakenly took it as a Republican revolution, they ignored the core principles that got them elected. It was a victory of philosophy but they took it as a victory of party.
The massive turnover in the House and recent defections in both houses of Congress are the result of an even stronger conservative switch. But if Republicans think saying "I'm a Republican" is merely a label that embraces the left and left/center as well as the right and right/center, the Democrats will come back--quickly.
The 1994 surge was so great that even California's Senator Dianne Feinstein considered switching parties. But she realized the innate ability of the Democratic Party to pretend to reinvent itself and get back the votes. She remained a Democrat, and California is now a deeply-blue state.
The Republicans need to recognize that the Democratic party has a damage control crew that could save even the Titanic. The only way to prevent that is for the Republicans to recognize that business as usual must be roundly rejected, and that this was a conservative revolution, not a Republican revolution.
As I've said at this blog before, I am a conservative by choice and a Republican b default. The Party has a chance to convert me to a Republican by choice, if they don't blow it the way they did after 1994. There is a huge voting population out there that voted Republican out of desperation, and if the Democrats play their cards right, they can get them back. Let's not hand them the gun to shoot us with.
Crispy, I saw that. I'm glad he's gone. Unfortunately, politics attracts deviants and idiots. It's how parties handle them that matter. The Democrats celebrate and promote theirs. The Republicans (unfortunately) too often protect theirs but try to hide them. It's about time pushed guys like this out because he's only going to be an embarrassment and he will keep doing things like this.
Good riddance.
Andrew, my grandparents are the same kind of people you were describing. Blue Dog Democrats to the core who viewed it as a betrayal when I started saying unpleasant things about Bill Clinton and nice things about George Bush. Yet they're highly conservative, and when '08 rolled around, they began voting Republican. Now, knowing them as I do, I have to say that, as products of the pre-Civil Rights Border South, a lot of their switch stemmed from the fact that Obama's black. But over the past few years, as they've paid attention to the situation, they've become more turned on to Republican figures like Palin and Jindal, and their alienation from the Dems has become based on something more, I think, than Obama's skin color. A lot of people their age are doing the same thing.
In my part of Missouri, we've had a transition over several decades. In the '70s and '80s, people began voting Republican for presidential and congressional elections. In the '90s and early '00s, state legislature seats began flipping to the GOP. Now we're seeing county offices starting to turn. I think in a couple of decades, people here will reflexively think of themselves as Republicans, the same way they once thought of themselves as Democrats.
It's going to be an interesting change for the Republicans, too, though. We've been trending more and more conservative, and if we're now getting an influx of people who think of themselves as moderates. They may be more conservative than the Dems, and they may be more conservative than they've realized, but that doesn't mean they're going to be comfortable going whole-hog conservative either.
As to our soon to former Congressman from NY - we seem to have a high concentration of sexual deviates in Congress. Remember Eric Massa, a Dem who resigned last year over some alleged homoerotic hanky panky with his male office staff...
As I have reported in the past, we have a high concentration of elected officials who are now convicted criminals too. I swear it's not the water...
This just in - Sen. Jon Kyl, R from Arizona is also retiring.
'Tis the season, eh?
Lawhawk, I agree. The key in all of this is that the Republicans need to become a conservative party, not just the anti-Democrat party.
You're also right about the Democrat's damage control mechanism, BUT, I think that's what's failing them. In the past, they were able to control the message because the MSM made sure to keep the public back home from knowing what their representatives were doing in Washington -- that's changed. That's why the Democrats were so shocked at the voter's response at the townhall meetings, because they didn't expect people to know what they had done.
I also think we are looking at a realignment as average people shift over to the Republicans. That's why I think this is actually a big deal.
It's not the death of the Democrats, but it's certainly a mortal wound that will require them to change or become a permanent minority party.
Andrew: I agree on all points. I do think there has been a major realignment, and it is indeed a big deal. I had to laugh at the truth of what you said about the Democrats being caught flat-footed at townhall meetings. They all looked like The Wizard when Toto peeked behind the curtain.
We just need to be ready to counter the damage-control that the fellow-traveling MSM will do while the Democrats are figuring out which lie to tell in order to get back their voters.
T_Rav, That's the same thing I saw in West Virginia and Virginia. I spoke with a lot of people who were lifelong Democrats (all deeply racist, by the way), and they started voting Republican for President because they didn't like the Democrats being so weak on national defense and then terror.
