Byzantium's Shores: chronicling the misadventures of an overalls-clad hippie

Time for a few short political thoughts that have been upwelling from the depths of my hypothalamus.

:: David Horowitz, like Andrew Sullivan, is another of those weird "conservatives-with-an-axe-to-grind" that are so, well, weird. I rarely read either, because invariably when I do they're just laughable. Here's Horowitz on Ann Coulter, basically saying, "GASP! You mean, she actually believes the stuff she writes? It's not just satire, but her actual beliefs? Hold me while I swoon!" (This is rather like Andy Sullivan's sudden realization, a month or two back, that his beloved Bush Administration might not be as gay-friendly as he had once believed.)

:: Speaking of Andy Sullivan, TBOGG points to an Andy post where he cheers for Arnold Schwarzenegger's possible entry into California's next gubernatorial race. I actually have to partly agree with Andy, in that Arnold might make a pretty capable politician -- he is good with people, and interesting interview, and he can lie while smiling with the best of 'em. (I once watched an interview with Arnold, in which he grinned while saying, "I was so excited to do Last Action Hero because it was the best script I'd ever read.") Of course, like TBOGG, I continue to be amazed with the American fascination of entrusting high governmental offices to people who are relatively inexperienced in matters of governance, but that's just the lay of the land in this country. (And we do it on all sides of the political aisle. Look at Jesse Ventura, Jimmy Carter, Dwight Eisenhower, and the current Democratic fascination with Wesley Clark.)

:: I read a profile of Republican activist Grover Norquist this morning. Basically, Norquist is of the perennial belief that long-term Republican ascendency is just a year or two away. I've seen predictions like this, on both sides, for a long time and I'm never really convinced. But who knows, maybe it'll happen and Democrats like me will spend the next few decades on the outside looking in. Here is a key quote, though, that struck me:

The Republicans are looking at decades of dominance in the House and Senate, and having the presidency with some regularity.

Now, the first part of that seems possible. Republicans are already working to shore up the political infrastructure that keeps them in power in Congress; that's what the whole Texas redistricting fiasco is all about. The problem there, as Morat points out, is that as time goes by, the activist conservatives tend to get militant to the point of seriously overreaching. I just don't know that Tom Delay, or any of the other real hardliners, has enough self-control to do the occasional bit of backtracking or compromising necessary to maintaining a grip on power for a long time. As for the second part of Norquist's formulation here, well, what does "some regularity" mean, exactly? In the roughly 140 years since the Republican Party first arose and elected its first President (Abraham Lincoln, and for the purposes of this post I won't delve into whether or not today's Republican Party bears much, if any, resemblance to the party of Lincoln's day), there have been 28 Presidents. Of those, 18 have been Republicans. Narrowing the focus, since 1953 we have had ten Presidents, six of whom were Republicans. So just what would Norquist consider as "having the presidency with some regularity"?