While attending my Georgetown college reunion I took the opportunity to ask some classmates why they voted for President Obama. The running chorus I heard from several people was summed up nicely by one who asserted “new and improved vs. relic of the past.” There is something to be learned from her comment.
During his campaign, she said Obama represented a “modern, new type of political.” She added he was very intelligent and showed a willingness to listen and his charismatic personality. She said she also felt Obama ran a “masterful” 21st century campaign that leveraged technology to fundraise and attract young voters, like Howard Dean began to do in 2000. Finally, this Obamabot, as some conservative bloggers have dubbed Obama supporters, noted “Obama never went to the gutter with his campaign, attacking McCain or Hillary.” It was a display of a different kind of politics and to her it seemed everyone else was playing catch up.
When asked about her view of McCain during the presidential campaign, she said he seemed to implode toward the end, becoming a caricature rather than a commander in chief (citing his cancellation of appearing on the Letterman show then showing up on Katie Couric and his pick of Palin as a running mate.)
Another classmate explained his vote for Obama similarly, smiling and saying he felt Obama was an intellectual and he wanted to have a smart guy in the White House. Despite the fact that he didn’t agree with all of Obama’s platform and isn’t thrilled about the auto bailout, he felt McCain was “more of the same old thing” where Obama represented a new direction for the country.
It’s easy for the Republican base to excoriate moderate conservative and liberal voters alike as “Obamabots” for voting for a “smart guy, who can communicate effectively” but the fact of the matter is – it worked. And when weighed against the alternative—a candidate who came across as old and stuck in the past, the new and improved choice looked like the better bet to voters.
Picking up the case for Obama again Saturday morning, my female classmate wondered aloud why the GOP allows Rush Limbaugh to seemingly wield such influence over the party. She asked how the party expects to attract more people with polarizing figures like Rush at the helm. I told her many Republicans don’t view him as the voice of the party but she shook her head.
When Republicans want to jump over the fence into the Democrat’s tent, whether to endorse a candidate or win an election, the Democrats say “come on over, we’re glad to have you.” In contrast, Republicans aren’t often welcoming to people with different perspectives within their party. As a moderately conservative black woman with some strong viewpoints, I don’t feel the welcome mat being rolled out for me, as demonstrated by comments to my earlier post.
The GOP’s motto at the moment appears to be it’s our way or no way, come along for the ride but we’re always “right” even when we lose elections. Sounds like an appealing invitation! This type of politics cannot and will not win elections. If Republican leaders are serious about re-energizing the party and becoming more relevant Americans, they need to find better bearers of their message.
Why didn’t I vote for McCain? I embraced McCain’s policies and before he announced his running mate, I was considering voting for him. When he unveiled Sarah Palin, it was clear to me she didn’t have the muscle for the job of Vice President. She couldn’t even remember what newspapers she read. In the final weeks of the election, stacked next to Obama, McCain looked old to me like he didn’t have the stamina to lead.
The GOP needs to find and elevate candidates who can win elections — individuals, who can deftly communicate conservative ideas, connect with voters and demonstrate an authentic, not feigned, willingness to listen. Conservatism does work when it has the right messenger.
A lawyer who refuses to acknowledge his opponent’s powerful arguments is a bad lawyer, as is a general who dismisses his enemy’s strength and tactics. Both will likely lose their battles. Just as conservatives who cannot understand why 10 million more Americans voted for Obama than McCain are doomed for failure.
When the Republican party starts elevating its own “new and improved type of politician” with winning appeal across ethnicity, age, and gender, then dogmatic conservatives can ask moderates why they voted for the other guy. Instead, if the choice is to keep endorsing the same old type of candidates then the yield will be the same old results. But perhaps the party of NO relishes knowing they’re always right even when they’re losing. C’est la vie. By refusing to pitch a bigger tent on a new terrain, the GOP is striking out.
145 responses so far
1 ChristianMiller // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:15 am
Would you have voted for Romney over Obama?
Again the Republican Party is not a cult. You don’t join. There is no secret handshake. Republicans are a diverse group. You can see here we have many arguments with each other yet often when all is said and done we end up voting for the same guy.
I was TOTALLY against nominating McCain for many of the reasons you wrote, and I knew him well enough to know that he would be seen as you saw him, and fairly accurately in my opinion. I could even go farther than you in my criticism of him.
The fact that you didn’t see Obama for what he is is what many here were talking about, but you perhaps don’t follow politics that closely. The only reason you seem to be getting a forum on this political site is because you are a regular person who has had second thoughts about your vote, not because of your political expertise.
2 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:16 am
A much better offering than your first, Crystal. I have the sense that you were pandering to who you perceived your audience to be here with the “King Obama” comments first time around … but this is hardly the place where namecalling is going to be viewed as a symbol of coherence.
That’s why I like hanging out here.
Now – the next question is how do we step from the platitude level to the practical? What are the conservative ideas that you think can be communicated – and in particular, how do we promote a conservatism that doesn’t look like “Bush III” with a coat of whitewash on it?
We know what the result of 8 years of Bush II looked like for America, and it wasn’t surprising that a lot of Americans rejected McCain simply because he couldn’t communicate how McCain I wouldn’t be Bush III.
Tone is important. Presentation is important. The messenger, clearly, is very important.
But at some point it’s fundamentally about governance. What is your conservative position on governance?
3 raphael a // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:07 am
Democrats have relearned that Big Tent strategy, which is to make as many as possible feel welcome. Obama wisely campaigned above the fray, while Clinton and then McCain shot themselves in the foot with remarks that didnt play well like That one!
Howard Dean and then Rahm Emanuel dropped the anti-gun rhetoric and even recruited a few pro-gun candidates. Now they have their economic agenda and their Supreme Curt nominees sail through.
This is because Democrats understand something that Republicans no longer do, which is that the first step is getting people to vote for your candidates, rather than nominate some mythological pure one. Once your candidate is in office, then the real work begins. The various factions within the Democrat party are now trying to pull President Obama in different directions on the war, gay marriage, etc.
Just as Republicans like David Frum and Charles Krauthammer had to lobby against Bushs Supreme Court nominee Harriet Myers, and The Weekly Standard and McCain had to lobby for the surge.
On a local level, I already made the point that conservatives who subject moderate Republicans to the same animosity as they do liberals are winning the battle but losing the war.
Reagan appointed country club Republican and former opponent George Bush as his VP. Reagan was a winner.
dailyraphirmations.com
4 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:19 am
Great article. I could not agree more.
5 Mike K // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:27 am
“When he unveiled Sarah Palin, it was clear to me she didnt have the muscle for the job of Vice President. “
And Biden did ?
As someone else said, Republicans are not a cult. I don’t take a census of how many of my friends, or even my kids, are members. Three of my kids voted for Obama. My oldest son probably would have voted for McCain if I had said I was voting for Barry. He still has a parent complex although he is 44. One daughter is a pretty committed lefty although I have hopes that marriage and children might eventually change her. Another daughter surprised me and she seems to be angry at Bush although she has never explained why.
What I think is that the financial crisis doomed McCain and a large number of otherwise sensible people suspended disbelief to vote for Obama because of who he was. That is the way life goes. We are still paying the price for Ford’s gaffe on Poland in the 1976 campaign. Elections have consequences. The culture is trivializing politics and we will pay a severe price for Obama as I do not believe he has the first idea of how to run the country. It is not the Harvard Law Review.
Republicans include a very diverse group, more diverse I believe than Democrats. There are the fundamentalist Christians who are far less influential than the opposition would like to portray them. Then there are the independent business owners. They are the real heart of the party. That’s one reason why such a large share of car dealers are Republicans and are being punished by Obama. A lot of blue collar workers, especially men without college degrees, are Republicans, many of them union members although the union leaders are not.
I wonder if the people who complain about not being “welcomed” are coming at this question with a chip on their shoulder. Nobody welcomed me.
One group that is NOT a significant part of the party is the rich. They have decided that cultural issues, like gay marriage and global warming are more important than economics. They may learn this is not true but only a rich country, and especially its rich citizens, can dismiss the serious business of governing to obsess on such matters. It’s a bit like the decline in college education; the serious subjects aside from science, must now be self learned.
6 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:41 am
One thing that Republicans have got to wrap their minds around is what one of theh friends Ms. Wright cited alluded to about Obama: “a willingness to listen”.
Reagan truly had this, and demonstrated it – and expanded his coalition.
Bush I had it, I think – but didn’t have the personality to demonstrate it – and failed to build on Reagan’s base.
Clinton had the ability to listen to some things, but a stubbornness and intellectual arrogance that led him to disregard things (such as morality in one’s personal life) that he personally considered unimportant – and thus failed to expand his coalition.
GW Bush sounded during his 2000 campaign as if he listened (eg – the pledge for a “modest” foreign policy) – but quickly showed that he had no interest whatsoever in listening to anyone whose philosophy didn’t square with his – and after 8 years the Republican coalition began to fall apart.
Obama clearly does listen – and he demonstrates very well that he listens. That isn’t going to mean him incorporating every challenge made from the right, but he publicly (at least) does a phenomenal job of demonstrating that he understands and even respects oppositional points of view.
If you heard yesterday’s NPR interview where they asked him about Cheney, you’ll see what the right is up against if they try to paint him as a demagogue out to silence debate and destroy his opponents.
I’d compare Obama not to someone who aims a gun at his opponents … but to someone who treats his opponents to a room with some bottles of whiskey, a loaded handgun, and a deck of cards. And to complete the analogy, I see Frum’s efforts here as someone who is crying out “guys, let’s put down the drinks and take the bullets out of the gun and figure out how we’re going to do something useful with our time”.
7 R.E. Munn // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:51 am
What a load of drivel. This latest post by Wright is so chock full of misunderstanding and misstatements that it doesn’t even merit rebuttal.
The GOP needs improvement no doubt, but a sermon from an un-conservative ain’t one of ‘um.
The Left, led by Obama, are transforming the very foundations of our state, just as many of us forecast. Now we are expected to take seriously this preachy rationalization from a person trying to defend her baseless judgment?
Ii can read this sort of tripe in any number of mediocre sites. Why should I find this high-school level reasoning here?
8 Stewardship // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:59 am
Mike K. Climate change is not a cultural issue…unless being able to pass our American culture on to our children and grandchildren is your intended use of the term. Climate change policy entails national security, economic security, energy security, fiscal conservatism, and many other “inter-disciplinary” matters. I don’t want to debate the topic here, just get it filed under the correct heading.
We lost the young vote by a 2-to-1 margin last November. The environment is a huge issue with the 18-29 year old demographic group. Even our own Young Republican National Federation has adopted a great energy and environment platform. If we don’t make room for these folks in the tent, it will take at least two generations to rebuild a majority.
9 sinz54 // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:16 am
Mike K: There’s a difference between voting for a Repub candidate in the general election, versus being active in the GOP prior to that, even prior to election years.
The blue-collar “Reagan Democrats” may vote Repub on election day (though most didn’t last November). But they aren’t active in the GOP in setting policy. If they were, the GOP wouldn’t be as anti-union as it is, and it wouldn’t write off urban areas as it has.
The most active group in the GOP, by far, is the Religious Right. They are the key to the GOP’s Get Out The Vote (GOTV) drives on Election Day–just ask Karl Rove. And hence they are courted assiduously by Republican politicians. Even McCain was forced to do that.
Folks like Crystal Wright and myself aren’t just asking to vote Republican. We have that right as Americans. We’re proposing new directions for the GOP.
And that’s where we are getting slammed by the social conservatives, who think they own the GOP’s domestic agenda and want no outside ideas creeping into it.