Then they started voting Republican for other offices (Virginia moreso that West Virginia so far) because they began to realized that the Democrats were raising taxes and giving the money away to people they didn't like (minorities, illegal aliens, foreign countries). And they hated the Democrats killing jobs like mining for environmental reasons.
THEN came Pelosi... Satan. She has been most responsible for opening their eyes about who the Democrats really are, and they are starting to wake up to this and they are starting to change the way they vote at all levels.
To me, that's a truly significant change which is endangering the Democrats. As these people drift to the right, the Democrats will be left as a party that represents only rich professionals and the identity-politics industry. Those people aren't enough to keep them as a national party.
That's why the Democrats are so desperate to force Hispanics into the same sort of political ghetto into which blacks have been trapped -- because they can't let Hispanic escape and start voting Republican.
Ah, Thread Jack,
This is delicious. Some Dems are requesting that Justice Thomas recuse himself on ObamaCare because of his wife's lobbying efforts. In turn, some Republicans are requesting Justice Kagen to recuse herself since she was so intimately involved in getting ObamaCare passed. Link
Threadjack over.
DUQ, The thing about conservatism, is that it changes depending on the different regions of the country. The South, for example, is solidly religious conservative. The West is libertarian conservative. Those two groups don't get along well and they tend to scare each other, but if they can find common ground (and they can), then I think the new people will fit right in. The problem becomes if the Republicans try to become a "conservative party" by solidly choosing one path or the other. That will retard their growth in the other regions. Balance (as always) is key, and I think that balance can best be found in reducing the size and scope of the Federal government and letting these particular issues be handled at the state level rather than through federal policy.
Bev, LOL! It could be in the water?! Actually, I suspect these people (the Massas, the Foleys, the Gary Hearts, etc.) are everywhere, New York just has a higher profile than Minnesota or Kentucky. Also, it's possible that New York's primary system (which seems to be based on party bosses picking their friends) doesn't do as good of a job as other states of vetting these people.
In any event, the key for the Republican Party and conservatives, is to dump these people when they are discovered rather than protecting them. . . like we're doing with John Ensign. Grrr.
Crispy, Fortunately, I don't think Arizona is likely to fall into Democratic hands in this next election!
Lawhawk, Very true! And great analogy with the Wizard of Oz! They were truly stunned, especially that the public could quote the law to them when they hadn't even read it. This is a new world where the public knows the truth and they can't hide anymore. I don't think they know how to handle that yet.
Joel, I like that term -- "I've been threadjacked!" LOL!
I think the Democrats are opening a can of worms with this because there are a lot of issues the leftist justices would need to start recusing themselves from. We'll see.
Andrew, in regard to the Egypt situation, there's reason for cautious optimism. It's still kind of hazy--in fact, there was some doubt as to whether Mubarak was really going to resign--but it appears that power is going to be transferred to a junta of sorts, which is entirely unconstitutional but may be the best option. So far, the protestors seem to be okay with it. And as you mentioned, the MB has gone on record as saying they are not cool with this, meaning it's probably something we should get behind.
On the other hand, the army has also warned that once all the details are announced and the protestors decide they don't like it, they (the army) are prepared to "act." Hm.
T_Rav, I've actually become quite optimistic about Egypt lately. It strikes me that the powers that be (who seem to be friendly to us and secular) have been preparing for an orderly transition. That would mean excluding the MB and would probably mean real reform. Of course, you never know with these things, but right now it "feels" like it's going in the right direction.
Republicans need to find a way to become more competitive in the Northeast, then the Democrats would be done, but I don't know how to pull that off!
Thanks Andrew, but T_Rav used it first. Yes, it is a can of worms, but the Dems are floating this because their options are running out.
T_Rav,
I believe there was an article @ American Thinker that explains why the protestors would be willing to allow the Egyption Army to take over. Basically the Egyption Army has been closely cross-trained with the American Army. Their traditions are close to ours with the Egyption Army at least. Which means they are the closest thing to neutral that they can respect.
The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't like it because their army is too Westernized.
Ed, That's a good question. I'm not sure. Christie seems to have done a good job in New Jersey. Maybe he's a good example of how to handle other liberal states?
Joel, In the end, I don't see Thomas recusing himself. Judges tend to only recuse themselves when they have personally had direct involvement in an issue.
