A RETURN TO VALUES...
Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 07:01PM 
Great to see the tide turning against the Democrats even before The One ascends to on high.
"Fresh off a win in his U.S. Senate runoff, Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss is calling on his party to return to its conservative roots. Chambliss beat Democrat Jim Martin 57 percent to 43 percent Tuesday to win a second term in the Senate, denying Democrats there a filibuster-proof majority. On Wednesday, he told reporters he expects his campaign to be a model for Republicans looking to regroup in 2010 after losing the presidency and House and Senate seats this year. Chambliss says his resounding victory shows the GOP must again embrace the values of Ronald Reagan. Georgia is traditionally a red state."
Well, I welcome the return of authentic republican values and this is welcome news. I am sure the BBC and other Obama-cheer leaders will ignore it. Mustn't spoil the narrative!
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (36)
This is like throwing a deck chair off the Queen Mary if you are drawing some conclusion that this Georgia runoff reverses the gains of the Democrats.
"The GOP must again embrace the values of Ronald Reagan"
Values such as financing a terrorist organisation who were attempting to overthrow the democratically elcted government of Nicargua with millions of dollars of US taxpayers money?
Helping the Soviet Union into its deathbed was nice.
--
A Republican winning in Georgia is not news and is not turning any tide. The fact that the Dems won in Virginia and North Carolina was a turning of a tide.
Phantom - That was a bipartisan effort as you know.
Soviet Union
It was bipartisan- both parties whole heartedly opposed it in the 1950s and 1960s, but I think that the Republicans had way more vigor against the USSR after that. McGovern, Carter, etc did not have anywhere near the same anti-Soviet feelings and lots of Dems were opposed to the missile systems that spent the Soviets into the dustbin of history
Reagan called the USSR an "Evil Empire" (and was correct)
Carter would never have said, or thought, that. Good, smart Dems like Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn did, but there were not many like them.
Phantom
Every one knows he spent the evil empire into submision and in the process just about bankrupted his own government. Luckily he escaped his 2 terms in time for the turkeys to come home to roost on shrub1's administration
If the result opf the last 4 years of raygunomics isnt proof enough that its a bankrupt theory then there is no hope for conservative america
Phantom - Carter served in the Navy (before your time there I presume) and Reagan as I recall, served in Hollywood. I won't take away from Ronnie's correct diagnosis of the Soviet regime, but I certainly won't be giving him the lion's share of credit, which was a shared effort.
Sean - not just spent, our ideas triumphed over theirs - as anyone with a piece of the Berlin Wall could tell you.
"It was bipartisan- both parties whole heartedly opposed it in the 1950s and 1960s, but I think that the Republicans had way more vigor against the USSR after that. McGovern, Carter, etc did not have anywhere near the same anti-Soviet feelings and lots of Dems were opposed to the missile systems that spent the Soviets into the dustbin of history"
The Soviet Union did not fall apart because of the actions of the West. It fell apart because of the actions of the people in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact states. The main international figure responsible for the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was his Holiness, Pope John Paull II. The disenchantment behind the Iron Curtain pulled it down rather than any action by the West. Reagan had all the rhetoric, but name one thing he did that helped collapse the Soviet Union.
Reagan was the man who stood up the USSR and along with Margaret Thatcher, he deserves the plaudits for its overdue but delicious fall.
He stood up to them, but then, the student in Tiananmen Square stood up to Communist China and it did piss all squared. Reagan stood up to them but did nothing to end the Soviet Union.
Seamus - Reagan and the western leaders before him pressured and poked until the Soviet Union ultimaltely collapsed. Obviously, the discord from within was felt around the world, and those in the West who campaigned for the freedoms of those within the Iron Curtain surely are aware of that. Indeed, one of the ways in which the Soviet system collapsed was its inability to expand due to those who stood against it.
The brave men and women who suffered under the Soviet system and struggled to end it deserve hearty praise, and they certainly have demonstrated a warm reegard for those outside the system who also helped bring it down.
Reagan's legacy lives on, just like Carter's shame.
David - Carter's presidency was no where near the shameful disaster of his ex-Presidency. He was a medicocre President but has been the worst ex-President in my lifetime. of course. GWB hasn't had his chance yet.
The Soviet Union and the Easter bloc countries communist rule collapsed becasue a certain critical tipping pint was psychologically reached across both the people and rhe rulers that there way just wasn't working and wasn't worth continuing. Thay wer able to change it because they stil had some collective strength and ability to do so. I fear that for North Korea and Zimbabwe they have gone beyond that point and their poopr populations are too weakened to revolt.
Mahons: You write such garbage here when you imply that Carter was in some way helpful in the ultimate demise of the Soviet Union. Carter was an appeasor par excellance.
The Soviet Union did not fall because of Carter and Reagan's bipartisan efforts This is a made-up fantasy believable only by the very young and the very uneducated.
