Bentsen-Quayle debate as template for GOP failure and what to do about it

Updated:

7/26/24:

A shocking poll says over 70% of liberal Democrats would have preferred that Trump had died in the assassination attempt. What does that say about them? Shall we call them "extremists"?



This just in...

Confirmed: The wannabe Trump assassin was a Biden supporter… https://t.co/znxf8XX8xL

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) July 26, 2024

7/24/24:

With the recent assassination attempt on Trump, it may be useful to re-visit this. It is worth studying, for no other reason than how the Democrats reacted to Bentsen's insult of Quayle. They really enjoyed it.

The truth is that the Democrats really enjoyed the attempt on Trump's life. Maybe not all of them, but certainly SOME of them. Maybe even the majority of them. The point is that the Democrats aren't really opposed to violence. The insult of Quayle was just one short step away from violence. It's just like the hate speech that spews from Democrats on a regular basis.

When things don't go their way, the Democrats are not opposed to violence. Seems like there was some violence today in DC. The terrorist sympathizers burned the flag, and raised the Palestinian flag. Tell me again, what country do we live in? Disrespecting the flag and then raising a flag that has a symbolic connection with terrorism? So the Democrats approve of this?

Once again, my assertion here is that the Democrats have no problem with political violence, nor in violating the norms of a civilized society. That is what Quayle meant when he said--"That was uncalled for, Senator." The solution for this is a strong reply. Any show of weakness only confirms the inferiority that the Democrats are trying to establish. Don't play their game, GOP. Be strong.

10.26.18:

Since I mentioned this recently, why not re-post this?  So, here it is. 

It is a good example of what is wrong with the never-Trumper faction.  They are really sympathetic to the lefty cause, and are ashamed of the conservative wing.  They appear to accept the premises of the left, such as what was discussed below, and what is happening today.

For instance, the left will say that the GOP is "violent", but what evidence of that exists?  We have the recent discussion about "bombs", which technically speaking weren't even bombs.  Unless there is evidence of a bomb that is connected to a right wing group, then don't accept the premise that it was a right wing group.  But for some of these never-Trumpers, they are all too ready to accept that premise.  Even if a right winger did it, it is guilt-by-association to blame Trump for it.

I suspect the fear that the Democrats will do a Goldwater on the GOP is what has inoculated the Democrats from counter attacks from the GOP after one of their own attacks.  This also gives the so-called moderate wing of the party a lot more power and influence than what they deserve.  They are the minority within the party, but it often seems like their influence is far greater than their numbers.

Even though Trump may not be the gentleman that the Bushes are, it would make no difference to the Democrats or their flunkies in the media as to how they are treated.  The media doesn't care about this issue.  Why should the rest of us?  It is a pattern.  The Democrats make an issue of something that they don't care about themselves.  If they did care, they would have been ashamed of Bentsen.  But it was the opposite.  They were PROUD of what he did to Quayle.


12.31.13:

The Bentsen-Quayle debate in 1988 has become something of a legend.  But it is more than that.  It is the very model of the GOP's failure to respond effectively to the Democrat's pretensions.  To summarize, what did Bentsen achieve in that debate?  He marginalized conservatism and the GOP itself.  He made it appear weak and stupid, while making Quayle appear the same.  This perceived weakness became a liability for President George Herbert Walker Bush as time wore on.  That liability wasn't unique, nor new to Quayle or the GOP, but has been part of the their problem all along.

To recap what Bentsen did specifically:

• He insulted Quayle personally--- implied that he was inferior---"You're no Jack Kennedy".
• Then he stared down Quayle as Quayle attempted to stand up for himself.  Quayle couldn't look him in the eye.
• Then Bentsen claimed the comparison wasn't apt because of what Quayle stood for.

The consequences were a big advantage for Democrats even if they didn't win that election.  How?

• It reinforced a pattern of the GOP's giving in to their premises.  Quayle not only countenanced the insult, but he allowed the GOP to be insulted as well.  That had to hurt on a psychological level.
• It reinforced and reestablished history.  Nixon was bounced even though he was a fighter---Goldwater lost in a big landslide.  The GOP learned not to challenge the left out of fear of the big loss.  

It appears to the GOP that the best way to deal with the left is to give in to them.  Fighting them only makes things worse.  The GOP ends up accepting all the left's premises and caves in again and again.

Ronald Reagan was the only GOP figure that has done well in challenging the left, but even he didn't win a complete victory.  What he did manage to win has been lost already and things are worse today than ever before.

How to fight the left?

It isn't enough to look good on TV as Reagan did.  Their has to be an intellectual foundation for the challenge and besides that, there needs to be an emotional toughness that you just don't see enough of from the GOP.  The emotional weakness could be seen with Quayle.  It isn't unique to him.

When you see Quayle failing to meet the glowering gaze of Bentsen, you can't help but walk away with the feeling that the GOP thinks of itself as inferior.  But the Democrats don't think that way of themselves.  If you don't respect yourself, why should anybody else?  Did Quayle really believe himself to be inferior to Kennedy and what Kennedy stood for?  There was an opportunity to answer Bentsen there, but Quayle missed it.

Why did Quayle miss that opportunity?  He wasn't prepared.  Quayle was warned not to make comparisons with Kennedy, but that preparation wasn't good enough.  There should have been some practice on how to recover from that eventuality if it were to occur.  The media set up Quayle for the thrashing when they asked the same question four different times.  This gave Bentsen his opening, so you cannot put all the blame on Quayle.  I mean the guy had his hands full taking on the media as well as his opponent.  He needed better preparation so as to avoid the debacle that occurred.

Could it be that the GOP just needs to do a better job of presenting itself?  It may have made a difference in that debate.  It may make a difference now.

For example, let's start with the pretensions of the glowering Bentsen.  Was Kennedy really better than Quayle?  Wasn't Kennedy a lot of hype with that Camelot BS?  Kennedy certainly had his good points, but he didn't last, did he?  As for the effect upon the country, by 1968, the country was in a mess.  That has to be some reflection upon Kennedy and the Democrats who were running the country.  Bentsen opened up a weakness that could have been an opportunity for Quayle.  Quayle, if he had been prepared for this, could have pounced.  It was an opportunity missed.  It is the type of weakness that hounds the GOP to this very day.  If the GOP cannot or will not respond to the pretensions of the left, where does that lead them but to the permanent status of a junior partner.