On the MB and the army, I'm not sure the Army is as neutral or as good as people think, but for that part of the world, they probably are the best choice -- at least to handle the transition and start reforms. And if they handle this right, they will truly have brought Egypt through a serious crisis. It will be interesting to see how (if) they follow through. Like I said some articles ago, I suspect they are looking to implement the Turkish model. I think that could be a good thing in this instance -- a democracy that is watched over by the military to keep anyone from implementing extremist ideas. That's probably the best way to transition of country like Egypt to a real democracy.
Andrew,
You're right. This is a big problem with dictatorships that republics like ours don't have. When the top guy loses power, whether by popular uprising, death, or illness, there is always confusion as to who is in charge after him. It makes for lively politics.
Thanks for giving me the credit, Joel! :-)
Mubarak just made his long-awaited announcement, and while I couldn't follow a lot of it thanks to an atrocious translator, the gist is he's not, it turns out, leaving office. While he will be turning over some of his powers to the VP, he will not exit until September, and then has no intention of leaving the country. I smell a riot.
Your welcome T_Rav.
Riots? Probable. If Egypt's Army allows it. Egyptians only trust the military right now. The army is out in force, but isn't shutting down the demonstrations unless the rioters go towards the museums.
I was hearing Rush's belief that a junta wouldn't work because it happened after Sadat's assassination. So far, the Army is acting like a dampner in a nuclear plant. Not exactly letting the demonstrators get away with anything, but not exactly letting their government get away with suppression.
I wonder if there is a George Washington type in their army. If so, they have the most incredible luck.
Joel, at this point, I think it's anyone's guess what the army will end up doing. Given that police were showing up at the public squares just before Mubarak started speaking, I assume the power players knew in advance what he was going to say, meaning the army's standing by him for now. But protestors are already reported to be urging a military base in Alexandria to overthrow him, and some soldiers threw down their guns and joined the demonstrators in Cairo. I've been watching this on Fox News pretty much all day (courtesy of yesterday's snowstorm which shut down the college), and these crowds are NOT happy. I think we could see a full-blown meltdown in the next few hours.
T_Rav,
Mubarak, I guess, can't leave on his own. Given how some of these idiots operate, if the demonstrators back down, Mubarak's government will ruthlessly suppress them despite the protestations to the contrary. On the other hand, if Mubarak backs down, the Muslim Brotherhood will attempt to seize control which isn't such a foregone conclusion as Obama's people and the Saudi's think. The numbers aren't there. This is more of a popular secular protest.
Part of the reason the Muslim Brotherhood is still around is the half-assed way Egypt attempted to shut them down. All they accomplished is to drive them underground and radicalize it.
Joel, I don't think the protestors are going to back down. Things could tip either way at this point, and if they take the pressure off, there's a good chance Mubarak will either call the September elections off or heavily rig them. He may not do that, but that's what the crowd's afraid of. I don't think we've seen anything yet because the anger's mixed with a lot of shock and confusion, but once that wears off, I think they're going to go to the mat with him.
I would say, watch the live coverage closely. If they start leaving the main square all at once, it means they're probably headed for the Presidential Palace and therefore a potentially bloody showdown.
T_Rav and Joel, You guys are making some good points.
First, as Joel says, this is definitely the problem with dictatorships -- they rarely have a clear line of succession because the dictators don't trust others to set up the kinds of political support needed. So when the end comes, everything turns into total confusion.
Secondly, I think the army is playing this very well at the moment. They are letting each side speak their minds and yet using the threat of force to keep everyone peaceful. That's pretty brilliant because it keeps them neutral (for now) but it gives them the credit of keeping things peaceful and they don't have to beat down crowds to do it -- which might not work in any event. This is giving them a lot of credibility.
When the time comes, I'm sure that they will push Mubarak out of office if he won't go. What they may be waiting for is to get a sense that the public at large is ready for them to intervene without considering it a junta -- in other words, they are waiting to be overwhelmingly drafted to remove Mubarak.
Whether or not a military junta will work depends entirely on what the goal of the military is. If they just want to replace Mubarak with Mubarak II, then it won't work. But if they play it right and put in a George Washington who immediately starts reforms and sets up a time table to step down, then it could work brilliantly. We just won't know until we see how it plays out.
Andrew, I guess I'm a little more pessimistic about all this than you are. I did think there was the potential this morning for a peaceful transition and the buildup of a somewhat more liberal order that would keep the radicals shut out. But Mubarak did just about the worst thing he could have done at this juncture--built everyone's hopes to a new peak and then dashed them. What was going on behind the scenes today, I haven't a clue; but now the protestors are furious and showing signs that they won't accept the rule of Suleimann any more than Mubarak. I fear there's a real potential from this betrayal for the crowds to be radicalized, and start pushing for more than the army's willing to give. The army has done a very good tightrope walk up to now, and hopefully it can continue to do that. I don't know, though, whether they can keep it up much longer. Right now, I really just wish the generals would pull an outright coup. Screw democracy; at least it would be a popular authoritarian regime.