Here is Carter in his own words, in his inauguration speech:
"The world is still engaged in a massive armaments race designed to ensure continuing equivalent strength among potential adversaries. We pledge perseverance and wisdom in our efforts to limit the world's armaments to those necessary for each nation's own domestic safety. And we will move this year a step toward ultimate goal—the elimination of all nuclear weapons from this Earth. We urge all other people to join us, for success can mean life instead of death."
Did you get that? --- Carter said: "...we will move this year a step toward ultimate goal—the elimination of all nuclear weapons from this Earth."
Carter had no intention of facing down the Soviet Union. Reagan did. Thatcher did. The SOviet Union imploded under the weight pressed against them by these 2 great western leaders. The Soviet Union simply could not keep up, and in the end, could not even pretend.
Read some history before you start passing off Jimmy Carter as some kind of effective leader against the Soviet Union.
Mahons / Patty
Raygun entered into an uncontrolable arms race with the soviet union that only through the dint of the natural ups and downs of the free market system did the usa survive.
if he had entered it in the natural down cycle that marked the Carter administration then we could all be guessing who would win the idealogical war
you mistake me if you think I am a commie sympathiser, I operate my families business for a considerable profit. I just believe only an idiot burry's his head in idealogical retoric
in both instances where raygun economics were attempted it was an unmitigated failure, reagan mearly escaped the ultimate come upance due to term limits and the topiary king exacerbated his own demise by exporting what at one time was the most dominant economy in the world
trickle down economics is simply a lie, time and time again through centuries of free enterprise it has been shown that the truly succesful countries rely on trickle up economies
after all which is worth more 1% of 1 million dollars or 1% of 100 trillion
Whoa. Just back from another very fine dinner at Il Mulino. Let me tell you we could have a depression followed by a superdepression and that tiny NY Italian gem would still be crowded.
--Carter's presidency was no where near the shameful disaster of his ex-Presidency.--
mahons
Every time I think I have you pegged, you shoot another Nolan Ryan fastball right past them. That's very true, and I think few Democrat oriented folk would say that, esp on a blog, where they think that they must only defend a perceived position.
patty
I agree with you that Carter did not materially do a thing to oppose the USSR. His gig was pretty much nonconfronational coexistence, no real criticism UNTIL the invasion of Afghanistan. Which genuinely shocked his conscience. But Reagan had the USSR pegged with complete moral accuracy long before he ever ran for President.
Sean
Carter was a nice man ( still is ) but he exacerbated the economic cycle and everything else by botching the Iran hostage crisis ( which admittedly was a tough nut for anyone ) and for being such a god damned nudge and a drag. Him and his "malaise".
We criticized Obama for being a blank slate when running- a truth. But there was no blanker a slate than Jimmuh, and no greater disappointment once taking the oath of office.
Patty - you are an ignorant person and I tire of your gross stupidity and trying to pretend that you are not an abomination to anyone who values intelligent debate.
For the record I deleted a great deal of my own withering, brillant (yet profane) sarcasism that simply is not my idea of the tone of ATW. However, if the being known to us as Patty continues on this course of mongoloid allegation and falsehood I will respond in kind until banned from this site.
Sean - Reagan's economics didn't always work so well (I have a nagging suspicion that economic success for a President is often luck), however he did restore a sense of hope and perhaps even confidence in a nation reeling from internal strife and foreign misadventures.
Patty
Most of your comment is correct - Jimmy Carter was no Reagan - but you are incorrect in saying that Carter was an appeaser. He was not about to give Brezhnev a slice of Denmark to keep him placated, which is the sort of thing that Chamberlain did to keep Hitler happy, which succeeded for a few minutes actually.
He was not the same type of opponent to Communism that Reagan was. He did not think to call evil by its name the way Reagan did--until Afghanistan was invaded.
He did want to eliminate nuclear weapons from everyone's arsenal, but that is hardly an indefensible position, and is one that comes from a peace loving and Christian position- not that of an appeaser.
Mahons: The difference between you and me is that when I disagree with you, I don't make it personal. I say that your argument is "garbage" but I don't say that you are "garbage."
You turn around and attack me personally. Is it possible that you think that I am just so below you that I am not worthy of a counter argument, only personal insults? This seems really arrogant to me Mahons.
And ineffective. Sean makes a better case than you do.
Why don't you provide some evidence that Carter was influential in the ultimate demise of the Soviet Union? You say in your 10:13 that it was a "shared effort." How so? I say "garbage" to your contention that Carter had any positive impact on the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Offer up some evidence to support your case, lawyerman...or forever hold your peace.
Patty - the difference between you and me is a bit more profound than that. You broke the truce, and now you pay.
Robert Gates, George Bush's CIA Director, has always been quite adament in his support for Carter's contributions to the anti-Communism effort, noting his human rights agenda greatly undermined the Soviets, especially his support of Russian Jews. People also forget his continuation of policies against the Soviets, including countering lenoid brezhnev (sic)'s misdeeds. Carter's attempts at nuclear diplomacy (derided by you) where a continuation of Nixon's policies (see Salt I and Salt II).
Incidently, my profession has nothing to do with your level of foolishness, a garbage man, a cooper, a circus geek and even a rodeo clown could point to the ongoing fallacies in your comments.
