Posterizing the Modern Republican Party

-

Huffinton_Post_Posters_2.jpg
2007-11-15-Posters_events_150.jpgArianna Huffington has linked three interesting graphics in an essay titled “Posterizing the Modern GOP.”
I like the poster to the right the best, but the politician roster above is also effective. One change I’d make if I had designed it is to have replaced George Tenet and Richard Armitage with David Addington and Ari Fleischer. Maybe even Elliott Abrams.
There are 17 names on the poster. If the Bush administration had not taken this country on the disastrous course it has, just think about a poster that had names something along the likes of:

GEORGE W. BUSH
COLIN POWELL
BRENT SCOWCROFT
RITA HAUSER
CHUCK HAGEL
ROBERT ZOELLICK
ROBERT KIMMITT
ERIC SHINSEKI
RICHARD ARMITAGE
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR
CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
RICHARD HAASS
JOHN BELLINGER
JOSHUA BOLTEN
JOHN DANFORTH
OLYMPIA SNOWE
WILLIAM FALLON
RON PAUL
RICHARD LUGAR

Some of these names — particularly Richard Armitage’s given his involvement in Valerie Plame’s outing — will not thrill progressives and liberals.
But my point is that the Republican Party has had a choice in who its prominent players are — and has sculpted an image of pugnacious, anti-intellectualism, and anti-internationalism that has betrayed the classic Republican standard.
The Republican Party has options, and in the long run should re-sculpt its dominant features.
It would be interesting for someone to generate some posters that contrast Hillary Clinton’s crowd and themes with Barack Obama’s, or Edwards’, or Dodd’s, or Biden’s, or Kucinich’s, or Ron Paul’s. . .
More later.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

18 comments on “Posterizing the Modern Republican Party

  1. Jinchi says:

    just think about a poster that had names something along the likes of:
    You’ve still got a pretty big problem at the top of that list, unfortunately.

    Reply

  2. PrahaPartizan says:

    Actually, for the modern Republican Party, the names need to be spelled with a narrow, tight type for each column, with both columns placed close next to each other and a smudge cloud encircling them both. The Republican Party’s monomania, incompetence and corruption become envisioned by the image.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    The two party system is not part of our original Const5itution as a method of electing Presidents. Those of us who do not wish to accept the degeneration of our political process by the narrowed choice of two parties are right to fight against it. That may be the way it is right now, but meekly acceoting it is not the conscientious Constitutionalist’s way to combat this corruption of our electoral process.
    Many call for the abolishment of our Electoral College. I prefer to abolish the two party system which has usurped the true role of the Electoral College, that of balancing the needs of the country between urban, heavilly populated areas and farm lands, after the popular will has been expressed. The two party system does the sifting BEFORE the people have had a chance to express their will. Without the Electoral College, any demagogue with a big bankroll could win. It’s an imperfect system, in any case.

    Reply

  4. section9 says:

    “Gads, I despise you partisan jackasses.
    Do me a favor, if you think of it next time, post late enough that I can at least get a cup of coffee or two down before I log on to your idiotic musings.”
    Christ, POA, next time you slobber all over the keyboard, try NOT to prove my point at the same time, okay genius?
    Pot, meet kettle.
    Bush, meet Hitler.
    Jesus, POA, you’re nothing if not predictable. Now go get a new keyboard, you probably broke the one you have. Get used to something: this is a Two Party polity. You may not like that, BUT THAT’S THE WAY IT IS.
    Now go vote Socialist Worker or Constitution Party, but real politics is dealt in the middle ground where real Registered Voters live, not out on the fringes where you and Dr. Dobson live.
    Jesus H. Christ, this is basic politics. WTF?

    Reply

  5. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The present divisions in the country largely stem from hard feelings among partisans left over from that contest.”
    Yeah, of course it has nothing to do with the corruption on both sides of the aisle, this debacle in Iraq, torture, wiretaps, Constitutional ass wiping, and your brand of jerking us off with this ignorant “left against right” horseshit.
    Gads, I despise you partisan jackasses.
    Do me a favor, if you think of it next time, post late enough that I can at least get a cup of coffee or two down before I log on to your idiotic musings.
    And BTW, the fact that someone of Guilianni’s character can actually be considered as “presidential” is a sad statement about our nation. And the same can be said about Hillary, and all the other mainstream candidates.
    How’d we get here? Just reread your ignorant nattering, and that’ll give you all the clues you need.