T_Rav, Obviously, we don't know where this is headed at this point, and mob scenes are notoriously unpredictable. But I'm still optimistic because the army hasn't yet squandered its good will.
In fact, I suspect they are waiting for people to have the exact reaction you just did -- wishing for a coup. Because then they can put in their own guy and claim it was done at the urging of the people.
That said, I agree that Mubarak did about the worst thing possible today. He would have been better off saying nothing. But that's what happens with these guys. He's probably got visions of being arrested and having all his belongings taken away -- that's the problem with things like what Spain did to Pinochet. When someone does hand over power peacefully, and you still decide to treat them like criminals, you are basically telling all the other bad guys out there -- hang on for dear life.
And in truth, I see his point -- how do you hand over power when there is no one to hand it to? What he should do is agree to hand over power once a caretaker government can be formed. At this point though, it may be too late for that. I think he's risking the crowd wanting his head now.
So basically, what I'm reading is, if Egypt winds up with another military dictatorship, it's really my fault. Dang.
I agree that Mubarak doesn't have a lot of incentive here for a peaceful transfer of power, but that tends to be the case with dictators. You can find some rulers who will do that, because they're genuinely interested in the welfare of their country. Whether he's one of them, I don't know. That's really the crux of the matter: we just don't know enough about what kind of man he is, what's going on behind the scenes, who has what motivations, etc. We just know what we can glean from the news, and what it appears to be saying now is that Mubarak won't be leaving without a fight. Things should start getting dicey overnight: it's Friday morning in Egypt now, and after prayers, there'll be some bigtime demonstrations going on.
T_Rav and Andrew,
What I see is a whole country that is fed up with dictators and would be dictators. I am not being optimistic here. If Murbarak and Suleiman don't give up pretty soon, there will be bloodshed. I also don't see that the Muslim Brotherhood has a great control over the protestors either.
I think that the Egyptians have more in common with our Tea Parties. If our government treated us the way Mubarak treated his people, like shutting down the internet, don't you think we would be out in the streets? Every MSM idiot would be acting like we were crazy and expecting us to riot and totally mischaracterizing it.
I don't see the Muslim Brotherhood having that much control. If they did, they would have seized control years ago when Sadat was assassinated. They were responsible for it, why couldn't they get control then? Same thing here.
The Brotherhood calls for the Army to take over yet the Army is slow to react.
This time, the Brotherhood could be behind this and the Army knows it. It could be why they haven't acted. If the Army ousts Mubarak without a legitimate replacement, the Brotherhood could seize control.
The real problem is the internet being effectively down. Messages still can get in and out, but it is slow.
What is peculiar is Anderson Cooper being beaten up. Normally Muslim's know better than to beat-up a sympathetic anchor from America's MSM. Which leads me to think the Brotherhood isn't in total control of the protestors.
As long as the Army holds the peace and allows a peaceful transfer of power to someone acceptable to the marjority of the Egyptians .... well, I don't see the Brotherhood being that acceptable to the majority.
T_Rav, Yeah, I'm blaming you! ;-)
I agree with you, we just don't know enough. For all we know, there are secret talks going on or there are plans to assassinate people. And who knows what's in Mubarak's head. He has always struck me as a better guy than most of the dictators over there, but that's just a guess. . . that's also not saying much.
All we can do is wait and watch and hope it all turns out well.
Joel, I think you're right about the Muslim Brotherhood. If they had the power (i.e. if the crowds were theirs) I think they would have already formed a new shadow government and tried to declare the Mubarak government over. The fact that they haven't been more aggressive tells me that they aren't in the strongest position.
Plus, with so many people in the streets, the MB is probably only a small percentage of the protestors. Usually, opposition groups are only a very small fraction of the population when these things happen. What they tend to rely upon (at least in the past) is either public recognition for their actions or (in the case of the bad guys, like communists and fascists) violence or trickery to get into the government and take it over from the inside.
Andrew,
What happened in Iran isn't happening in Egypt. The Shah left fairly quickly which allowed the Muslims to consolidate their positions in the power vacuum.