10 ottovbvs // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:29 am
Gresham’s Law doesn’t just apply to money. It applies to a lot of other things including political discourse. The general public makes no distinction between Gingrich, Limbaugh, Tancredo, etc and McConnell, Steele and Sessions. To the extent they are aware of them they are all the Republican party. And are they wrong when the comments of Gingrich and Limbaugh seem to resonate with most movement conservatives. Thus when we have the surreal spectacle of fat, middle aged mainly southern white men calling Sotamayor a racist, a reverse racist, a member of the Hispanic KKK, intellectually lightweight, and having menstrual problems, it effectively destroys any legitimate arguments against here as just more extremist nonsense from the GOP. What middle of the road woman voter is going to support a party that is represented by rhetoric of this kind. None of course.
11 Dustin Ferrell // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:47 am
balconesfault @ 9:41, well said.
12 raphael a // Jun 2, 2009 at 11:05 am
“The GOP needs to find and elevate candidates who can win elections — individuals, who can deftly communicate conservative ideas, connect with voters and demonstrate an authentic, not feigned, willingness to listen.”I would add self-discipline and cool under pressure.
And money. It strikes me that one purpose a site like this can serve is to give face time to up and coming candidates in state races all over the country.
People who like their message could contribute “Dean and Obama-ish” small donations via the internet, in order to help them accumulate a war chest.
Face time and donations is how we elevate these days. Emanuel and Dean did that for all Democrats nationwide. And they recruited new ones.
Rush Limbaugh and McCain have one thing in common. They are overly familiar. This works for and against them. Newt Gingrich is trying to pass himself off as “the man with fresh ideas and a whiny voice” but I don’t think it will work.
Too much blue plate special in Red State America. Somebody needs to promote the Matt Salmons that are there.
dailyraphirmations.com
13 mpolito // Jun 2, 2009 at 11:06 am
Sinz54- There are no social moderates in the GOP? There are plenty, in fact, and I see lots of them here in CT. They simply tend to come from more liberal areas, and do not make sense for a national party. McCain was a social moderate in many ways, as he opposes a marriage amendment and supports stem-cell research. Who honestly attributes the 2006 and 2008 losses to social conservatives? The war caused the former; the economy, the latter. Becoming pro-choice will cause the GOP to alientate millions of voters and pick up virtually no votes (again, I’d like to know where the new votes will come from if we ditch pro-lifers).
14 sinz54 // Jun 2, 2009 at 11:27 am
mpolito: I agree with you that the GOP cannot afford to become pro-choice.
What I suggested is that the GOP could walk back some of the more extreme positions of recent years (like giving Fourteenth Amendment rights to fetuses), and go back to the language in the 1976 Republican Platform, which was milder:
“The question of abortion is one of the most difficult and controversial of our time. It is undoubtedly a moral and personal issue but it also involves complex questions relating to medical science and criminal justice. There are those in our Party who favor complete support for the Supreme Court decision which permits abortion on demand. There are others who share sincere convictions that the Supreme Court’s decision must be changed by a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions. Others have yet to take a position, or they have assumed a stance somewhere in between polar positions.
“We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parents’ obligation and right to guide their minor children. The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.”
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/document/platform/rights.htm
15 sinz54 // Jun 2, 2009 at 11:32 am
ottovbvs sez: “….middle aged mainly southern white men….”
The only Southerner in this bunch is Limbaugh (Arkansas).
Newt Gingrich was born in Pennsylvania. He’s not a Southerner. He spent some of his youth in the South, but that’s because he was born into a military family that was often stationed there.
Tom Tancredo is from Colorado.
16 sinz54 // Jun 2, 2009 at 11:36 am
mpolito sez: “There are no social moderates in the GOP? There are plenty, in fact, and I see lots of them here in CT. They simply tend to come from more liberal areas, and do not make sense for a national party.”
Here’s the 2008 election electoral vote, with each state weighted by its electoral votes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartogram-2008_Electoral_Vote.png
The shrunken red area of the GOP doesn’t look like a national party to me. It looks like a regional party.
17 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 12:00 pm
ottovbvs sez:
“What middle of the road woman voter is going to support a party that is represented by rhetoric of this kind. None of course.”
As a card-carrying rep of said politically-minded gender, I concur. The consequential part, of course, is that there are MANY of us. And we do indeed vote.
18 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Ms. Wright: you’ve nicely demonstrated that an arguably disastrous beginning is not predictive.
Nice recovery. Though it may be awhile before I stop shaking me head at your first column, wondering where the heck it came from.
19 // Jun 2, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Sinz:
Is it the GOPs platform on abortion that is the problem or is it the virulence with which the GOP talks about abortion?
I doubt most people have any clue what’s in either party’s platform. But, when most people hear Obama talk about the issue they probably don’t feel like he is antagonistic toward them. So, even if they disagree with him on abortion, they still feel like they have a chance to influence the issue.
This has not been the case with the GOP on abortion or a whole host of other issues.
20 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 1:04 pm
“But, when most people hear Obama talk about the issue they probably don’t feel like he is antagonistic toward them. “
Moreover, they may be frustrated when they come to the conclusion that Obama won’t end up agreeing with them at the end of the day … but Obama explicitly lays out a goal of trying not to insult or demonize those whose faith brings them to a different conclusion than his. Check his Notre Dame speech, where he points out how people made him understand how statements on his website were insulting to the pro-life community, and how he responded by removing those statments.
For too many here – the response to someone who considers their statements to be insulting is, in the words of Dick Cheney, “Go **** yourself”.
21 owl // Jun 2, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“The shrunken red area of the GOP doesn’t look like a national party to me. It looks like a regional party.”
It is a regional party. It is turning into the Party of Old White Men Who Speak With Southern Accents. And don’t let Arizona fool you. I expect that after the 2010 census, Arizona will be purple at worse.
22 ottovbvs // Jun 2, 2009 at 2:27 pm
sinz54
11:32 AM
“The only Southerner in this bunch is Limbaugh (Arkansas).”
……Sessions and McConnell aren’t southerners?
23 ottovbvs // Jun 2, 2009 at 2:35 pm
ktward
12:00 PM
“As a card-carrying rep of said politically-minded gender, I concur. The consequential part, of course, is that there are MANY of us. And we do indeed vote.”
……..It’s the lack of self awareness I find so astonishing. Although they are seen as Republican standard bearers Limbaugh, Ingraham, Beck et al you can put on one side….they are basically in business milking the goats…but Gingrich allegedly has presidential ambitions…I’ve never been a fan, but I’ve never seen him as a total idiot….over impulsive perhaps as when he shut down the govt but a very bright guy…..but does he have no interpersonal antennae……does he have no idea of the reaction his comments produce….I’ve even tried to look at it from a political gamemanship point of view and if he has a strategy I can’t see it.
24 ottovbvs // Jun 2, 2009 at 2:51 pm
sinz54
11:32 AM
“The only Southerner in this bunch is Limbaugh (Arkansas).”
And apart from Sessions/McConnell I’m fairly certain Gingrich was a rep from GA where I think he taught in some University. IE. he’s a southerner as far as perception goes wherever he was born.
25 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 4:09 pm
ottovbvs:
IMHO, Gingrich’s albatross to any National political aspirations is a history rife with weighty hypocrisies. There will be those on the far right who forgave him to conveniently forget, of course. But despite his intelligence–yes, he’s quite the brainiac–most of us in the center don’t consider him fit for political office.
At this point, expendable punditry is the best he can do, though I suspect he may try to run. Who knows.
26 ottovbvs // Jun 2, 2009 at 4:16 pm
ktward
wrote 2 minutes ago
……Couldn’t agree more…..I’ve really run this several times…..I like these strategic parlor games and it makes no sense as a strategy other than maybe to make him the Republican nominee in the Goldwater/Alf Landon mode……and I suppose then there is the chance of one in a million he could win but it makes no sense unless he’s going to try for a senate seat in a very red state.
27 raphael a // Jun 2, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Isn’t the fact that David Frum invited Crystal and other writers none of us have previously heard of proof of an attempt at a big tent? Isn’t that one of the points of this website?
A far as the reception from the “comment gallery,” comments often attract more people who wish to make a point to the contrary, or engage in debate, than they do those who are in agreement with the writer. And people who write comments represent a party about as much as those who do all the talking in a meeting represent a companyl.
Finally, if you think your reception here was bad, you should check out the jackals at such highbrow liberal websites as such as Salon and Slate. New writers there are red meat.
Scott Adams was right. The internet. No place for wimps.
dailyraphirmations.com
28 Mike K // Jun 2, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“Obama clearly does listen – and he demonstrates very well that he listens. “
Then, after he listens, he says “I won.” Keep deluding yourself that Obama is open to common sense. he is following the Bush foreign policy (although talking about something else entirely) because somebody is telling him he has to do this. Just like Rubin told Clinton in 1993 that he couldn’t mess around with the currency.
The “regional party” stuff didn’t seem to be permanent with the 1984 Democrats. They won one state or have you forgotten ? We have an electoral college system that exaggerates the election result on color coded maps. Right now, we have a period in which, like 1974, the voters were angry with Republicans over an emotional issue like Watergate or Iraq. Democrats are less susceptible to such swings because they have a base that is in it for the money, like teachers and government employee unions, and they will keep voting for a skunk if necessary. That’s where the term “yellow dog Democrat” came from.
Republicans have a new coalition every decade or so. What is happening now is the hard lesson of total Democrat control of the government. Alex Comfort, a British humorist, once commented that the British civil service was a “calling” but the American civil service was “a rogue form of private enterprise.” And that was before the SEIU.
We are still paying for Ford losing the 1976 election. We got inflation and Khomeini from Carter, both problems that still affect our lives. God only knows what Obama will leave us with besides debt. They are already having blackouts in Texas because the wind has dropped off and wind farms are not generating. I think the energy crisis might be the worst thing Obama leaves us, even worse then the debt.
Anyway, Republicans will have no lack of things to talk about. There is the problem of increasing economic ignorance in that younger group that supported Obama. Many are still sponging off parents who voted for McCain.
29 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:12 pm
raphael a sez: “Isn’t the fact that David Frum invited Crystal and other writers none of us have previously heard of proof of an attempt at a big tent? Isn’t that one of the points of this website?”
Excellent point, and I agree completely. Not every blogger here wants a ‘Big Tent’ though- some are very vocal toward Party purification. Which begs the question as to why they’re here, but that’s another thread.
Nevertheless, newbies have to earn their stripes (and oldies have to maintain them) with quality work. Ms. Wright’s maiden column was, well, pretty lame. To her credit, she came back with this one on much more solid ground.
There’s nothing wrong with straightforward, pointed discourse (some call it bluntness), but it’s a sad fact that there’s no shortage of rhetorical bullies and ignorant rants.
C’est la blogs.
30 // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Mike K wrote: “Right now, we have a period in which, like 1974, the voters were angry with Republicans over an emotional issue like Watergate or Iraq.”
You’re kidding, right? Are you so delusional that criminal activity like burglary and an unjustified war that led to the deaths of over 100,000 people are simply “emotional” issues?
31 // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Mike K wrote: “We got inflation and Khomeini from Carter, both problems that still affect our lives. God only knows what Obama will leave us with besides debt. They are already having blackouts in Texas because the wind has dropped off and wind farms are not generating. I think the energy crisis might be the worst thing Obama leaves us, even worse then the debt.”
Let’s see, inflation was so bad before Carter took office that Republican president Nixon implemented PRICE CONTROLS!!!
As for the drop off of wind in TX, you do realize that your conservative cohorts are joking when they refer to Obama as the Messiah? He can’t really walk on water, raise the dead back to life or control the weather.
Mike, you should probably take a few minutes to reacquaint yourself with reality.
32 // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Crystal wrote: “Conservatism does work when it has the right messenger.”
Conservatism, as is the case with all ideologies, certainly works better politically when it has the right messenger. But, there is very little evidence that conservative ideology produces conservative policies. And there is even less evidence that what passes as conservative policies is actually good for the country.
Five out of the 7 presidents we’ve had from 1968 to 2008 were Republican. Of those 5, today conservatives consider only Reagan to have been a fellow conservative. Yet, Reagan raised taxes twice (one of those tax increases was the then-largest in history), grew federal spending at a faster pace than almost all of his predecessors, repeatedly intervened abroad, and left the country with a staggering debt. Despite his conservative rhetoric, by almost no measure, was Reagan’s presidency consistent with conservative ideology.
