Does anyone else think the Republican party ought to appoint James Baker as its chairman and give him unprecedented authority to remove constituencies? The benefits of this recommendation, which I am giving out for free to the GOP, are that Baker is smart, with great political influence across the nation, he represents a return to the Republicanism that for very good reason was attractive to a large portion of the American public, and that he's totally not bat-shit crazy.
2 comments:
I want the Libertarian Party to fill the gap. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.
I guess you're kind of suggesting that Jim Baker just change the party into the Big Military Little Government Party of the 1980's, which wouldn't be so bad.
Does Reagan's deal with the fundamentalist tarnish him for you at all? (I don't mean a formal deal, but I mean taking up their wack job causes and themes to return the Republican party to power.)
Well I would *love* to have a healthy libertarian party. I could actually get active for it.
I'm mostly just pining for the grown-ups who aren't religious fundamentalists to run the Republicans, them being one of the two major parties. I chose James Baker because he's *totally* a grown-up, who sees working with Democrats as something other than an admission of weakness.
Does Reagan's deal with the fundamentalist tarnish him for you at all?
I don't know that he's so shiny, such that something negative is a major tarnish. Reagan's virtue was an actual commitment to keeping government from regulating our lives so much. I recall him saying things like, "I am with you in spirit but I can not as Chief Executive support you."
Well that's pretty super. I don't agree with anyone enough for that not to be a super thing to hear a leader say.
Post a Comment