Strangely enough, the longer Mubarak holds out, the less likely the Brotherhood will gain control. I know that McCain is calling for Mubarak to step down. That tells me Mubarak must stay in for the immediate future. I am betting on McCain always calling for the stupid move.
When the going gets tough, the "tough" retire or switch parties. Voters should be very leary.
Joel, In truth, that's a pretty good measure to use of right and wrong, McCain is almost always wrong.
I think you're right about the difference between Iran and Egypt. The longer it takes to sort this out, the more orderly it will probably be. So in that regard, it's a good sign that he hasn't just abandoned the job and created a vacuum. Though, as T_Rav says, he really should not have gotten people's hopes up today and then crushed those hopes. . . that was a bad move.
Yet, as I say, I'm cautiously optimistic, mainly because there doesn't appear to be any chaos at this point. Chaos is where these things always go wrong.
Writer X, Very true. In some cases, it truly is a realignment of voters to get them into parties that are a more natural fit. But sometimes, it's pure opportunism and those people can be very dangerous.
Joel and Andrew, before I konk out for the night and get not enough sleep, let me just add that up to a point, I actually agree with McCain on this one. Mubarak has become a political liability at this point no matter what angle you view it from. It didn't have to be this way, if some people (mainly meaning the Obama Admin.) had acted smarter, but his speech yesterday was basically a giant middle finger to us as much as anything else. We have little or no more political leverage with the man; our alliance is shot to pieces. I know that probably shouldn't be our only concern here, but that's the situation to me. Unfortunately, for the same reason, we have no power to push for the transfer McCain is advocating. Conundrums, conundrums...
democrat is the new communist/socialist/freedom snatcher.
wait. was that harsh?
And...it's official. Mubarak has resigned and left Cairo. Here we go.
T_Rav, I just saw that. I guess now we'll find out what happens next?
Have you heard anything yet about a successor?
Patti, sometimes the truth is harsh! LOL!
Andrew, I've got the news on and have been scrolling through all the websites, but there don't seem to be any specifics on that. It would be appear there is some kind of junta in power, but what its makeup is, no one appears to know. It's not even clear whether Suleimann will stay on or not. Remember, under the Egyptian constitution the speaker of Parliament is supposed to take power after the President resigns, not the VP, so with the legal niceties being blatantly neglected, it's impossible to say who's in charge.
By the way, to shift from drama to comedy, for a minute, Politico's Ben Smith just put up a piece claiming that this turn of events was made possible by Obama's leadership, and that the past few days have proved how much authority he carries on the world stage. Was there also a deal between Politico and HuffPo and we just didn't hear about it?
T_Rav, I haven't been able to watch the news as I'm finishing up my article for today -- a review of 2001. Should be fun.
I can't see Suleimann staying because he's part of the prior regime and he's probably hated for his role in running the secret police.
As for Politico, they are a joke. They get some good articles once in a while, but their spin is childishly blatant. It's amazing how consistent they are about over-praising Democrats, attacking Republicans, and treating conservatives like we're some alien species. If you get a chance, check out Smith's list of "favorite blogs" on his page. They're all far left. You'd think he'd at least pretend to read conservatives? Also, I've read before that he and several others from Politico went through a George Soros program (seriously).
According to my sources, Mubarak, just after midnight, resigned and left the military in power. Suleiman announced it. El Baradei is extremely happy. He claims that the suppression is over.
Hmph!! If Egypt goes the way that Iran went, the people would long for Mubarak's reign after a couple years. Time will tell.
Ben Smith is one of the Democrat whores.
Joel, I like the way you say your sources! You're giving me images real journalism! "I'm speaking now with Mr. Mubarak personally, and he says...." Rather than the modern, "some other network is now reporting..."
Like we said last night, before we were so rudely interrupted by the need for sleep, I don't see this going the way of Iran -- the elements just don't seem to be there. I don't know exactly what will come next, but there doesn't seem to be a national push to stick a religious leader into the job.
This is fascinating stuff though, isn't it?
Hmmm, I'll keep that pegged for this afternoon's reading.
You may be right about Suleimann--I'm reading now that there will definitely be a military council ruling the country for the time being, headed up by Defense Minister Mohamed Tantawi. Mubarak's entire cabinet is to be sacked, and both houses of Parliament suspended, which is about what you'd expect with this sort of thing. No mention was made of Suleimann, and as the Fox anchors pointed out, he certainly didn't look too happy reading the resignation announcement, so he may be cleaning out his desk as we speak.