After 30 years of “Reagan Republicanism” the country finally realized that the policies of conservatives are harmful to the country, and the electorate sought different policies. The notion that conservatives have poor messengers is true, but it certainly does not explain their electoral failures over the past 2 elections. Instead, their policies are the cause of their failures.
33 Mike K // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“You’re kidding, right? Are you so delusional that criminal activity like burglary and an unjustified war that led to the deaths of over 100,000 people are simply “emotional” issues?”
It’s amusing that the left uses bluster and abuse as though it were argument or debating points.
No, I’m not delusional. I’m a bit of a student of history and wonder if you do much reading of it. You may think that the Iraq invasion was the wrong decision but, typical of the left, you attempt to dismiss any argument by those who disagree with ad hominem stuff like “delusional.” This makes you look juvenile.
Of course, Nixon did not stop inflation. Do you happen to know what the annual rate of inflation was ? Why don’t you look it up and then look up the inflation rate under Carter?
34 // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Mike K: I’m not attacking you b/c I disagree with the Iraq war (although I do). Instead, I’m criticizing your assertion that watergate and the Iraq war are “emotional” issues.
They are not emotional issues. One was a crime committed by the president and the other was a terribly executed military endeavor based on flawed intelligence and carried out under the spectre of an implied connection btwn Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
As for my invocation of the inflation that was bad enough during Nixon’s presidency that he had to implement price controls, the point was to illustrate for you that Carter did not give Reagan inflation. To the extent that any president gave inflation to Reagan, it was Nixon.
While you may have studied history, there is very little evidence that you’ve retained anything you learned on these topics. That, too, is not an ad hominen attack; it’s an observation.
35 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:44 pm
It’s funny how this lady thinks she is sooooooooooo freaking special that a conservative based Republican party has to “roll out the welcome mat” for her. If you don’t agree with conservative values, don’t vote for us.
This lady makes this bizarre argument that she voted against conservatism because of Palin! who easily had more executivie experience than Obama. SHe then says McCain was too old to lead…blah blah blah….she really couldn’t make the case that HE wasn’t a moderate.
The fact of the matter is, this Crystal babe is black, and she voted for Obama because he’s black and/or she’s not really a liberal. Frum is using her a prop…she’ll be voting for Obama in 2012 no matter what. I mean, if you think Palin is this hardcore rightwinger, you are deluisional and most likely a leftwinger. SHe pretty much just parroted McCain on “working with the Democrats” and the populist bullshit about Wall Street greed.
I think it’s humorous that these so called moderates think the party has a obligation to pander to them. We tried that with McCain…nobody panders more to the left than McCain, and I don’t believe anybody remotely moderate HATED Palin so much that she bolted over to Obama to vote for him unless it had to do with his skin color or simply they are liberals.
We lost ONE election, and polls show that Obama’s policies are not popular despite his personal popularity (which I believe is because whites dont’ want to criticize black people in general), yet this Crystal lady acts like the Republican party is dead because of “polarizing” conservatives like Rush?
What is polarizing about a guy that advocates freedom? Frum and Crystal have no answer for that. If Crystal is truly a new moderate GOP voter, how was she able to get past Limbaugh’s polarization? If one moderate can get past that evil Limbaugh, why can’t we conclude that most moderates can? DOes the left have nobody that is polarizing? Is Bill Maher not polarizing? Frum went on his show. Al Franken, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Hillary, not polarizing?
Obama’s the most polarizing president in years according to the polls, so it’s funny how these “moderates” are always lecturing the cosnervative majority of the Republican party about how we need a new “tone”.
I see Obama trying to nationalize the private sector and impose big government mandates on individuals and the private sector, and yet that’s not what is truly polarizing? Frum and Crystal have no answer for that.
Why can’t Frum and Crystla just vote for parties that they agree with on 90% of the issues…moderate those parties.
If you don’t like conservativism, go vote for another party and stop bitching about it. The Republican party can’t be all things to all people, and moderates are the minority. You have to adapt to what the majority wants in a Party, not the other way around. That is the arrogance of these whiny little moderates…this notion that the GOP must revolve around what they want, even though going Democrat-lite has been shown to be a loser with Bush Sr, Dole, and McCain.
36 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Let’s nominate Frum, and see how many votes he gets vs Obama. I mean, he hoists himself up as the kind of man that has the principles that would lead to a Republican victory. Why doesn’t he run? It’s my understanding he has a law degree? Can he not dazzle us with brilliant oratory like Obama? I mean, this Frum guy thinks he is the true Man of the People and if only the REpubilcan party was more like Frum, they would winn, why doesn’t Frum run for president? He’s not polarizing, so he should be able to beat Obama, right By his own logic, it’s a slame dunk.
David Frum / Kathleen Parker 2012…..that ticket can’t lose to Obama.
37 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Yo, Crystal, play the victim card much?
38 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:07 pm
I wonder if Obama and the Democrats would roll out the welcome mat for me. Sure, they wouldn’t mind me voting for them, but since when have Democrats been receptive to pro-lifers and people who oppose the various tenents of socialism to include heavy taxation and nationalized everything including healthcare?
I can’t imagine a moderate EXPECTING and essentially DEMANDING that the Democrats suck up to them, yet this Crystal lady, in her arrogant world view, seems to think the conservative based Republican party has to bow down and kiss her little “moderate” feet.
39 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:29 pm
“since when have Democrats been receptive to pro-lifers “
http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Harry_Reid_Abortion.htm
“and people who oppose the various tenents of socialism to include heavy taxation and nationalized everything including healthcare”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act
If anyone rolls out a carpet for you, Dr. Tesla, I hope it’s out of non-flammable and scotch-guarded material
40 Fortress1026 // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I agree in large measure with Crystal’s thesis. The paragraph about the lawyer and the general is very true and is an example of what is a very real problem in our party. Granted, we have an at least semi-hostile media to contend with but Mccain’s big mistakes were of his own doing. More and more, the tactic of attacking one’s opponent too harshly is failing too. There has to be a way to get your viewpoint out there without the full bore attack on one’s opponent. It seems Repubs need to stick to the basic moderate conservative positions;e.g., concern about deficits, fiscal responsibility etc., that were the main reasons the party has been popular in the past. We can and should be the reform party as well as the party of open government. We were most successful when we did that (think 1994.) There are weaknesses in our opponent’s party. Mr. Obama will not always be as popular. There will be more concern on the direction he is taking the country most likely but we need to be smart to take advantage and just can’t be seen as too far to one extreme.
41 midcon // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Crystal, While I welcome the discussion regarding the Party of No, I find the reference to Palin a bit troubling. If you literally (and I do mean literally) compare the resumes of Obama and Palin, you would find that Palin actually has an edge in experience in governing. Yet, you and many others did not apply the same test for Obama as you did for Palin and she was only going to be VP. Now it may turn out that Obama will be wildy successful and there is no doubt he is a man of intelligence. Yet, apparently you gave no thought to his lack of experience.
Further, I find it baffling that you did not discuss his race and the affect on your views and your vote. After all, it is clear that race was not an issue to white voters, while it was clearly an issue with African Americans. Yet, much of your essay seems to be how your felt about the McCain/Palin ticket, as if you were repelled into voting for Obama rather than drawn to support him.
So…how about it moderate to moderates, talk to us about that would you? If you do, there will be plenty of trash posters (see below), but most us would like to hear more from you about this because to honest, we are not really allowed to talk about race, unless we are being apologetic about it. It would be refreshing to hear some blunt talk (again, you would have to ignore some of the postings here, but that’s the price of free speech I suppose).
42 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Oh yeah, those Democrats are reaching out to the pro-lifers. ANybody that buys that assertion is gullible as hell.
Obama’s not reaching out to anybody in his policies….he’s no moderate..he’s a leftist idealogue.
Democrats have as much use for a voter who supports tax cuts and smaller government as does a fish a bicycle.
43 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Actually polls indicated a large number of white voters voted for Obama because he was black, or at least it was one of the main factors.
That kind of undermines the liberals constant assertion that this is an anti-black racist country. I think it’s gone 180 degrees the other way now where few white people even dare criticize a black person for fear of being called racist by the race baiters on the Left.
44 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Ah. Tesla. Always a class act.
Missed your meds, eh?
45 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Calling Republicans the Party of No is a Democrat talking point and it’s a silly mantra.
Why is it assumed that no is always the wrong answer? It all depends all the question. Do we want big government and higher taxes? Hell no.
If tax hikes and out of control government spending are so popular, why didn’t Obama run on that? In the battleground states like VA and NC, Obama was running as a tax cutter even though he had no desire to cut taxes.
46 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:45 pm
ktward with the generic internet insult.
Still living at home with your mom?
See, I can do it too!
47 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Why don’t the moderates start a Moderate Party? They always give us the impression most of the country are moderates.
48 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:57 pm
I vote for principles, not Party. Crystal and Frum don’t seem to get that. I could care less if the GOP loses if it’s just going to be a slightly different form of the Democrat party. THere’s no incentive for people to vote for a political party if it does not hold it’s ideals.
Frum likes to smear social conservatives, but the Republican Party is not even a contender without them. His opinion that the GOP go hard left on social issues in addition to supporting higher income taxation would be the death of the REpublican party and it would be replaced by another party with a conservative base.
You’ll always have these little Frums lecturing conservatives on how to win elections.
I think it’s funny how Frum and other moderates think a majority of voters even know or care about Rush Limbaugh. People interested in politics have a tendency to think everybody else is constantly thinking about politics, when that’s just not reality. I can’t see your average moderate actually choosing to listen to Rush long enough to be so “offended” that they instantly decide to vote Democrat. Your average moderate is going to be listening to music or sports talk on the radio, not seeking out political commentors.
49 Mike K // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:06 pm
“While you may have studied history, there is very little evidence that you’ve retained anything you learned on these topics. That, too, is not an ad hominen attack; it’s an observation.”
More silliness. I’m getting bored with the limited grasp of history here. David, you need better commenters; even left wing ones.
50 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Frum’s problem is nearly all leftwingers hate him (or would hate him if they knew who he was) because he is a “neocon” “warmonger” that supported the Iraq war and served in the Bush adminstration.
And obviously he’s not that popular with mainstream conservatives.
He’s living proof of the saying that you can’t be all things to all people, with the little amount of traffic he gets on his website and the lack of advertisers.
Yet he basically wants the GOP to emulate him.
51 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“If tax hikes and out of control government spending are so popular, why didn’t Obama run on that? “
Obama actually did run on the tax hikes which he has already put on the table … and while “out of control” is a judgement which I have no doubt you and I would disagree over the meaning of, he certainly spoke throughout the campaign about the places where he thought government needed to reinvest both to stimulate the economy and to rebuild infrastructure.
There is a need for an opposition party to contain the worst instincts of the party in power – the Democrats failed to do that, and spending on the military grew from 3.6% of GDP in 2000 to a projected 5.8% for 2009. Similarly, Democrats must be made aware that there will be political accountability for how they spend tax dollars.
But simplistic terms like “out of control” do nothing but invite mockery when total Federal Spending grew from 33.9% of GDP to 37.11% of GDP between 2001 and 2008.
52 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Ah Tesla, your rants are always good for a chuckle.
Actually, I am the mom.
53 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:34 pm
If the video at this link http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/the_national_debt_road_trip/
does not convince you that Obama’s spending is out of control, nothing will.
But the fact is, you are a leftwing Marxist, and you support this spending. You can’t be a socialist and for responsible government spending at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.
54 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:35 pm
ktward,
I am the life of this website, am I not?
55 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Obama has already said he is going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, which is a tax hike on the middle class, as Bush cut taxes for everybody.
And with the huge deficit Obama has already created, he will at some point have to propose another tax hike. He won’t be able to generate enough tax revenue for his bloated budgets by just raising taxes on the rich.