    Reply

  6. section9 says:

    Here’s the problem with the Huffington List: it’s like watching the liberals troop out and vote for McGovern in 1972:
    THESE PEOPLE AREN’T ON THE BALLOT IN 2008, RUDY GIULIANI IS!!!
    You’ll notice one slight problem with your cute little poster, people:
    it’s very demonstrative of what the Democratic Party’s campaign in 2008 will be about-the Past. Which will leave Rudy Giuliani to campaign about-the Future.
    None of these folks are going to be running for anything, except possibly Condi, if Rudy happens to cajole her to getting on the ticket. So what the hell is the point of the excercise, except to get liberals to agree with each other, pat each other on the back, and tell each other how awful Republicans are?
    This is just dumb. Six months ago you people were telling each other that Rudy could never be nominated by my party. Now you people are down to relying on posters that talk about the past.
    Two words: Jesus wept.
    But Steve was right to call lukasiak on his quite unneccessary personal slam about SDO. The 2000 election was the breaking point for a critical mass of liberals who refused to accept George Bush as a legitimately elected President. It was that election which poisoned the well, and we won’t get past it until we get past the Bush Administration. The present divisions in the country largely stem from hard feelings among partisans left over from that contest.

    Reply

  7. Lang says:

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a traitor! Her joy and giddiness at achieving Speaker status in January 2007 now demonstrates clearly that gender makes absolutely no difference in terms of integrity, compassion, morality and service to the American people via the faithful performance of required constitutional mandates. The need to impeach Cheney-Bush to preserve the Union, preserve the two-party system, and assure a people-responsive federal government, have been egregiously ignored as well as orchestrated and amplified by this immoral traitor. It is Pelosi who now represents Cheney-Bush’s most powerful and effective enabler and supporter. Pelosi is now a vital part of the Cheney-Bush crime machine. She is an accessory before, during and after the fact. And she assuredly supports the AIPAC/Cheney-Bush crime machine’s intended and unwarranted, unconstitutional invasion of Iran.
    Any impeachment effort must now include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
    Theodore E. Lang

    Reply

  8. arthurdecco says:

    “LISTEN TO ME PEOPLE<> LOOK AROUND> chances are if you are still not hurting, ALL of your neighbors are.” posted by liz
    “A Generalized Meltdown of Financial Institutions”
    By Mike Whitney
    Reality has finally caught up to the stock market. The American consumer is underwater, the banks are buried in dept, and the housing market is in terminal distress. The Dow is now below its 200-Day Moving Average — the first big “sell” signal. Anything below 12,500 could trigger program-trading and crash the market. The increased volatility suggests that we are watching a “real time” meltdown. article continues…
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18777.htm

    Reply

  9. liz says:

    And I would add discrimination. It appears tearing up all American values has been high on another list in the Bush Administration. I am 47, female, white and I have a complaint. Since I fall outside of the traditional realm of people complaining it would be wise to take notice of this. I’ve been sick all my life. That in turn according to my country is reason enough to treat me differently, harrass me, financially punish me and steal from me. In the last state of the union address, Bush said ” America will take care of it’s old and sick people”. Funny how Bush keeps his words. He did not lie, he just didn’t finish his thought. He didn’t say how he would take care of us. Unfortunately, now I know and will be assuming my place under a bridge fairly soon.
    I see that pattern with him alot,a caveat then a sinister plan.
    I estimate my current losses in the two to three million dollar range. And I woulda told ya, this would have NEVER happened to me.
    LISTEN TO ME PEOPLE<> LOOK AROUND> chances are if you are still not hurting, ALL of your neighbors are.

    Reply

  10. Alex says:

    Thanks, Rich, for expressing my sentiments exactly.
    And to the poster on the right, I would add:
    NEOCONS

    Reply

  11. rich says:

    Well, hope that first exchange didn’t poison the well.
    My question for Steve is: How are we to view or interpret the actions of a Richard Lugar, or those such as Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins who maintain a moderate image, but vote in lockstep w/the White House?
    Can you offer some insight into what their thought process was? Where they actually stood? What benefit they derived? What product they delivered to the country, when the country needed it?
    Because from out here, the silence and inaction translates to agreement. In substance. Because that’s what it boils down to in practice.
    Take Richard Lugar. Lugar presided over the John Bolton confirmation process, but spoke not one word to the stakes, the direction of the country, or to the shrill & bullying methodology adopted. Does this not undercut his stature as an Elder Statesman?
    This is very different from the Wilkerson or Townsend insider who MAY counterbalance Cheney internally, but is required to toe the White House line in speaking for external consumption. I can understand the need to stick around and keep an eye on things; like the Joint Chiefs who kept one close eye on the nuke-use process and another on Nixon’s meds.
    But Lugar had a formal role to play and stood outside the Administration. Yet he didn’t remember the positive lessons of WWII about which methods are effective abroad, and he didn’t recall the inverse negative lessons of Vietnam that non-legit methods (be they political or military) undercut our core values and in the process, our objectives. For a foreign policy guru, that’s not sayin’ much.
    Since Lugar values propriety and collegiality so much, don’t you think applying some of it and demanding it of the White House would’ve been crucial, useful, internally consistent? Bolton aside? At minimum, when Rumsfeld and Powell testified that “The President had not yet made a decision to invade Iraq,” the first words out of Richard Lugar’s mouth should’ve been “That’s not George Bush’s decision to make.” Note that both Rumsfeld and Powell lied under oath: Bush signed the Exec Order in August, they testified in September. Point being, if I can gauge the honesty, Constitutionality and integrity of both at that time, why couldn’t Richard Lugar?
    What good is an elder statesmen who doesn’t provide the country crucial adjustments through public guidance and private counsel?
    Understanding how Lugar squared his cherished collegiality and propriety with the hallmark Bush stance so hostile to the same code (which requires we operate in good faith relative to the social and legal contracts)—is critical.
    Maybe another way to pose the question is: What foreign policy objectives was Lugar able to achieve by enabling, rather than adjusting, Bush’s agenda? If he differed, what was gained by going along? Advise & consent does not require abject self-administered humiliation. Presumably, going along cost Lugar much in terms of his own values; if not, we’ve all misread the import & appearance of his projected gravity.
    My poster quibble: Add Elliot and Addington; Tenet and Bremer’s names are MUch too small.