And yes, Ben Smith is clearly a hack.
I am hopeful about Egypt, but history has shown that these countries never get this right. Here is there chance to finally change that. Let's hope they're up to the task?
T_Rav, It's a good read, you'll enjoy it! (By the way, if you have movies you want reviewed, feel free to mention them. I'm happy to do requests whenever possible.)
If I were Suleimann, I'd probably skip the desk. . . read the announcement at the airport. . . and start looking for somewhere that wouldn't send me right back. He's one of those guys who is likely to find himself arrested and or hung if the mood strikes the new government (or the crowd).
Have they said where Mubarak is? I wonder if he's planning to leave the country? I know he said he wouldn't, but I think that may depend on whether or not the new regime decides to take a hard line on the crimes of the prior regime.
T_Rav and Andrew,
My apologies to all the Democrat whores reading, I didn't mean to compare Ben Smith to you. Well.... not exactly.
Yes, Andrew, it is interesting times for Egypt. I would feel a little better after a few months and no calls to create another Muslim Theocracy.
Ed, Here's their chance. Can they pull it off? I don't know, we'll see. Of all the Middle Eastern countries, Egypt has always struck me as the most sane (of course, I base that on very little). And this has been a surprisingly peaceful revolution. So maybe they can get it right?
Joel, Yeah, we won't know for a long time if this works or not. Even our own revolution took years before we ended up with a stable government. I am anxious to hear what their plans are at this point, but the devil will be in the execution in this one I suspect.
As for Ben, don't apologize to Democratic Whores, just to whores in general -- they don't deserve to be compared to Ben and the Democrats! LOL!
That reminds me a lawyer joke. Why do scientists pay lawyers to participate in certain experiments? Because there are some things even rats won't do! :-)
Thanks for the tip, Andrew. I can't think of any movies offhand, but I'll let you know if I do.
Mubarak was said to be heading to some retreat of his this morning, and there were also rumors that he would ultimately be leaving for the United Arab Emirates. But again, that's just speculation, so don't quote me on any of it.
As for Suleimann, I didn't hear any outcry against him until last night, after the initial deal had gone south. But I wouldn't be feeling too comfortable if I were him, as a longtime crony and hitman of Mubarak's. One source in the Egyptian government yesterday was quoted as saying of him (I paraphrase), "He's a nice guy in person. He only tortures the people he doesn't know."
Also, apparently Iran has shut down the feed from the BBC affiliate over there. Apparently A-job and the mullahs want to foster popular revolution in the Muslim world, as long as it's happening in Cairo or Ridayh and not Tehran. Who knew?
T_Rav, Thanks for the update! That's an interesting twist, that Iran has shut down the feed? I keep wondering how close the Iranians really are to collapse? They managed to put down the last revolt, but this new wave of truly popular, mass protests is something that I don't think they could stop if it came to Iran.
That's a pretty telling quote, about torturing only people he doesn't know. It doesn't sound like he's going to have any support when the time comes. In terms of outrage, I haven't heard any directed at him either, but he was brought in just to hold Mubarak's coat really, so I'm not surprised the crowd ignored him so far.
In a very strange way, this is actually rather exciting. If they do this right, they have the possibility of changing the complexion of the Middle East for the better in such a dramatic way. It's possible that we are looking at a truly historic moment -- the kind historians look back on 100 years from now and say, "this was when everything started to fall into place in the Middle East." Or, this could just end up installing another corrupt and unpleasant regime. Still, the possibility of something good coming out of this is really exciting.
According to CNBC, Mubarak flew with his family to a resort called Sharm el-Sheikh on the Red Sea.
Thanks Ed.
Andrew, I agree it has that potential, and if it turns out to introduce some degree of stability and democracy to the Middle East, I'm glad I was watching as it happened. But I think a lot of things are going to have to play out right for that to happen, not the least being that the army's direct hold on power has to be short-term. Anything more, and it'll turn into just another dictatorship, and the army will lose a lot of its reputation. And as others have pointed out, in most authoritarian regimes (including Egypt), the army has its hand in a lot of private enterprises, meaning the businessmen's interests get subordinated to those of the generals. For everyone's sakes, a transition to a semi-democracy, or at least a truly constitutional government, needs to happen as soon as possible.
T_Rav, I agree. If this just transfers power from a strongman to the army, then not much has changed. And I agree that a LOT needs to go right before this turns out well. But the possibility is pretty exciting.
Post a Comment