Phantom: Is the word "appeaser" to strong?
Certainly the Soviets had little respect for Carter, as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan demonstrated; certainly the Iranians had no respect for Carter, as their holding of the American hostages until Reagan took office demonstrated; certainly Arafat had no respect for Carter as he(Arafat) continued his 2-face dealings despite peace talks.
What word would you use for Carter's foreign policy efforts? Ineffective?
Weak? Ill conceived?
Your choice. But, I don't think you can lump him in with Thatcher and Reagan and give him some credit for the demise of the SOviet Union. That is laughable.
I broke the truce? By calling your argument "garbage?" I never agreed not to disagree with you. Can't you just argue an issue with me rather than all this name calling stuff?
you don't make it personal - claiming that someone writes garbage, that someone has not read history? You are a lying ignorant fool and I will happily and ceaselessly expose you (to the extent you haven't already done so).
Merry Christmas.
"your level of foolishness, a garbage man, a cooper, a circus geek and even a rodeo clown could point to the ongoing fallacies in your comments."
why do you write stuff like this?
"I will happily and ceaselessly expose you"
So, I'm not allowed to ever disagree with you?
Mahons, are you quite all right old man? It's just a blog.
And no, Mahons, saying your argument is "garbage" is not personal.
Saying you are "garbage" -- which I didn't do -- would be personal.
back on topic: ...so you think Carter should share the success of the end of the cold war with Reagan and Thatcher because of his human rights record, his dealings with Brezchev, and the fact that he carried forward Nixon's SALT talks.
At least that's a reason for your argument. I don't think they are strong reasons. But let's agree to disagree.
The use of the word "appeasement" in this geopolitical context brings to mind PM Chamberlain's craven ceding of the Sudetanland region of Czechoslovakia to avert war. Carter didn't cede any part of any country to the USSR. T
You can say that Carter was naive about the nature of the USSR until Afghanistan. That his strategy was wrong. I'd agree with that.
Thatcher and Reagan were significant, transformational leaders- with many flaws. Carter was a zero.
Good night. Too much fighting. Peace.
Mahons,
I do agree with your comment re Carter's activities since he was removed from the Presidency. It would be great if politicians could retire gracefully!
I think a few of you are hinting at the real reason that those leaders may be included in the list of people who caused the fall of the Soviet Union. It wasn't because they stood up to the Soviets, either militarilly or in their rhetoric, but becuase the helped create a situation where a real comparison could be made between the West and the East. The relative prosperity, human rights protections, etc that were the norm in places like the United States compared to the lack of prosperity and the abuse of human rights in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states. That is the only contributions that helped collapse the Soviet Union, so Presidents like Jimmy Carter were as responsible for it as Ronald Reagan.
Seamus - I can't agree with you. One of the major things that helped bring down the Soviet system was the concerted effort to stop them from expanding, which necessitated military power. In addition, helping to preserve freedom where it existed (The Berlin Airlift for example) was critical.
Mahons,
the Berlin Airlift was really only of symbolic importance.
Stalin was dead, and the new leaders in the Kremlin were really only flexing their muscles. The Russians had already pulled out of Austria when they didn't need to, and had put a firm offer on the table to withdraw completely from Berlin and even the rest of (East) Germany, if the West reciprocated (this was in fact only scuppered by the West Germans, who insisted on the Allies staying put).
If you ask me, the turning points were i) the Cuban Missile Crisis and ii) the war in Afghanistan. The former showed the limits of Soviet expansion and the latter showed that the crazy experiment of the SU was a failure. Ask anyone on the streets of Moscow what spellt the end of Communism and you will not hear a word about Regan or Carter, but only about the failures of leadership re. Afghanistan and their economy.
Russia was having a kind of "60's" experience (albeit without the great music) in the 80's. People were talking more openly, and the setbacks and human and economic cost of Afghanistan were recognised by the people like no former defeats had been.
Afghanistan was of course what it was for the SU not least due to the efforts of Carter and Regan in funding the Mujahideen like Hekmatyar, which as we know later morphed into AlQuaeda and brought up 9-11. Whether this was necessary or far-sighted is a matter for debate, But Patty is wrong to suggest that there was some significant difference between Regan and Carter on this vital foreign policy issue, or that Carter didnt see through the Russians until they invaded Afghanistan. That invasion was in fact very welcome, and not unexpected, news in Washionton. Brzezinski was a sly bastard and had been looking forward to it, if not partly engineering it, for some time.
Obviously something as complex and vital as US foreign policy in the Cold War doesn't change radically from administration to adminstration. Carter's men were every bit as hard-headed and hawkish as Regans, even if they were somewhat more urbane.
Mahons,
I am not sure what blog we were discussing polls/Saddam/911 on.
You asked a question about the types of questions asked by pollsters.
I wasn't sure where I had read some, so I had to search through my essay files. This link should answer some of your questions.
http://www.communication.illinois.edu/salthaus/althaus.pdf
pinky - Well it wasn't the ABBA thread, but at ATW who knows?