56 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Tesla world:
Increase in federal spending vs GDP under Reagan – capitalism.
Decrease in federal spending vs GDP under Clinton – marxism.
Increase in federal spending vs GDP under Bush – capitalism.
And you don’t appear to have a definition of Marxism that makes you seem economically literate.
57 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm
No, you of course leave out Reagan had a Democrat controlled Congress, and of course, Congress spends the money.
The Republican’s gained control of Congress under Clinton and stopped his plans to nationalize healthcare and forced him to sign welfare reform. We saw deficit reductions as a result, and CLinton of course takes credit for it.
I don’t apologize for Bush’s spending, but you Democrats have no problem with it.
My little video that I posted demostrates how much Obama’s spending is making Bush look like a miser.
You stated earlier that Obama isn’t engaged in out of control spending.
That video gives proof to your lie.
58 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:16 pm
I don’t have a definition of Marxist that you will like, as liberals run away from what they are. Obama has consistly said thoughout his life that he wants to redistribute wealth, but he runs away from even the liberal label, and redistribution of wealth via taxation is a central tenet of Marxism.
59 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:49 pm
“My little video that I posted demostrates how much Obama’s spending is making Bush look like a miser.”
When there’s a fire, I don’t ask the fire department to stop and tell me how much it’s going to cost to put it out.
Our current economy sadly still needs heavy capitalization from the federal government. It would be wonderful had we not slid rapidly and dangerously into a recession last year. It would be fantastic if there weren’t still fears that the foreclosure rate might still spike even higher. I would be ecstatic if Obama didn’t have to put a penny into Detroit to keep a huge segment of our economy from collapsing, or if AIG and the banks had never needed a penny of federal bailout money.
But after 5 years of worrying more about the health of the Iraqi economy than the American economy, we are where we are. We’ve had our fun with cutting taxes to stimulate the economy, and we discovered that it’s possible to be on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve by undertaxing as well as by overtaxing. We’ve learned that trusting big business to always act in the long-term best interests of America is as realistic as trusting your loyal pit bull to never eat the neighbor kid.
Our spending needs right now are disasterous. But like the quagmire in the Middle East, like the illegality of Guantanamo, like the liability created by warrantless wiretapping, Obama’s stuck with a lot of Hobbses Choices.
Redistribution of wealth via taxation is most certainly not a central tenet of Marxism. It is not necessary for Government to tax when they own everything.
60 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:01 am
THe government doesn’t own everything if they confiscate private companies, and that did require our tax money. Much of the spending so fair has been the so call “bailouts”. You don’t seem to understand basic things.
All this spending so far doesn’t seem to have stimulated the economy…unemployment has risen to 10%, the stock market has plunged, etc, under Obama.
Making Obama out as a victim in all this is laughable. He could have let GM and the other comapnies go bankrupt…that’s the natural way of handling things, not a government takeover.
You don’t ask how much it’s going to cost because you don’t pay enough in taxes for you to care. Your anti-business rant just underscores what a Marxist you are.
You said in a previous post that it wasn’t true Obama was spending too much. That video proves your lie wrong so you adjust your talking points accordingly.
61 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:53 am
Dr. Tesla: How can you argue so vehemently against President Obama and never mention the economic disaster he inherited from 8 years of a Republican Conservative President and 6 years of Republican Conservative Congress?
Whatever argument the GOP supporters currently make, the history and facts are too present in the American memory to be swung into denial, at least at this point.
The article’s author makes the right points. Until the GOP and right rediscover the genuine nature of the GOP and stop with this my way or the highway mentality, the party appears like a minority, at best, party.
If that works for that 20 percent that are loyal to how they got here, then so be it. But don’t expect the American electorate to follow and please stop complaining.
62 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 5:38 am
The Bush years seemed pretty good to me economically despite libearls trying to depict it otherwise. Unemployment was around 5% most of Bush’s tenure, and that’s considered the natural rate of unemployment by economists. Unemployment is up close to 10% now.
The true nature of the Republican party has never been to to be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and liberal in general on social issues, and it’s never been to support tax hikes on income as David Frum asserts.
It’s not a my way or or the highway mentality…it’s just the reality that parties have to take a stance on the issues. This is not to say that you to agree with the Republican party on EVERY issue, but Frum and other moderates disagree with most of the REpublican platform. They are not conservatives, and since the majority of the Republican party consists of conservatives, it’s rather curious that they would argue that the GOP can only win elections by adopting liberal stances on social issues and taxes and other issues. How do you do this without alienating the conservative base? That’s just not logical.
Reagan won two landslides….tax cuts and conservative stance on social issues was a big reason why. Conservative Repubilcans can win elections…McCain was a liberal Republican and he lost big time to a guy that only had 3 years in the sneate, most of which he spent campaigning for president. Obama is the most unremarkable man in history of terms of any real accomplishments to be elected president of anything, much less the most powerful country in the world.
63 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 5:44 am
I’m not complaining…it’s the moderates like Frum and Crystal that are complaining. It’s my contention, and it’s quite logical, if you don’t like a party whose base is conservative, you should got vote for another party.
I’m not interested in the GOP winning by giving up it’s principles and pandering to liberals, and the fact that this Crystal lady thinks Palin was some kind fo extremist tells me that Crystal isn’t all that moderate. Crystal just didn’t like the fact that Palin was pointing out Obama’s associations with black radicals like Wright, and former terrorists like Ayers. That was legit criticism, but as I have pointed out before, a lot of people don’t like it when a black person is criticized at all. Obama gets kid glove treatment by the press and the majority of Republicans won’t criticize him and attack those that do. Going easy on a man because he has black skin is just as racist as putting him down because he’s black, in my humble opinion.
Again, conservatives lose either way if the Republican party doesn’t want to support conservative ideals. So there’s no incentive for conservatives to vote for the REpublican party, and the GOP is essentially dead at this point unless it gets back to representing the majority of it’s supporters and stop pandering to the left. Crystal is leftist on the majority of issues or she could never have even contemplated voting for Obama, unless she’s just completely ignorant of Obama’s record on the issues and his past statements about redistributing the wealth and other token liberal ideals.
The majority of Americans oppose most of Obama’s policies, including close Gitmo and bringing the jihadists to America prisons. His personal approval is still up there, but it’s my prediction that if he doesn’t get a handle on this economy and unemployment is still 10% and he continues to spend tax payer money like it grows on trees, he will get bounced in 2012 if we run a conservative president.
Conservatives may now be a minority…most countries are socialist. If that is the case, no amount of pandering to the “moderates” and liberals is going to increase the GOP’s changes of electoral victories. As I have pointed out before, Bush Sr, Dole, and McCain were pretty liberal on domestic issues, and they all lost. Reagan and Bush both ran as conservatives, although Bush turned out to be pretty liberal on most domestic issues including spending, illegal imigration, etc.
I don’t care about the fate of the Republican party if it’s just Democrat-lite. I want that kind of GOP to lose in general.
Those that say Palin cost McCain the election are delusional. There was no excitement for McCain until she became the VP nominee, and she was drawing bigger crowds than the Messiah. Most conservatives have no love for McCain because he’s not a conservative on the issues.
The Democrats have a my way or the highway mentality. It didn’t stop them from winning the past election. You never hear anybody tell them to moderate on anything despite the fact they hold the extremist views on every issue. You don’t get more extremist on abortion than Obama…nobody has lectured him about moderating on that issue. No “moderate” lectures Obama about moderating on his lust for big government spending and government takeovers of the private sector. Why is that?
64 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:00 am
Dr. Tesla, Great stuff. You and I are on the same page in opinions.
65 ottovbvs // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:02 am
Dr. Tesla
wrote 9 minutes ago
“I’m not interested in the GOP winning by giving up it’s principles and pandering to liberals, and the fact that this Crystal lady thinks Palin was some kind fo extremist tells me that Crystal isn’t all that moderate.”
………The distilled essence of self marginalizing conservatism……..endless whining about the media…. incipient racism…..and the embrace of positions that have only a tenuous connection with reality……GOP 2009
66 sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:04 am
Spartacis asks: “Is it the GOPs platform on abortion that is the problem or is it the virulence with which the GOP talks about abortion?”
That is one of my major points. The 1976 GOP Platform of 1976 and 1980 was pro-life, but without being combative. It acknowledged other points of view, and the difficult moral questions involved in abortion:
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/document/platform/rights.htm
By 2004, that inclusive language was gone. It was replaced by hard-right language that acknowledged no differing points of view and stated that being pro-life was implied by the Declaration of Independence (!!!). (Which implies that being pro-choice is un-American.)
http://www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf
Of course, some in the right-wing media go much further.
67 sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:11 am
Dr. Tesla sez: “if you don’t like a party whose base is conservative, you should go vote for another party.”
Did Obama *ever* say to voters, “If you don’t like MoveOn.Org, DailyKOS, and the AFL-CIO, you should go vote Republican”???
Do you think that Obama could have won the election solely with voters who love DailyKOS and labor unions???
In a two-party system, for either party to threaten voters to go elsewhere, as you are doing, is insane–and suicidal.
You want the GOP to be run like the Communist Party USA used to be run: A cadre of highly vocal and highly militant ideologues, all absolutely committed to the same mission, and all of whom were deeply suspicious of anyone who didn’t adhere to Party discipline.
What percentage of the vote did the CPUSA get in Presidential elections, typically?
68 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:17 am
Otto,
Falsely accusing Republicans of racism is what is truly polarizing. Playing the race card on Republicans is the hallmark of the modern Democrat party…Obama even did it himself, and it’s dishonest and insulting.
To point out that the media is in the tank for Obama and liberal Democrats is factual and legit criticism. to suggest it’s just “whining” would be like characterizing those that opposed slavery and segregation as just a bunch of “whiners”.
Conservatives expect the media to give Republicans a fair shake. The media is not interested in that, so we criticize them. The fact that the traditional media is dying seems to indicate that they are the ones that have marginalized themselves by being puppets of the Democrat party.
What issues has the GOP traditionally embraced indicates that it has a tenuous connection with reality? It’s amusing how leftwingers never elaborate. Does Obama’s and liberal Democrat’s dogmatic opposition to drililng for oil in America, thus reducing the supply of oil and leading to the increase in gas prices, demonstrate that they are in touch with reality, or rather they are enviromental extremists and what’s good for Americans is not all that important to them. Do you like paying high gas prices because of the Democrats silly belief that drililng for oil in America is going to destroy the environment? This is but one example of your “reality” based Democrat party. :0
69 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:17 am
Tesla blames Obama for the current high unemployment rate in the US. That should be a real winner for the Republican Party going forward – Bush left the economy in great shape, Obama destroyed it within 4 months by continuing the TARP program and putting money in Detroit.
That should get you taken very seriously outside your cocoon.
70 sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:22 am
Dr. Tesla: You and Franco keep waving around Reagan, Reagan, Reagan, as if Reagan somehow “proves” that doctrinaire conservatives can win elections. But you are ignoring some important data:
1. Since WW2, no other Republican won the Presidency who was as conservative as Reagan. Eisenhower won two terms. Nixon won two terms. Bush 41 won one term. Bush 43 won two terms. All of them were more moderate than Reagan on economic policy. (And Nixon was more dovish than Reagan on foreign policy too.)
2. As for Reagan, I remember his 1980 campaign well. He didn’t promise to give Fourteenth Amendment rights to fetuses. He didn’t denounce the growing gay-rights movement. He stuck to exactly two things: Economics and foreign policy.
And unlike you, Reagan didn’t tell voters who might disagree with his base to go vote Democrat. The message coming from the GOP in 1980 was “Join us and together we’ll get rid of Carter’s stagflation.” Not “If you don’t agree with our base, then go away,” which seems to be YOUR message.
71 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:22 am
“Conservatives expect the media to give Republicans a fair shake. The media is not interested in that, so we criticize them.”
And yet,. the media (aside from the NY and Washington Times) are largely owned by multinational conglomerates.
72 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:23 am
Here is something I’ve been thinking. Let’s see if there are any “moderates” here who can catch on:
I believe America is moving leftward has been and now even more rapidly. This is driven by the left, but many Republicans have gone along, sometimes resisting, other times bargaining for their own personal or constituent needs, and always ending up compromising or trading-off in some way.
If America were moving generally rightward I might be more moderate.
If the argument was that we should invade Iran and Pakistan, I might be against that. If the argument were for protectionism “buy American” I might be for somewhat less of an emphasis on that. If the argument was to end welfare completely in a year, I might be for a longer timetable so as not to shock communities used to the welfare dollars. If the argument were for ending all abortion and throwing doctors in prison. I might be against that.
If the argument were to shrink government by 10% in a fiscal year, I might be for a moderating position. Perhaps that is too fast and could cause disruptions and unintended consequences.
If the argument was to eliminate various pollution laws so we could bring back to the USA those businesses that have gone to China because they can pollute there, I might be for some moderate position and agree with moderate Democrats.
ETC.
But the arguments are ALL the opposite of these things. “How much should government grow?” is the question.
Saying “zero or negative” is met with, ” You don’t want to solve the problems”. This is countered by “Government doesn’t, and can’t solve problems, and/or, it creates other equal or worse problems in it’s attempts.”
So all this talk of “moderation” exists in the realm of moving leftward, the question is only how fast.
America has been able, till now, to move leftward without much pain, because the left had a vibrant capitalistic economy to produce more for it to plunder. As the government takes over the private sector the productivity goes down and the government must find more to feed its appetite. Taxes go up, incentives go down for investment and real productivity goes down, fueling the cycle. This is why Venezuela keeps nationalizing industries. It is never enough. It is like drinking salt water when you are thirsty at sea, it actually starts a cycle of death.
73 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:24 am
“Conservatives expect the media to give Republicans a fair shake. The media is not interested in that, so we criticize them.”
And yet,. the media (aside from the NY and Washington Times) are largely owned by multinational conglomerates.
74 ottovbvs // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:24 am
sinz54
wrote 1 minutes ago
………Chill out Sinz, I’ve come to the conclusion that Tesla, Franco and the views they embody are necessary agents of the destruction of the GOP so that at some future point it can enjoy a rebirth. The Republican party has to suffer two more cycles of election losses for these folks to be totally discredited. It’s going to happen. The Democrats are going to pick up another 4-8 senate seats and maybe even a few more house seats next year and Obama is going to be re-elected in 2012. This is as inevitable given the present state of the GOP as night following day. These folks are impervious to reason, so it’s a waste of time arguing with them……they are also awfully boring with their perpetual whining about the media, conspiracy theories, and witch hunts. It’s a process that has to be gone through.
75 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:25 am
Of course Obama didn’t say that. He wants everybody to vote for him even if they don’t share his ideals. Your assertion taht the Republicans would reject “moderates” for voting for them even if they disagree with the REpublican platform is absurd….Republicans will be happy to have their vote, but we don’t have to kiss their ass and pander to them.
Obama is a leftist idealogue. Anybody that didn’t understand that prior to the election was rather uninformed, and if they don’t understand it now, they are fools.
I am not forcing anybody to vote REpublican if they disagree with our principles, so your silly Communist party analogy is absurd. They force people to vote for them.
I am asserting the exact opposite. If you don’t like the majority of conservative principles, go vote for a party that represents what you believe. It’s not logical to expect a conservative-based party to adapt to you if you are a “moderate”.
As I have pointed out before, the Democrat party does not “moderate”. They have not run a “moderate” Democrat for president ever. The moderates seem fairly comfortable with Democrats being leftists, which seems to indicate to me that that the moderates are left of center in their politics, but insecure about it for whatever reason. Or they are very very confused.
76 midcon // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:26 am
Telsa, without the moderates I am not even sure the GOP would qualify as a party. Comparatively, the GOP base is an ever shrinking population. While something could happen which may result in a resurgence in the GOP base numbers (stuff happens), it depends on either the Democrats failing or some calamitous event (think 9/11). The bottom line is that the fortunes of the GOP are not under control of the GOP base. Good reason to pray of course because acts of God are always possible. As long as you stay true to whatever you feel you must be true to, that is your fate.
As far as your invitation to leave the GOP and vote elsewhere, ahem…we kinda beat you to it. We left before we were invited to leave. Which brings us back around to the ever-shrinking base.
So here you are a voice in the wilderness on a moderate blog – but why? Are you here to attempt to convince us of the righteousness of the fringe? Just having fun? Practicing arguments before you take them to take them on the road? Just taking up space so we’ll have to scroll a long time to get to the good stuff from other posters?
Please share with us the point to your presence here. You don’t particularly care for moderates, so what’s the attraction?
77 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:27 am
Is CBS not owned by a corporation? How do you explain Dan Rather’s liberal hit job on Bush if your premise is that corporate ownership means the media is biased in favor of conservatives?
78 midcon // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:32 am
ottovbvs said: “I’ve come to the conclusion that Tesla, Franco and the views they embody are necessary agents of the destruction of the GOP so that at some future point it can enjoy a rebirth.”
Exactly my view. I wish there were a way to hasten its destruction or to begin anew with a party that makes sense. I keep advocating for a new party, but everyone keeps telling me it is nearly impossible. What I would like is a replacement 2nd party, so that the GOP can take its rightful place as a fringe 3rd party. Wishful thinking perhaps, but a wish nonetheless.
79 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:33 am
There you have it, Crystal. The loudest and most strident voices in the Republican Party certainly believe that it’s big enough for both you and I and them … as long as you and I don’t actually try to have any opinion that differs from theirs.
Let’s just say it’s ready to include your body, but not your mind.
80 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:38 am
midcon,
Without the conservative base, the GOP is not even in contention. The GOP has won “moderates” in the past, or Reagan and Dubya wouldn’t have both won two terms.
The Obambots want to advance this mantra that the Republican party is dead simply because they lost one presidential election. If you think the Democrat party is unbeatable now, I think you are going to be in for bit of a shock in the future. That’s delusional.
I would argue that the GOP’s current unpoplarity is due to conservatives pissed off at Bush’s spending and support for illegal immigration and other liberal ideas. And the fact that a liberal Republican like McCain got the nomination because of a crowded field and no runoff between the top two finishers. McCain would have lost the Repubilcan party if there had been a runoff between him and Romney or Fred Thompson or even Huckabee, although Huckabee wasn’t conservative on immigration or tax policy.
Liberals attacked Bush for spending too much, a liberal policy, so that conservativs would be unmotivated to vote for the GOP. They did the same thing with Bush Sr, they attacked him for raising taxes despite their personal support of higher taxes. So liberals understand that conservativism can beat them, and they love to point out whhen Republicans support liberal policies so that the conservative base does not turn out.
Moderates can not win anything without a conservative base. Attacking conservatives and throwing them under the bus as Frum and other libearl Repubilcans do is not going to make the party a viable one. It’s Frum that has to bite the bullet and vote for the GOP if he truly cares about spending and tough foreign policy and national security policies. It’s unreasonalbe for moderates to expect and demand that that the majority of GOP voters throw out the majority of their principles to accomodate moderates that agree with very little of conservatism.
81 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:41 am
Crystal acts like Repubilcans have to kiss her feet. That is so arrogant. The world does revolve around Crystal as she seems to believe and conservative don’t have to throw out the majority of their principles for her.
82 midcon // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:47 am
Tesla,
So you think the GOP is unpopular right now because “conservatives are pissed off”? And if they were not pissed off, they would be popular? Huh? Is it really your contention that the election was lost because of pissed off conservatives? That if the GOP had simply nominated a far right candidate the outcome would have been different? Are you serious or just having fun? Again what’s the purpose of you here? You don’t like moderates. You seem to disagree completely with anything and everything we/they say. What’s the point?
83 sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:49 am
ottovbvs: “I keep advocating for a new party, but everyone keeps telling me it is nearly impossible.”
You may be surprised, but that is my conclusion as well. Ross Perot was a flake, but he actually did some good in 1992 by forcing the other two parties to notice his issues.
I keep hoping that someone of national stature, like maybe General Petraeus (sorry, I know you don’t like “Caudillos”), would announce that he’s running as an Independent.
He doesn’t even have to win. He just has to throw the fear of God into the other two parties.
84 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:58 am
That’s right, I don’t like moderates. I actually like a principled liberal over some moderate with no political philosophy taht basically votes for the guy that they find more likable or that they think will win. Crystal admitted that she fell for Obama’s flowery rhetoric, did she not? She obviously thought Palin was some kind of devil woman, which seems rather insane to me if you are truly a moderate….Palin is a likeable woman.
Democrats despise Republicans, so you have to throw otu what they think. I think it’s logical to conclude that the GOP’s unpolarity has to do with conservatives that are tired of it pandering to the left.
Why can’t moderates form a majority that can beat both Democrats and REpublicans, if they represent most Americans? Yes, that’s a rhetorical question. The fact is moderates dont’ even agree with each other as they share no common political philosophy. All they can do is vote for the Democrat or REpublican party. They may not like that, but that’s reality.
85 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:58 am
“He doesn’t even have to win. He just has to throw the fear of God into the other two parties.”
Yeah – that certainly worked out for all the issues supported by Green Party voters when Ralph Nader ran in 2000.
86 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:00 am
“She obviously thought Palin was some kind of devil woman”
Maybe you need to change the batteries on your decoder ring.
87 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:13 am
The misunderstandings of balconesfault, midcon and even Crystal are on full display here.
They are focused on people, as though it is people first, principles second. This comes from a world-view that is predominant in the Democrat party. For Democrats the presidency is about the man not the office. Leftists worship idols. Che, Mao, Lenin, Castro, all use the cult of personality and end up President for life. They worship Obama. They have a saviour complex. In rejecting Christ and religion they still have a phantom limb – the need to worship or believe in identify with, a human being. Likewise they try to demonize the other side trying guilt-by-association, anything to keep real debate from happening. With these short-cuts they ensnare to naive the less politically savvy and the feeble minded.
In order to advance the agenda that has resulted in totalitarianism every time it has been tried, they are willing to lie demonize and marginalize to serve their ends. They don’t really believe in the things they claim, which is why they can’t understand those of us who do.
The Democrat party is a clic, a coterie of cool people. They “invite” you to join them – they are sooooo cool. The other side don’t want you AND they are not as cool as us, see? Come home to us Obamanoids where we will support your self-esteem and you get to hang with the hip folks.
Crystal wants a welcome mat from EVERY conservative because she is having second thoughts about her vote? C’mon Crystal,get real. Of course people are going to treat you like an adult .
They aren’t rejecting YOU or your vote they just have some questions and some (egad!) disagreements.
Should Republicans use cult-like tactics for those feeble minds that need to feel welcomed or should they accept people as they are, try to make the case and hope they vote their conscience?
Seems the Democrats have a line on the stupid and ignorant. Crystal isn’t apparently one of them. More and more will see there is an alternative to Bush (Obama) and it has it’s own flaws and won’t solve most of our problems either. She is hopefully mature enough and secure enough to take criticism and not react childishly.
balconesfault is being disingenuous. No one is saying Crystal can’t have her opinions and it is not the function of a political party to have everyone agree on everything. Had Crystal posted this on Daily Kos or any number of left-wing sites she would REALLY get an earfull, so it isn’t as if she would be able to be fully welcomed anywhere for her views.
Us conservatives also have another caveat with Crystal. With her current view, so far as I can tell, and her knowledge of politics, she is likely to vote for the WRONG Republican even if she does. (This is still to be determined, isn’t it Chrystal)
It isn’t as if Crystal is some Senator contemplating a party switch and we have to give her something for her trouble. Crystal will vote for whomever she wants regardless of what I say or how nice we are to her, at least I hope so.
88 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:17 am
“Leftists worship idols.”
http://fishbowlamerica.com/?p=962
89 sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:33 am
ottovbvs: “I keep advocating for a new party, but everyone keeps telling me it is nearly impossible.”
You may be surprised, but that is my conclusion as well. Ross Perot was a flake, but he actually did some good in 1992 by forcing the other two parties to notice his issues.
I keep hoping that someone of national stature, like maybe General Petraeus (sorry, I know you don’t like “Caudillos”), would announce that he’s running as an Independent.
He doesn’t even have to win. He just has to throw the fear of God into the other two parties.
90 sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:34 am
midcon asks: “Is it really your contention that the election was lost because of pissed off conservatives? That if the GOP had simply nominated a far right candidate the outcome would have been different? Are you serious or just having fun?”
Dr. Tesla and the rest of the GOP base are serious. They really believe that–that they lost in 2006 and 2008 because the GOP base stayed away from the polls, upset about Bush’s “liberalism.”
And from this mistaken idea, it naturally follows that the GOP has to become *more* conservative, in order to win back those base voters who stayed away last time.
I have pointed to exit polls showing that loyal Republicans turned out in numbers only slightly lower than in 2004–but the GOP lost anyway, due to a major shift of moderate and Independent voters to the Democrats.
But the base doesn’t believe those exit polls. To them, CNN, Gallup, they’re all part of the “left-wing conspiracy.” The only sources they believe are the usual right-wing echo chamber.
91 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:49 am
How did Reagan win landslide victories? He didn’t pander to moderates and leftwingers, yet many democrats voted for him….hence the expression Reagan Democrats. They did for the most part of his stance on social issues, which Frum and our wise moderates advocate we throw under the bus.
If Obama loses in 2012, and I think he will, how are you going to explain this after constantly harping on how the GOP is irrevelant and driving moderates away? I understand that you want to make that impression in the minds of voters, but the fact is the country is about evenly split when it comes to voting Republican and Democrat. I don’t think a true conservative candidate loses states like NC, VA, FL, and Ohio to an ultra liberal candidate like Obama, and he will have to defend his policies in 2012…he can’t rely on the flowery evasive hope and changey platitudes and the fact that he’s black to win again if unemployment remains high and the economy remains in the toilet.
92 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:52 am
balconesfault Takes three words from my post and puts up a link honoring RR as refutation. Another example of leftists who can’t/won’t have a real debate.
I said in that that he was “disingenuous”I guess since there was no defense he agrees.
balconefault:”There you have it, Crystal. The loudest and most strident voices in the Republican Party certainly believe that it’s big enough for both you and I and them … as long as you and I don’t actually try to have any opinion that differs from theirs.
Let’s just say it’s ready to include your body, but not your mind.”
Franco sez, “balconesfault is being disingenuous. No one is saying Crystal can’t have her opinions and it is not the function of a political party to have everyone agree on everything. Had Crystal posted this on Daily Kos or any number of left-wing sites she would REALLY get an earfull, so it isn’t as if she would be able to be fully welcomed anywhere for her views.”
Nothing to say on THIS matter balconesfault?
93 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:53 am
“Dr. Tesla and the rest of the GOP base are serious. They really believe that–that they lost in 2006 and 2008 because the GOP base stayed away from the polls, upset about Bush’s “liberalism.” “
When there is actually significantly more evidence that many on-the-fence moderates were pushed to vote for Obama because McCain appeased the RR by selecting Palin as VP. In some ways for Democrats, she was, and is, the gift that keeps on giving, particularly since her supporters will likely constitute a significant percentage of the Republican primary goers in 2012.
If the Republicans keep the “winner takes all” model for their primaries that enabled McCain to put the 2008 race away early, Palin will be a stone cold lock for the nomination in 2012.
94 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:55 am
Franco: “balconesfault Takes three words from my post and puts up a link honoring RR as refutation. Another example of leftists who can’t/won’t have a real debate.”
You made a ludicrous point. I decided to mock it. When you want to actually engage those who disagree with you with respect for their opinions, rather than over the top denigration, you’ll deserve to be taken as a serious participant in the debate.
95 sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:59 am
Dr. Tesla sez: “How did Reagan win landslide victories? He didn’t pander to moderates and leftwingers”
Reagan had promised voters that the social safety net, including Social Security and Medicare, would be left intact. And he didn’t bad-mouth labor unions–instead, he courted blue-collar voters who were members of labor unions.
96 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:00 am
I don’t think anybody seriously can make the claim that Palin lost votes for McCain. For everybody moderate she ostensibly drove to the Democrat party, she got at least 1 vote and probably 2 votes for McCain among conservatives who did not like McCain. The only time McCain lead in the polls was after he selected Palin, and then the housing crisis happened and the Republicans got blamed for it even though it was Democrats forcing banks to give loans to minorities and others who could not pay them back that lead to the housing crisis. With high gas prices and a slow economy and the housing crisis in addition to a lot of people turning out to vote for Obama because he’s black and that made them feel good for whatever reason, it’s safe to say any Democrat would have won, including Hillary despite her high negatives in polls.
Leftits keep pushing this notion that the majority of people vote on the issues, and I don’t think that’s the case. Polls show most people disagree with most Obama’s policies so there is no reason for conservatives to run away from their principles.
97 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:03 am
I never heard any Repubilcan suggest social security would be eliminated. That’s a Democrat talking point to scare old people into voting for Democrats.
Most union members are conservative on social issues. That is why I argue that flipping off social conservatives as Frum contends will be political suicide for the GOP.
The Democrats would love for the GOP to go liberal on social issues, as it’s one of the main reasons why Gore and Kerry both lost…neither could win a single southern state.
98 raphael a // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:04 am
Crystal’s essay is good advice, although given the perfect English, the ‘ain’t’ seems contrived. However, after further review, I have found Mr. Frum’s and Ms. Wright’s charges of Crystal being unwelcome to be without merit.
As with many websites, there are a few frequent flyers who use the comments section, for better or worse, to joust back and forth. There may be 90 comments and counting, but there are around 10 who commented, and 3-4 who comprise over 50% of the comments.
Suggested future writing assignment: Walk around the neighborhood. After 3-4 dobermans, rottweilers, etc., growl at you, begin an essay with the following headline: Aren’t Dogs Supposed To Be Man’s Best Friend?
dailyraphirmations.com
99 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:10 am
“I don’t think anybody seriously can make the claim that Palin lost votes for McCain. For everybody moderate she ostensibly drove to the Democrat party, she got at least 1 vote and probably 2 votes for McCain among conservatives who did not like McCain. “
I don’t disagree with you on this point, remarkably enough. The religious right was clearly ready to sit on the fence if McCain didn’t select a running mate who fit all their litmus tests.
And I’ll go one step further … since McCain wasn’t going to select Bush to be his running mate, or Huckaby, Palin was arguably the most qualified candidate McCain could have selected who would have brought RR voters to the polls to him.
McCain had to decide on a ticket that would appeal to moderates, or one that would appeal more to the base. He chose the latter, because those Republican Rallies would have been pretty damned lonely last fall (outside of Utah) had he nominated Romney, even if Romney would have brought the economic chops that McCain lacked to the ticket during a time when the economy became front and center.
In essence, McCain chose ideological/theological purity over economic credibility.
But Palin and her supporters clearly believe that she deserves the 2012 Presidency – I actually have no doubt that some would say she is ordained to receive the nomination.
Except for the realization of what this says about their countrymen, I doubt that this bothers most Democratic strategists.
100 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:27 am
balconesfault “You made a ludicrous point. I decided to mock it. When you want to actually engage those who disagree with you with respect for their opinions, rather than over the top denigration, you’ll deserve to be taken as a serious participant in the debate.”
This is funny. Read it again to see what I’m laughing at.
….and still no rebuttal to your false statement either. Hmmm.
101 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:27 am
I laugh when leftwingers suggest Palin is some kind of theocrat. I think that just underscores the fact that liberals in general are intolerant of Christians and/or social conservatives and see fit to demonize them. I find it distrubing so many liberals have this bigotry for Christians, and it’s rather amazing because they are suppose to be all about tolerance.
I don’t hear anybody talking about Palin but Democrats. You guys constantly bring her up even though you keep asserting she’s a dunce who could never win an election. I think the fact you always bring her up means you are worried she could win. I think Biden is a dunce who sticks his foot in his mouth every time he speaks, and I wouldn’t keep brining him or other Democrats up that I didn’t think could win if they were at the head of the ticket.
I don’t think Palin has said or implied that she “deserves” the 2012 presidency, or that she is even running.
It’s funny how much Democrats obsess over Palin despite dismissing her ability to win the presidency. I think she’s much more articulate and conservative than Bush, and Bush managed to win twice. SHe rocked Biden’s world in their debate…I know it, and liberals know it, despite their denials.
102 midcon // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:31 am
Dr. Tesla
6:58 AM said “That’s right, I don’t like moderates.”
Again I will repeat the question. Given your dislike for moderates, why are your here? Are you too far left to make over on redstate.com?
103 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:34 am
I am here because it’s a free country. If Frum wants to ban me, I can live with that. I post on numerous political websites, and I enjoy posting here because it’s most just a few libearls and moderates and I like to debate liberals and moderates because I can slap them around with my tight logic.
104 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:36 am
I don’t think most moderates that call themselves that are truly moderates. I think there liberals that are insecure about it…dont’ have the courage of their convictions, and don’t want to be associate with stereotypes of liberals as hippies, homosexuals, etc.
105 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:37 am
balconefault is very respectful, here is one of his recent comments to someone here : “Maybe you need to change the batteries on your decoder ring.”
“For too many here – the response to someone who considers their statements to be insulting is, in the words of Dick Cheney, “Go **** yourself”.”
Got hypocrisy?
106 midcon // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:39 am
On Palin: Was she ready to be President? No, that’s why she was only the VP nominee. What was her attraction? She was pretty much like most Americans, who went to an ok school, with an ok degree, trying to make in the world (albeit a tough one like Alaska) who rose to prominence partially because she was down to earth and was not the editor of the Havard Law Review. Even people who has some disagreement with her views could respect her. In short, she was common and that is not meant as a disparaging remark. People could identify with her – not the media, not the elitists, but fairly ordinary people.
As a moderate, I was glad she was and still is around. I don’t have to agree with her and may not vote for her if she is the candidate, but I respect her.
107 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:41 am
Dr. Tesla – a legend in his own mind.
Franco – I hold that your point is irrelevant. How Crystal would be taken at Daily Kos isn’t pertinent to the growing of a new Republican coalition, unless you think that people will be driven to accept a “take it or leave it” Republican Platform.
108 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:44 am
balconefault is very respectful, here is one of his recent comments to someone here : “Maybe you need to change the batteries on your decoder ring.”
I was pointing out that you were putting words in Ms. Wright’s mouth that she did not write. For that, you did not deserve respect.
Meanwhile, if the tone of comments that Dick Cheney uses on the Senate floor is troubling to you, I suggest you take it up with him.
109 midcon // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:49 am
Tesla, your “tight logic” consists of
There are no moderates there are only conservatives and liberals
Anyone who is not a conservative is either a moron or an evil communist
We will rise to power again once a true blue conservative shows up that will cause 100% of the base to vote
That’s about the extent of it, only you use much longer posts and post much more often. Your denial that the GOP is a minority party (meaning not in power and not a majority in numbers) does not make it real. Nor does it make it logical. The simple fact is you are outnumbered by both the moderates (liberals in disguise in your view) and the liberals. So the only way the GOP can rise to prominence, like a phoenix from the ashes, is to produce more conservatives. And course, while you are busy posting, you are not reproducing. So your presence here actually contributes to the continuation of the GOP as a minority.
110 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:02 am
balconesfault
“I was pointing out that you were putting words in Ms. Wright’s mouth that she did not write. For that, you did not deserve respect.”
Please cite this. Just copy and paste – the whole context. Let’s see if you are able to do that.
“Meanwhile, if the tone of comments that Dick Cheney uses on the Senate floor is troubling to you, I suggest you take it up with him.”
No, they are not troubling to me, but you are a hypocrite hiding behind Cheney’s words, someone you hate, and trying to use his language like a sock puppet and not take responsibility for it yourself. And for this and many of your moronic posts you deserve no respect. So there.
111 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:35 am
Franco – Your quote: “She obviously thought Palin was some kind of devil woman”
re: Cheney, I am putting his words into your mouths. If you don’t believe that an accurate characterization – if your attitude to the Crystals, et al isn’t “if you don’t like it, lump it” – I welcome hearing how your position is more nuanced than I’ve seen.
112 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:36 am
midcon,
I never accused anybody of being a Communist. It’s amusing how liberals always accuse conservatives of a charge we never make, unless it’s true. Maybe there’s something to it?
I never denied there are no moderates. In fact, I said “I don’t like moderates”. I did state, that in my opinion, the people running around CALLING themselves moderates tend to be insecure liberals. I never see “moderates” attacking Democrats and lecturing them to moderate on their beliefs. That didn’t happen after Gore and Kerry lost, or Dukasis and Mondale. The Democrats hae not moderated on anything…they may try to fool you in their campaign rhetoric, but their policies are always liberal.
The simple fact is…conservatism wasn’t on the ballot. McCain wasn’t a conservative and he had flipped off conservatives for years. And people vote for the top of the ticket, so this crap about how Palin flipped “moderates” over to Obama, who is far more extremist in his views if you know anything about the guy, and if he was white, given his radical assocations with racists and unrepetent former terrorists, would have lost in the Democrat primary. He got a free pass on that because hew as black and the media didn’t want to touch it, much how most of the liberal media is making excuses for his Supreme Court nominee’s racist remarks.
I don’t see any true open minded moderates here. I see liberals pretending to be moderates and attacking conservatives with the token Democrat talking points.
113 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:40 am
My attitude is that if you don’t like the majority of what the Republican party stands for, why don’t you go vote for the Democrat party rather than try to transform the Republican party into a liberal version.
There is no evidence that suggests the GOP loses when it runs a true conservative at the top of the ticket. Reagan, landslide victories. Bush beat Gore despite the economy being decent. Bush received teh most votes in our history in 2004 (Obama may have beaten that due tot he large turnout among minorities who had never voted before) against John Kerry despite the Iraq war becoming unpoplar.
Republicans have lost elections with Bush Sr, Dole, and McCain at the top of the ticket. All of these guys were liberal on domestic issues. So “moderating” doesn’t seem to make the GOP more viable. You can scream it all day, but that won’t make it true.
114 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:42 am
I’d be interested to know who the GOP would have to nominate in 2012 for Crystal and Frum to get behind? Joe Lieberman? Tom Ridge? Colin Powell? Do you think those type of politicians (moderates) could beat Obama?
115 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 10:10 am
balconesfault
wrote 25 minutes ago
Franco – Your quote: “She obviously thought Palin was some kind of devil woman”
First, NOT my quote.
Are you just skimming for words and phrases you can quote out of context and smear people with?
Second, “I was pointing out that you were putting words in Ms. Wright’s mouth that she did not write.” How is the quote you cited putting words in someone’s mouth?
116 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 10:28 am
Ahh – yes. Sorry. It was Tesla’s comment.
And when someone uses words like “devil woman”, they transcend context. Unless they’re being used ironically, perhaps.
But in this case, Tesla read what Ms. Wright wrote:
“When he unveiled Sarah Palin, it was clear to me she didnt have the muscle for the job of Vice President. She couldnt even remember what newspapers she read.”
And heard “devil woman”.
As I said, rather flippantly, I’ll grant, Tesla seemed to be reading deep layers of meaning into what Wright wrote that surely wasn’t obvious to me.
And “devil woman” is an intentionally inflammatory use of language, aimed at demeaning the author.
117 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 10:48 am
I’ll contend that she didn’t vote for Obama based on that one bad interview. Obama said there were 57 states and he thought he had one more to visit…..imagine if Palin or Bush had said it. THe liberal media never mentioned it.
I think Palin was nervous in her first or second national media interview, and she was worried about saying something that would harm McCain.
I think they made a mistake going to Couric anyway. No open minded people watch Couric…she’s red meat for liberals, not to mention a bimbo. Couric thinks the word jocular means how male jocks act when women are not around. Apparently she thinks it’s spelled jockular, and this lady is a news anchor? Couric did a very hostile interview of Palin, as Palin had blasted the media for being slanted to the left.
To me, it makes no sense to do interviews on the liberal media. They would to make you the clown.
The reason this crystal lady voted for Obama is she is black and she wanted to vote for the black guy, and she is pro-abortion. It’s not complicated…has nothing to do witht he Couric interview.
118 midcon // Jun 3, 2009 at 11:23 am
Tesla, I keep saying this, but perhaps it is worth, I am not member of the GOP – so I can’t leave. I did that a number of years ago. I am not out to transform, moderate, modify, or transmongrify the GOP. I don’t want it to become more moderate and therefore more popular. I want it to remain as far right as it can possibly get.
My single interest is the demise of the GOP in order to make room for something that makes sense. So my objective is to seek every oppportunity to hold the GOP up to ridicule; to portray it as a organization with the big “L” on their forehead; identify their self appointed leaders as bufoons, clowns, fringe people and run of the mill lunatics.
My hope is that with the demise of the GOP a new conservative group will emerge that will provide true fiscal leadership, supporting personal responsibility and liberty by staying away from social policy. It could happen. This is America, anything is possible!
119 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:34 pm
If you think the present GOP is “far right”, you are truly far left.
Not sure how an Obama voter can talk about “true fiscal leadership” as Obama is running up deficits and our national debt like a madman.
I think conservatives do support personal responsiblity and liberty. That’s a basic theme of Rush’s show and leftwingers like you attack it as “polarizing”. Not sure how a pro-abortion person like yourself can talk about personal responsiblity as abortion is the definition of selfishness.
Watch an abortion rally or anti-war rally on tv. Those liberals are the lunatics, not to mention ugly and in need of a shower.
No offense, but are you gay? It’s my belief that most of the “moderates” that rant and rave about social conservatives 24-7 are most likely homosexuals. I’m just trying to understand what motivates this angry disdain you have for social conservatives.
120 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:42 pm
“Not sure how a pro-abortion person like yourself can talk about personal responsiblity as abortion is the definition of selfishness.”
That is one definition of selfishness. Driving a HumVee is another. Turning the thermostat down to 70 degrees during the summer is another. A college Republican not signing up to go fight in a war he supports is another.
Feel free to be critical of people for their selfishness. But each of those is a moral judgement, and are you really for legislating more morality than we already do?
121 ottovbvs // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Dr. Tesla
wrote 33 minutes ago
Tesla Bush doubled the national debt in his eight years, Reagan actually tripled it. Obama has taken office during the worst financial and economic crisis since the depression which was largely the product of the Bush admin and he’s having to spend a load of money to stop the economy from going over a cliff. I know folks like you would like it to go over a cliff because then you could whine about how it was all his fault. But he’s not playing your game, he’s trusted by the high sixties to manage the economy while the Republican trust figure in the high twenties. He, with a lot of help from useful idiots on the right, is marginalizing Republicans every day. I know your contact with reality is tenuous so we’ll just watch this play out over the next few years. It’s a necessary process to discredit the far right I’m afraid.
122 midcon // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Tesla,
I’m not gay but what if I were? Who cares? Are you by a chance in the closet yourself? Usually people, who bring that up out of the blue, are harboring some latent tendencies themselves! Actually part of your problem is your “beliefs,” You believe something, therefore it becomes reality to you. The facts could contradict your beliefs mind you but, you can choose which facts to accept and which ones you don’t so that you do not need to alter your beliefs. How nice for you!
I voted for McCain. I did not think Obama’s resume was deep enough for the job, even though he is highly intelligent. I hope I am wrong.
The far right got conservatism to this point. I don’t believe in abortion but I don’t believe in capital punishment either. “Thou shalt not kill” doesn’t contain any modifiers, yet social conservatives usually promote capital punishment while the other side of the protest sign equates abortion with murder, and sometimes even murder (in theory to prevent murder). I also believe that along with personal responsibility comes personal liberty and that any law that is intended to govern what people do in private and to themselves was not the intention of our forefathers. Social conservatives want to tell me what I can watch on TV, and what I can read, among other things. Social conservatives hire illegal immigrants and then complain about the impact of illegal immigration on society. Social conservatives worry about who is forming a partnership with whom and whether they can call it marriage. They pass flag amendments while America becomes a Chinese outpost. Social conservatives phone in death threats to the Dixie Chicks because they publicly dissed Bush. Social conservatives despise abortion but fail to provide for those unwanted children after they are born (hey I did my job, I stopped the abortion, must be someone else’s job now). For life of me I cannot think of a single redeeming quality of a social conservative that would make their existence upon this earth a good thing.
I don’t know who is worse, the liberals who believe everyone is a victim or the social conservatives who believe everyone is a criminal. Lord, protect us from them both!
123 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:43 pm
This video puts Obama’s spending in perspective compared to other presidents. He’s made Bush look like a miser.
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/the_national_debt_road_trip/
124 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I don’t care if you are gay or not…I’m just trying to understand why you have this Christian-phobia and anti-social conservative hate thing going on. Did a Catholic priest rape you or what?
Do highly intelligent people attend the Church of Hate where J. Wright is the preacher? The guy that said that white people invented AIDS to wipe out black people, as though a virus could discriminate based on skin color? Obama is many things, but intelligent is not one of them. 57 states? Smirk.
The far left is all about letting killers off the hook, but want to abort the lives of unborn innocent children. I’m about the right to life for the innocent. I think if you slaughter other innocent people, you forsake your own right to life. It’s not hypocritical, and in fact, the left’s support of abortion and opopsition to the death penalty is what is rather hypocritical.
I think you are making a lot of gernalizations about social conservatives. It’s easy to broadbrush but none of those example you gave are accurate of most social conservatives. It’s funny how you say liberals like to make everyone out as a victim after you made the Dixie Chicks out victims. Freedom of speech goes both ways…you bash Bush, people can bash you for it. Sorry Dixie Chicks.
125 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Not sure how setting my thermostat at 70 degrees or driving a SUV is selfish. That’s only selfish in the mind of environmental extremists.
It’s funny how liberals want to control what we drive and what temperature we set our thermostate for, while at the same time they accuse of being fascists.
126 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Don’t Democrats like to increase taxes on things they think are immoral, like cigarettes, soda, etc?
127 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“I think if you slaughter other innocent people, you forsake your own right to life. “
Given that you consider abortion slaughter of innocents – does this mean you don’t believe Dr. Tiller had a right to life, if there was someone out there who wanted to take it?
I see you are unable to distinguish between encouraging certain behaviors and mandating certain behaviors. Not a surprise.
128 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I dont support what Mr. Tiller did because it gives leftists like you a poiltical prop to justify more abortion, which is exactly what you are doing right now.
Bullseye.
129 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Using taxes to force your morals on people is bit of a mandate.
130 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I meant to say I don’t support what the killer of Mr. Tiller did. I’m a poet and didn’t know it.
131 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“I meant to say I don’t support what the killer of Mr. Tiller did. “
Again, we’re capable of believing that people have a right to do any number of things that we don’t support them doing.
But you seem to imply that he had a right to do so, given that you don’t believe Dr. Tiller had a right to live.
132 sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Dr Tesla claims: “I never see ‘moderates’ attacking Democrats and lecturing them to moderate on their beliefs. That didn’t happen after Gore and Kerry lost, or Dukasis and Mondale.”
FYI: In 1985, Al From, Chuck Robb, Sam Nunn, and other moderates in the Dem Party formed the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), right after Mondale’s landslide loss to Reagan one year earlier.
Their purpose was to demonstrate to their fellow Dems that hard-left policies weren’t going to fly anymore, and that in fact the Dems should moderate their platform and try nominating a Southern moderate for a change.
And in 1992, they got the candidate they wanted: Bill Clinton, from Arkansas. And he went on to win two terms.
What David Frum is trying to do is create a kind of “Republican Leadership Council,” to argue that hard-right policies won’t win anymore. And just like Al From in 1985, David Frum today is running into the hard-core true believers who consider any moderation as equivalent to surrender.
Of course, Al From could point to the failures of McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. Maybe the GOP base hasn’t had enough failures yet to demonstrate that a real change is needed.
But they will.
133 midcon // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Tesla, said “I don’t care if you are gay or not…I’m just trying to understand why you have this Christian-phobia and anti-social conservative hate thing going on. Did a Catholic priest rape you or what?”
There you go again, now I have a Christian-phobia and you bring up Catholic priests and rape. What’s your past like? What’s hidden in those deep recesses of your brain? Again and again you bring up the strangest things to say about people you know nothing about. I can only surmised that it is a reflection of your own feelings or history.
Are you a Catholic? Were you an altar boy? Do you have thoughts about violence often? Do you want and need corporal punishment for your sins?
Tesla, in normal circumstances I would suggest professional help. But in your case, you are effective symbol of what is wrong with the GOP, so I wish you well and happy posting. But you know, I’ve got a sneaky suspicion you are looking at a lot of other web sites. But hey – we all have our vices, but you seem to spend a lot time wondering what ours are.
134 sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Dr. Tesla: The ideologues on BOTH ends of the political spectrum don’t like the idea of the American people making choices they don’t approve of.
You’re right, liberals have adopted “Small Is Beautiful” type regulations (defying the legacy of FDR and JFK). Lower thermostats, smaller cars, doing more with less, etc.
But over the years, social conservatives have demanded crackdowns of their own. They have supported sodomy laws, subjecting gays to arrest even for sex in the privacy of their own homes. They have demanded that the FCC crack down on so-called “indecency” on TV broadcasts. They have refused to allow even cancer patients to smoke marijuana for pain relief. They have even demanded that Congress pass a ban on Internet poker, of all things.
It’s understandable that liberals do these things–they believe in Big Government. But it’s atrocious to see social conservatives demanding that the Government use its power to promote a more moral lifestyle. That’s hardly consistent with the principle of limited government.
If we’re going to oppose the liberals’ demand for a Fairness Doctrine in TV broadcasting, then we should drop any demands for a “Family Hour” in TV broadcasting. Anyone can control the TV broadcasting very easily–with the on/off switch on their TV.
Or even better, just unplug the TV and don’t watch it again.
135 trueblue // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Crystal,
Let me just say welcome, and roll out the virtual mat for you to enter the GOP. I understand what you’re saying about the 2008 election. I was initially heartened by the pick of Sarah Palin because she seemed like a reformer who could blow a breath of fresh air into the party. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, it became apparent that she simply did not know enough–or at least was not able to fake it well enough–about national policy. I understand why many thought she was unfit to be VP, even if Joe Biden is such a joke. Anyway, don’t be dismayed by some commenters on a blogpost!
136 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:10 pm
The problem Frum has is that the Party has not run as what he considers “far right” except Reagan and Bush, and Bush turned out to be pretty liberal on many issues. THe other “moderate candidates to include Bush Sr, Dole, and McCain lost. I think suggesting Palin is why “moderates” voted for Obama is just a liberal talking point because they of course want to cut the more conservative person on the ticket down to size. Since there is no doubt she gained McCain votes due to a depressed conservative base, it’s amusing to hear liberals continue to assert she is why McCain lost and it was because these moderates just thought she was so stupid and religious they bolted to Obama. Nothing about Obama’s thin resume to be president bothered these precious moderates though, or his associations with a racist hatemonger preacher (Wright) or a former terrorist who wished he had done more (BIll Ayers).
I personally don’t see how a moderate votes for a man like Obama based on his associations alone. No white guy would have won with those kind of associations, and I daresay, no white Democrat with his unremarkable lack of experience, including zero executive experience and only 3 years in the senate, would have even been in contention for the nomination.
137 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:18 pm
WHy does this Crystal lady think she is above criticism? IF she comes out blasting conservatives and engages in pretentious lectures about what the Republican party needs to do even though she voted for Obama, she’s going to get some blowback.
This victim card that she is playing and that Frum played for her in a previous post is amusing.
The message seems to be is that conservative base has to bow down to the moderates who apparently only reason for voting for Obama was because Palin did a poor interview. (The Truth: she and most moderates voted for Obama because he’s black plus they are pro-abortion….it didn’t have crap to do with Palin’s experience and the Couric interivew.)
Did all moderates vote for Democrats? That seems to be the impression that Democrats want people to believe. I would argue it was the surge in new minority voters that lead to Obama’s big victory. It certainly explains his win in a state like NC where Democrats usually lose but the state has a very large black population.
138 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Midcon,
You are obsessed with social conservatives. You hate them, you never shut up about them.
I’m just curious why they are always on the brain. I just through out some reasons…I know some homosexuals that really hate Christians and/or social conservatives because of the gay marriage issue. I”m just trying to understand your intolerance of others. No big deal if you don’t want to share.
139 midcon // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:16 am
Tesla, You continue to prattle on about gays, anti-Christians, etc. My only conclusion is that are predisposed to react that way. Either your upbringing or genetics are the two most likely causes. Or, perhaps when in a difficult situation you respond with “Your gay!” Regardless of the reason, it is at best juvenile. At worst it confirms what I and many others think about the universe of social conservatives.
It is amusing to see you write about intolerance. In fact it is almost as amusing as calling the nominee for the Supreme Court “racist.”
Again, as I remind you, I welcome your output because you are an ideal poster boy for the fringe right. Please don’t let anything I say moderate your behavior. Honestly, it is the last thing I would want. Besides, who cares what moderates and liberals might say anyway, they are the ones descended from apes, not the 6Kers like you.
140 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:37 am
Contrary to what Tesla asserts, I’m pretty sure that Democratic strategists don’t believe that all moderates voted for Obama in 2008.
But given the way the current chess match is going, with Obama consistently reaching out to listen to moderates, and much of the Republican Party sending out the message “you’re welcome to the table, as long as you shut up and learn something” they may well do so in 2012.
141 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:07 am
ottovbvs sez: “Obama has taken office during the worst financial and economic crisis since the depression which was largely the product of the Bush admin and he’s having to spend a load of money to stop the economy from going over a cliff.”
This is wrong on two counts.
The seeds of the economic collapse were sown in 2000, when Clinton was still in office. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, co-sponsored by Phil Gramm and signed into law by Clinton, gutted SEC oversight of Credit Default Swap (CDS) derivatives. Over-speculation in those derivatives (to the tune of $40 trilion) led to the collapse of AIG and other investment firms, and nearly brought down the entire financial system.
A lot of liberals also like to complain that the repeal of Glass-Steagall also contributed to the financial collapse. But again, this happened under Clinton and the GOP-led Congress.
Bush’s fault was that he ignored the warning signs until it was too late. But he didn’t create the mess in the first place.
The other point is that conservatives like me recognize that extreme measures need to be taken when a financial collapse looms. But the measures I wanted to be taken would sunset (go away) after the financial crisis ends. For example, a huge tax cut could have been passed for economic stimulus, with provisions it would sunset in three years.
But Obama launched a slew of social engineering projects under the guise of “stimulus.” Those will be nearly impossible to stop even after the economic crisis has passed. For example, if groundbreaking has already commenced on an infrastructure project, will the project be shut down after the economy is humming? Of course not. I live in Boston, where the Big Dig highway project incurred a cost overrun of 400%. Once it started, with downtown Boston torn up, they couldn’t just stop it and leave Boston in that condition.
Much of what Obama is doing as “stimulus,” his liberal supporters wanted done anyway, long before the economic crisis hit. And they will want it continued, even after the financial crisis ends. Even if that causes double-digit inflation or steep tax increases to pay for it all
And when that becomes apparent to the American public, Obama’s approval ratings won’t be what they are now.
142 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:16 am
Dr. Tesla sez: “The Truth: she and most moderates voted for Obama because he’s black plus they are pro-abortion….it didn’t have crap to do with Palin’s experience and the Couric interivew.”
I agree with you that the running mate is rarely a significant factor. In 1988, Dan Quayle was made into a laughingstock by the Dems (unfairly, in my view), but Bush 41 won a landslide electoral victory anyway.
But Ms. Wright said that she voted *against* McCain, because “In the final weeks of the election, stacked next to Obama, McCain looked old to me like he didnt have the stamina to lead.”
McCain fell apart when the financial crisis hit. He suspended his campaign, raced back to Washington where he accomplished absolutely nothing on the financial crisis–and then he resumed campaigning again. And in his debates with Obama, McCain kept babbling on incessantly about earmarks, while the entire world financial system was threatening to crumble.
The GOP had nominated McCain on the assumption that the Iraq War would be the big issue of 2008. McCain’s credentials on defense issues are terrific. But the big issue turned out to be the declining economy, a subject that McCain himself has admitted isn’t his strong point.
That is why McCain lost the moderate voters. They didn’t care about Reverend Wright or abortion. They wanted someone to keep the U.S. economy from going down.
143 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:22 am
re: Commodity Futures Modernization Act and Glass-Steagall.
You are correct. Contrary to the “Klinton-Communist” silly rhetoric that many used, President Clinton was quite pro-business. This was the main reason why the Greens/Nader split off in 2000.
Many laud the Clinton-GOP Congress for its budget control during the 90’s. But Clinton also signed some significant anti-regulatory legislation that came out of the Gingrich Congress.
But Bush’s fault wasn’t just ignoring warning signs – it was an ideological disposition (and some might say, an intellectual lack of curiostiy) that made him fundamentally incapable of hearing or seeing warning signs.
Add that under Democrats, there has been a committment to maintaining an aggressive, professional federal bureaucracy that looks for problems and brings them to the top. One of my major beefs with the Bush Administration was that it favored the appointment of Heritage Foundation approved ideologues over experienced professionals for too many key jobs – and these appointees saw their primary roles as justifying their ideology, and not as making the bureaucracy work.
Where we disagree fundamentally, I think, is over what responsibility government has when it is spending tons of taxpayer money (or worse, borrowed money) to stimulate the economy. At that stage, I believe that government has a responsibility to direct the money to those places where it concludes the money will best provide stimulus – that anything else is irresponsible. From your perspective, I think, government has a responsibility to increase the money supply via tax cuts with the belief that the private sector will direct the money where it will do the best good. I am more comfortable with government borrowing in my name to spend money in a way that they tell me about ahead of time – you are more comfortable with government borrowing in your name to give to people without really knowing a game plan for how it will be spent.
144 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:39 am
balconesfault: You misunderstood my point.
My point was that doing stimulus by tax cuts makes it easier to turn off that stimulus when it’s no longer needed. (Indeed, the original Bush tax cuts were programmed to sunset automatically.)
Whereas if the Government hands out money to specific groups and constituencies, it is creating a voting constituency that is going to demand that spending be continued indefinitely. If today’s stimulus package starts construction on a new superhighway somewhere, for example, that superhighway’s construction will need to be completed, even if the economy is booming by then.
I really don’t see how all the spending Obama has initiated can ever be brought under control again. The prices of commodities like metals and energy, which had collapsed along with the financial collapse, are now rising sharply again. We’re headed for stagflation, just like the 1970s, and Obama won’t be able to stop it.
145 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:53 am
balconesfault: One more point I should have made. A tax cut could have gone into effect immediately–all of it.
Whereas only about one-fourth of Obama’s so-called “stimulus” package will be spent this fiscal year. The rest is spread forward over at least four years.
That doesn’t sound to me like an emergency stimulus to avoid economic collapse ($200 billion is small compared to the size of the U.S. economy). It sounds to me like the usual list of liberal pie-in-the-sky projects, which will continue regardless of what the state of the economy is next year.
You must log in to post a comment.