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Chertoff has done admirably in regards to Katrina, keeping all those trailers out of the hands of those nasty jigaboos. And his experiment to find out how America would react to armed mercenaries policing the streets of one of our cities went fantastic. Nary a peep from the inept Dems, and he managed to keep it out of the media radar screens.
    And isn’t the rebuilding process going fantastic!
    Its too bad ‘ol Chertie can’t ship all them there negras off to Bush’s weed farm, and put them to work in the brush flushing quail for Cheney.
    See, dcrkrl, YOU might not be able to tell us how you really think, but I’m such a nice guy that I’ll do it for ya!
    You can thank me later.

    Reply

  13. jim wilson says:

    Re: Katrina
    The most important thing to remember about Katrina is not the obvious humanitarian failure but the Republican success in removing tens of thousands of Democratic voters from New Orleans and giving the State a Republican majority.

    Reply

  14. dckrl says:

    As to the poster on the right, I’d think twice about including Katrina. The Louisiana voters went Republican after having thought it all over, did they?
    Beyond the Edwards and Washington rhetoric, Katrina has long become a symbol of an inept Democratic local administration overwhelmed by the challenges Katrina posed. Touting it as proof that the GOP went AWOL marks a national Democratic Party that is prone to make up her world outlook in much the same self-deceiving way Paul Wolfowitz did re: Iraq back in 2002.
    And Iraq and Iran is next.

    Reply

  15. op99 says:

    “If the Bush administration had not taken this country on the disastrous course it has…”
    Any of the people on that list, notably Powell, who didn’t resign in protest over any of the atrocities, are complicit.

    Reply

  16. Chris Brown says:

    And it was Dick “Steady Hand on the Tiller” Cheney who assembled the Bush administration psychopathic cadre that has wrought the current woeful situation.
    As Chief of transition he sprinkled the neo-fascists throughout the foreign policy and intelligence agencies of the government to keep an eye on and undercut the like of Rice and Powell. And as chief of the search for vice-president appointed himself.
    Meanwhile Incurious George was too busy pursuing his frat boy interests, eh, eh, eh, to assume the presidency to which he was elected.
    As for your list of names, I object to Powell’s inclusion. After all he has made his career by sweeping dirt under the rug, beginning with the Mai Lai massacre.
    Additionally, I must agree that Sandra Day O’Conner, along with the other four justices who unconstitutionally assumed jurisdiction over Gore v Bush, did in fact subvert the Constitution. Article II makes it very clear that the states are to determine how electoral votes are allocated.
    Thanks very much for what you do.

    Reply

  17. Steve Clemons says:

    p. lukasiak — we have known each other long enough that I think you know that was an inappropriate post. you basically accuse me of corruption. i write what i do because i believe it. that’s it. you are welcome to debate, but when you take it personal, that’s very much over the line.
    steve clemons

    Reply

  18. p.lukasiak says:

    Steve suggests that the antipathy of “some liberals” to a lot of the folks on that list are because of things like the Plame outing. Its not that — its that the vast majority of the names on that list are people so lacking in human decency and principles that they’d rather see hundreds of thousands die rather than NOT ‘go along to get along’. Powell? Armitage? Whitman? Hagel? Scowcroft? With the exception of Shinseki, there is not a single recognizable name of someone who STOOD UP FOR THE TRUTH WHEN IT MATTERED.
    And seriously, Sandra Day O’Connor — the woman who handed Bush the presidency KNOWING that a disproportionate percentage of minority voters did no have their votes counted in Florida, but in order to achieve HER CORRUPT IDEOGICAL ENDS, twisted the equal protection clause into utter meaninglessness? That woman should be be flayed alive, then burn in hell for all eternity, for her willing participation in the abortion of Democracy in 2000.
    How can any American in good conscience suggest that she, or any of the rogues gallery of amoral scum you list(with the exception of Shinseki), be considered honorable — unless, of course, you are someone who has to praise some “republicans” to keep your vanity foundation in the black (and pay your mortgage.)

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *