With Arlen Specter’s defection, all that stands between the Democrats and a 60-seat Senate majority are Norman Coleman’s lawyers. I wish them every success – but they have not exactly been on a winning streak to date.
Which means that Democrats won’t need to resort to unorthodox tactics to push, say, their healthcare bill through Congress. They’ll have the votes.
If the Democrats do succeed in pushing through national health insurance, they really should set aside a little extra money to erect a statue to Pat Toomey. They couldn’t have done it without him!
Pat Toomey is of course the former president of the Club for Growth who planned to challenge Arlen Specter in the 2010 Pennsylvania Republican primary. Polls showed Toomey well ahead – not because he is so hugely popular in the state, but because the Pennsylvania GOP has shriveled to a small, ideologically intense core. Toomey now looks likely to gain the nomination he has sought – and then to be crushed by Specter or some other Democrat next November.
The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe to qualify as a “wake-up call.” His defection is the thing we needed the wake-up call to warn us against! For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter aren’t real Republicans – that they don’t belong in the party. Now he’s gone, and with him the last Republican leverage within any of the elected branches of government.
For years, many in the conservative world have wished for an ideologically purer GOP. Their wish has been granted. Happy?
Let’s take this moment to nail some colors to the mast. I submit it is better for conservatives to have 60% sway within a majority party than to have 100% control of a minority party. And until and unless there is an honored place made in the Republican party for people who think like Arlen Specter, we will remain a minority party.
167 responses so far
1 krove // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:08 am
Well done Arlen. Welcome to the Democratic party. We look forward to your common sense way.
2 mpolito // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:08 am
Nothing has really changed with this- Specter was always a liberal Republican, and he will now be a conservative-to-moderate Democrat (of course, Biden and Rendell may push him leftward so he is not challenged by a lib in the PA Dem primary). I am a conservative, and of course I know that we need moderates in the party. But we have moderates in the party. Ever heard of the governors of VT, RI, CA, or my state CT? Right now, the Dems have lots of moderate Senators and Reps (although they seem like they can certainly be pushed around to toe the liberal line) because they are in the majority. Their being in the majority caused the existence of these moderates- not the other way around. If there were 2 GOP senators from every red state from 2008, we’d have 44 GOP senators. Then, toss in some moderates from blue states, and we’d have a nice majority.
3 pblueridge // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:36 am
“With Arlen Specters defection, all that stands between the Democrats and a 60-seat Senate majority are Norman Colemans lawyers.”
Did I miss him standing between them and a 60-seat Senate majority before? I seem to recall him putting them over the top on one of the most expensive pieces of legislation ever passed.
“Which means that Democrats wont need to resort to unorthodox tactics to push, say, their healthcare bill through Congress. Theyll have the votes.”
If he’s going to vote for it, he would’ve voted for it before. If he’s going to oppose it, they’ll still need reconciliation.
So basically your argument is that we should have people who vote against the Republican Party and abandon it at the first opportunity solely so that we can have another individual with an “R” behind his name.
Let’s become a party of liberal Democrats in order to win office! Because that’s all that matters! Not ideals, just winning! And they had you writing for National Review, which declared “We prefer Ike”? Heh.
4 pblueridge // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:40 am
One more thing: Specter was a Republican voting like a Democrat. Now he’s a Democrat voting like a Democrat in order to win re-election. And this is evidence that we’re purifying the party?
I have the oddest feeling that Mr. Frum will go down in history with the individuals who insisted we drop Barry Goldwater’s conservatism because it could never possibly win a national election.
5 Brutus1776 // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:42 am
Mr. Frum, I believe I just heard Senator Specter make the same statement about Club for Growth as you did here. Are you writing speeches again?
6 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:42 am
David Frum asks: “For years, many in the conservative world have wished for an ideologically purer GOP. Their wish has been granted. Happy?”
YES, David, they really are happy! Take a look:
http://tinyurl.com/ce8uxr
In fact, the GOP base is hoping that Senators Snowe and Collins leave the GOP too. They think that when the GOP stands for “conservative principles,” they win elections. They just don’t understand that the general electorate has soured on those “conservative principles” in a way that hasn’t been true since the late 1970s.
7 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:45 am
pblueridge sez: “I have the oddest feeling that Mr. Frum will go down in history with the individuals who insisted we drop Barry Goldwater’s conservatism because it could never possibly win a national election.”
If it hadn’t been for Jimmy Carter’s incompetence, Reagan could never have won in 1980. Doctrinaire conservatism as an ideology NEVER won a national election in the last 60 years. Reagan won because the public was looking for an alternative to Carter, NOT because of conservatism.
Since the end of World War II, every other Republican candidate who won the White House, ran as a moderate: Eisenhower; Nixon; Bush Senior; Bush Junior.
8 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:49 am
pblueridge: A hard-right conservative could never win a Senate seat from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a union state, it’s got lots of minorities, and Philly is as blue as they come.
What you’re going to have to accept is that if you want to win in the North, you can’t run on the platform of the Sun Belt. I’m sorry if you consider that compromising your principles. But the alternative is an ideologically pure party that exists only in the Red States–a party that can never put together an Electoral College majority.
9 pblueridge // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:49 am
“They think that when the GOP stands for “conservative principles,” they win elections.”
You mean like Bush? Or Reagan? Or the Republicans who took control of Congress in the Republican Revolution?
Again, it’s like the people who claimed Barry Goldwater’s conservatism would have to be ditched for the Republicans to ever win another election.
10 dragonlady // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:50 am
sinz54, voting the other party out is a standard political cycle. It doesn’t mean conservatism isn’t relevant. Successful Dem nominees for Presidents have adopted some of the most popular conservative policy positions–tax cuts, being strong in national security, etc. Do you think that all of a sudden, the majority of Americans really want to rush to a European social democracy? No, they voted Obama in b/c they voted Bush out.
11 barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:51 am
There ya go, David… I knew you’d chime in sooner rather than later!
(*WINK*)
“With Arlen Specters defection, all that stands between the Democrats and a 60-seat Senate majority…”
In theory. That’s assuming you feel Specter’s vote has been, is, and will be “for sale” to his Party. Is that how you feel…???
“Which means that Democrats wont need to resort to unorthodox tactics to push, say, their healthcare bill through Congress. Theyll have the votes.”
If Specter votes with them, that is; and if he does vote with them, why would you believe he would have voted against them even as a RINO?
“…the Pennsylvania GOP has shriveled to a small, ideologically intense core.”
Intensity is good, David, particularly in the service of principle.
“The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe…”
No, David… (*SIGH*)… it’s a Godsend. You’ll see… (*WINK*)
“For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter arent real Republicans…”
Yep. Game, set, match. We were right – obviously. (*SNORT*)
“Happy?”
YES! Deliriously so!
“Lets take this moment to nail some colors to the mast. I submit it is better for conservatives to have 60% sway within a majority party than to have 100% control of a minority party.”
I submit Republicans should be working to build a principled, economically conservative, broadly traditional, libertarian leaning, “patriotic” Party that wins elections by via being true to its principles.
BILL
12 pblueridge // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:55 am
“Reagan won because the public was looking for an alternative to Carter, NOT because of conservatism.”
And he won in the largest landslide in American political history in ‘84 because…Carter still sucked and they were looking for an alternative?
“Since the end of World War II, every other Republican candidate who won the White House, ran as a moderate: Eisenhower; Nixon; Bush Senior; Bush Junior.”
Bush senior ran as the 3rd Reagan term, promising no new taxes. His sun ran as a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, anti-tax conservative.
13 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:55 am
pblueridge: Reagan didn’t win by being a doctrinaire conservative either. Campaigning in 1980, he promised the voters that as President, he wouldn’t dismantle the social safety net of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And once in office, he kept his promise and got re-elected to a second term.
14 datroy // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:56 am
On what issues exactly are Specter, Snowe, Collins, etc “conservative?” Definitely not social issues, but we’re told that we need to accept fiscally conservative social liberals too – fine, I agree. So how have they been fiscally conservative? By voting for the stimulus after Democrats made meaningless gestures at compromise? The final product ended up more expensive than the one they supposedly didn’t like. I wouldn’t exactly say they’ve led the charge as national security conservatives either. So tell me David, where is the conservatism coming from these folks? Specter’s opposition to card check is about all I can think of, and even then he tells us he’ll maintain his opposition. What are we getting out of these folks when they vote for the other side more often than they do our side?
15 pblueridge // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:58 am
Oh, and I must’ve missed Obama shoving off conservatism as a doctrine that can’t win. I seem to recall him running with the promise of no new taxes for 95% of Americans, continuing the war on terror, opposing gay marriage, promising not to take guns away, etc.. But, of course, conservatism is simply roundly rejected by Americans, so what do I know?
16 pblueridge // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“pblueridge: Reagan didn’t win by being a doctrinaire conservative either. Campaigning in 1980, he promised the voters that as President, he wouldn’t dismantle the social safety net of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And once in office, he kept his promise and got re-elected to a second term.”
Social Security? He talked of privatizing it and making it voluntary. You honestly think he got elected by avoiding conservatism, despite the fact he regularly referred to himself as a conservative, acted conservatively, and regularly helped the conservative movement?
17 starlitepark // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Wasn’t the Republican party backing him in his bid for re-election in the primaries? Exactly how was he being pushed out? Via the democratic process?
18 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:03 pm
pblueridge: Reagan got re-elected in 1984 because the economy was reviving (to his credit), and because the Soviets were reeling (also largely to his credit).
It was these successes that cemented conservatism as the dominant philosophy since Reagan. Elections don’t make realignments; successful presidencies do. America went liberal after FDR won World War II.
When Americans see something is working, whether it’s liberalism or conservatism, they tend to stick with it. If President Reagan had failed for some reason, the country would have gone right back to electing Dems.
Conservatism didn’t win over the country in the first place by being conservative. It won over the country by being SUCCESSFUL.
There’s an old saying: Nothing succeeds like success. And the inverse is true too: Nothing fails like failure.
Carter’s failures discredited the Democratic Party for a generation. The only Dem who managed to win till Obama was Clinton, and that was a special case: The third-party candidacy of Ross Perot had drawn off lots of votes from Bush 41; and Clinton, with his Southern accent and moderate economic views, didn’t talk like the usual liberal Dem.
Just as Reagan could never have gotten elected without Carter’s failings, Obama could never have gotten elected without Bush 43’s failings.
19 Brutus1776 // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Sinz54 said: Just as Reagan could never have gotten elected without Carter’s failings, Obama could never have gotten elected without Bush 43’s failings.
With this in mind, could one make the argument that Bush, having been elected (please notice I didn’t say ‘won’ for fear of the hordes yelling “He didn’t wint he Popular vote”) as a Principled Conservative, failed because he did not act in accordance with any form of Burkean Conservatism? The President’s biggest weaknesses are all of the instances in which he broke rank with the Conservative base correct?
20 pblueridge // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:10 pm
“Reagan got re-elected in 1984 because the economy was reviving (to his credit), and because the Soviets were reeling (also largely to his credit).”
I thought it was Social Security and Medicare promises a moment ago.
“America went liberal after FDR won World War II.”
Considering that FDR had multiple terms before WWII, I would assume that America went liberal a bit before the war’s conclusion. In fact, it was moving liberally even as unemployment was steady and FDR’s policies were extending the depression.
“Carter’s failures discredited the Democratic Party for a generation. “
How long did Republicans control Congress during the Reagan years? Wasn’t Tip O’Neill speaker from ‘77 to ‘87?
21 pblueridge // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Gotta go. I’ll check back later.
22 jdipeso // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Undoubtedly, “RINO” Specter’s departure will be cheered by talk radio entertainers and other ideologues holding to a mathematically challenged belief that imposing litmus tests, discouraging independent thought, and alienating important constituencies somehow will create a political majority.
23 ditka // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Michael Steele can now go claim his prize as Worst Party Chairman EVER. Not only did the GOP lose a seat they safely held up until 2006 and now they cannot keep Specter in the fold. All of this is not Steele’s fault, but there has to be a change and getting rid of him would at least be a good symbolic start.
24 conservative08 // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:21 pm
How sad. A liberal Republican becoming a Democrat. What a leap! What a shock!
He knew he was going to be destroyed in the GOP primary. I have no doubt Penn voters will probably send this lightweight political whore back to Senate for the millionth time.
25 johnrtorres // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Frum says a lot of silly things.
First, forget the blather about a 60-seat majority. In practical terms, the Dems already had all the votes they needed to get their legislation passed.
Second, all the crappola about the Republicans moving to the “far right” is just a lot of garbage. McCain was hardly a ‘fire breathing radical right’ candidate. And he got crushed.
The truth is that the Republicans are going to be better off without the pretenders and the RINOs. It’s time to rebuild the party around some important conservative principles.
It may be a long road back, but at least the RNC can begin to stand for something.
Finally, I invite Frum to join Specter and switch party affiliation too. Honestly, stop pretending to be a Republican!
26 choccity2005 // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:29 pm
David…..i love ya,but i have to totally disagree with you .It is not that the part needs to move to the left.It is that the party needs to do as glenn beck says “say what you mean,and do what you say’.THAT”S WHy REPUBLICANS LOSS!!!Obama didn’t win b/c the party was weak,Obama won and the dems won b/c GEORGE W BUSH was one of the worst presidents ever.He was a joke,I applaud him for keeping us safe but that’s it.Iraq war….the repubs were hammered for years.Keeping rumsfeld around and then firing him after the GOP loss all those seats.mission accomplished.Good job brownie…for katrina.Creating massive debt,medicare entitlements….not being able to form a sentence.this is why obama won.The dems won.Then to have all these supposed fiscal conservatives vote for earmarks.Promoting the ban on illegal aliens as some sort of war on hispanics.The bailouts,economic crisis…..WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO VOTE REEPUBLICAN??
27 choccity2005 // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Michael steele was a start,a new face on the GOP.Now they must stick to principles.They must articulate thier plans for healthcare,medicare,social security,daycare,welfare,energy independence…..They are doing none of these.8 years of bush and most americans feel the country was worst off.This is why the GOP loss.They need a contract with america.I support newt gingrich and bobby jindal as president and vice president.That is a winning ticket.
28 choccity2005 // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm
specter,snowe,collins…..Voting for a trillion dollar stimulus plan.They should be democrats.If all repubs vote no,and you vote yes you should be out the party.Swarzenegger promoting massive taxes on calif.He should be out the party.This shouldn’t be the party of abortion or gay rights.All Repubs should say it is a state right,if they want abortion/gay marriage.They should all be for civil unions.They should all be 100 percent for fiscal discipline.If they promote raising taxes they should also promote cutting spending.Look at detroit,michigan,new york,new jersey,massachusettes,california…ALL democratic run states……THE BIGGEST BUDGET DEFICITS.Then look at texas,alaska,north dakota,utah…surpluses.Louisiana only state that created jobs last quarter.Job groth is all down south.People/buisnesses are leaving the west and the east in droves.The school system run by unions is a failure.This needs to be the platform of the GOP.
29 cb55 // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:47 pm
David Frum, The 60 vote thing is a big deal- but specter has proven to be useless as one fo the 41 votes already. Just once it has come into play, and that was on Card Check. which he says he will rethink on whent he economy improves. So does it really matter that he is the “41st” when he is going to vote with the 59 Democrats everytime anyhow.
If you’re mentality is the way of the future, and to building a new majority- why were you guys not able to save him. And are we supposed to get mad everytime a concervative challenger comes into the fold, and garners more party support than other candidates.
Was Specter supposed to run unopposed?
when you do not represent your party- it is not that outlandish that you will lsoe your spot eventually.
And people like Frum- instead of blaming Pat Toomey for Specter jumping ship, why don’t you blame Arlen Specter. He blew it, not Toomey. If Specter had not gone along with the wasteful Stimulus plan, and had not briefly considered supporting Card Check, none of this would have happened.
I do not mind a lot of Frum’s ideas, even though I disagree with some of them. but I do have an issue with blaming the wrong people. Specter created this mess on his own. And you guys are not going to help build any majority either if we can not get your moderates to even oppose things like the huge stimulus package.
30 JoetheVeep // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Arlen Specter didn’t even have a challenge until he voted for the stimulus bill. He was not a fiscal conservative or even a fiscal moderate. He’s a Beltway hack, who plunged us into irretrievable bankruptcy for no better reason than to get along with his old pals. A party founded upon Beltway hackery has no future.
31 choccity2005 // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Sinz54 said: Just as Reagan could never have gotten elected without Carter’s failings, Obama could never have gotten elected without Bush 43’s failings
I aree 100 percent.
I ask all repubs,conservs,libs,dems and independents to answer 1 question.If GEORGE BUSH BALANCED THE BUDGET,IF WE NEVER WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ(THOUGH I SUPPORT IT),IF HE DIDN’T GROW GOVERNMENT,IF HE CRUSHED THE TALIBAN AND CAPTURED BIN LADEN.iF HE AND THE REPUBS IN CONGRESS WERE FOCUSED ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE,PUSHED WIND,SOLAR,NUCLEAR,OFFSHORE DRILLING,KATRINA WAS HANDLED EFFECTIVELY…..WOULD OBAMA BE PRESIDENT TODAY?
32 choccity2005 // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:04 pm
WHY DID DUKAKIS LOSE TO GEORGE BUSH 41?
b/c ronald reagan was president for 8 years prior…he was successful.
Why did clinton win……perot,buchanan split bush’s vote.Clinton barely won.
why did bush 41 beat gore….gore was a robot and the country was tired of teh clinton scandals.Bush stil barely won.
Why did john kerry lose….with all the money,hollywood crowd,the media and the hype surrounding him?People still trusted george bush,still wanted to see if he could turn iraq around.
So here it is 4 years later….and the repubs,the presidency gets wiped out.Now GOP is in EXILE?No…when obama fails and he will fail……and the repubs can get thier message and thier political figures together you will see the repubs rise again.If they can get back to basics.
33 krove // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Specter is center-right, and he’s made clear that the GOP is no longer hospitable to him. Sure, his party switching is rank opportunism at its worst, but he was forced to do it because his party moved far to the Right. There’s a reason that 200,000 moderate Republicans in Pennsylvania switched to the Democratic Party last year. Arlen has been left chasing those 200,000 voters, which are essentially his base. The Toomey crowd, the ascendent reactionary wing of the GOP, isn’t going for “center-right”. Their brand of conservatism is of the “far-right” variety, grossly out of step with the American (and Pennsylvania) mainstream.
Check it — Republicans are now down to 40 senators, distributed in these states: AK: 1, AL: 2, AZ: 2, FL: 1, GA: 2, ID: 2, IN: 1, IA: 1, KS: 2, KY: 2, LA: 1, ME: 2, MS: 2, MO: 1, NE: 1, NH: 1, NV: 1, NC: 1, OH: 1, OK: 2, TN: 2, SC: 2, SD: 1, TX: 2, UT: 2, and WY: 2.
Republicans are present in 26 states, which doesn’t sound so bad. But it means that almost half the country doesn’t have any Republican Senators. Only 14 states lack a Democratic Senator.
Ohio, Missouri, New Hampshire, and North Carolina (and maybe even Florida if Crist doesn’t jump in for the GOP), are all top candidates for sending two Democrats to the Senate after the 2010 elections. That would further shrink the GOP into its deep South and Mormon Corridor strongholds.
Of the GOP’s remaining 40 senators, 17 of 24 come from the South (FL, NC, SC, AL, MS, GA, VA, TN, KY, LA, AR, TX). That’s up from 15 after the 1998 election.
Of those remaining 40 senators, only 3 of 24 come from the Northeast (ME, VT, NY, MD, PA, CT, DE, MA, NH, RI, WV, NJ). That’s down significantly from 9 after the 1998 election.
Of those remaining 40 senators, only 10 of 26 come from the West (NM, CA, OR, WA, AK, HI, MT, ID, UT, NV, AZ, WY, CO). That’s down from 16 after the 1998 election.
Of those remaining 40 senators, only 10 of 26 come from the Midwest (IL, MN, MI, OH, WI, IA, MO, KS, IN, ND, SD, OK, NE). That’s down from 14 after the 1998 election.
So check it — there is only one region the GOP dominates, and it does so with a solid majority. That’s the South, and there’s a reason it remains the only region in the country to have a problem with our president and the Democratic majority:
34 mlindroo // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Brutus1776:
>> Sinz54 said: Just as Reagan could never have
>> gotten elected without Carter’s failings,
>> Obama could never have gotten elected without Bush 43’s failings.
> With this in mind, could one make the argument that Bush,
> having been elected (please notice I didn’t say
> ‘won’ for fear of the hordes yelling “He didn’t wint he Popular vote”)
> as a Principled Conservative, failed because he did not act in
> accordance with any form of Burkean Conservatism?
> The President’s biggest weaknesses are all of the
> instances in which he broke rank with the Conservative base correct?
Please.
*After becoming President, GW Bush *never* had problems with social conservatives / evangelicals who regarded him as one of their own since he was a born again christian. That’s one leg of the three legged “conservative stool”. Minor screw-ups like Harriet Miers aside, this particular demographic loved him right until the end.
*While a paleocon minority has had some problems with his activist foreign policy, it does not seem the security hawk mainstream ever had big problems with the goals, philosophy and aggressive rhetoric of his handling of “the war on terror”. That’s the second leg of traditional conservatism.
*Finally, we have economic conservatives where his ideological record is mixed. Vast tax cuts (good), but also big budget deficits and additional government spending (bad). Also some Gersonesque “compassionate conservatist” that did not go down well with the traditionalists.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
I would say the final score is five out of six in terms of objectives. Of course, the IMPLEMENTATION of things such as the occupation of Iraq was usually disastrous. So he has given conservatives a bad name. But it would be preposterous to say he and most of the leading officials in his administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld etc.) were not conservatives…
—
Bottom line: if GW Bush was not sufficiently “conservative”, you’ve set the ideological purity bar absurdly high. He was certainly to the right of Eisenhower, Nixon and his father wasn’t he?
MARCU$
35 mlindroo // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:15 pm
pblueridge:
> Oh, and I must’ve missed Obama shoving off conservatism
> as a doctrine that can’t win. I seem to recall him
> running with the promise of no new taxes for 95% of Americans,
> continuing the war on terror, opposing gay marriage,
> promising not to take guns away, etc.. But, of course,
> conservatism is simply roundly rejected by Americans,
> so what do I know?
Oh, this is hilarious!
Obama is a CONSERVATIVE after all, it seems!
36 Brutus1776 // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Mlindroo, I will gladly disagree with you on that point. I have William F Buckley on my side. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml
I would write more, but there is not enough time in the day to show the differences between President Bush and Conservatism as defined by the traditionalists, like that “Paleo-con” Buckley… Perhaps a discussion for later?
37 barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Re: Sinz54; 11:55 AM –
“Doctrinaire conservatism as an ideology NEVER won a national election in the last 60 years.”
As opposed to WHAT…?!?! Kennedy tried to out cold warrior Nixon! Carter ran as an honest, traditionalist businessman farmer Annapolis grad man of the People.
Pblueridge beat me to the punch on most of the criticisms I could make in reference to your faulty reading of history, but, jeez… you’re certainly bright enough to self-edit.
Bush vs. Gore 2000. Gore won the popular vote; Bush won the Electoral College and thus the Presidency. So… which outcome are you pinning your argument to?
(*SHRUG*) (*SMILE*)
2006? 2008? There was no “conservative” vs. Democrat. There was RINO vs. er… “hope”… hope for “change.”
Pblueridge already threw GHWB in your face. We can of course say Bush as president was far less conservative than Bush as candidate in ‘88, Bush ‘88 was indeed the “conservative” candidate, portraying himself as a conservative Reaganite. He won if I recall. I also recall him LOSING his re-election bid after turning aside from conservatism (to whatever extent… you may say minor…) and facing a “new” Democrat… a “centrist” Democrat – Bill Clinton.
Anyway… (*SHRUG*)
BILL
38 GoramFirefly // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Long time reader, first time posting; simply because I find this quite annoying:
Krove,
Why didn’t you just put up a link to the DailyKos story instead of just cutting and pasting without attribution?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/28/725399/-GOP:-Even-more-of-a-rump-regional-southern-party
39 mlindroo // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:46 pm
krove wrote:
> Check it — Republicans are now down to 40
> senators, distributed in these states: AK: 1, AL: 2,
> AZ: 2, FL: 1, GA: 2, ID: 2, IN: 1, IA: 1, KS: 2, KY: 2,
> LA: 1, ME: 2, MS: 2, MO: 1, NE: 1, NH: 1, NV: 1,
> NC: 1, OH: 1, OK: 2, TN: 2, SC: 2, SD: 1, TX: 2, UT:
> 2, and WY: 2.
Perhaps those who claim the GOP will do just fine in the foreseeable future can explain to the rest of us where the “New Majority” is supposed to come from… Looking at Karen’s list above, I could only find three truly good conservative states with a Dem senator — Louisiana, Nebraska and South Dakota. Maybe Indiana, Missouri and Alaska as well. On the other hand, Collins and Snowe are not “conservative enough” so let’s give those two the boot in Maine as well. Meanwhile, there are lots of Hispanic trending former GOP strongholds where it seems a Tom Tancredo type hardliner would face big problems: AZ, CO, NV, FL, NV…even NC or TX in the long run. NH and IA are also trending blue.
—
It’s also worth noting that traditional conservatives are having problems even in places like South Carolina where Sen. Richard Burr’s approval ratings are not very good at all.
—
Sorry guys, but David Frum wins this debate hands down. Just look at the Dems: did they nominate “full spectrum” latte sipping, brie munching, staunchly pro-choice, pro-gun control cultural liberals to take on Sens. George Allen and Rick Santorum ? Of course not. They did the pragmatic thing and chose somebody they thought could win. Ideological purity be damned.
MARCU$
40 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:51 pm
It is now apparent that Frum, the writer of this blog is just another RINO. He can join both McCains and Specter as far as I’m concerned, and not let the door hit him on the posterior on the way out. Losing a few RINOs by drips and drabs will be more than made up for by honest white working class men and women who will be inspired to vote for the first time for a Real Conservative. And no, I by Conservative I don’t mean the likes of George W. Bush!
41 mlindroo // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:52 pm
> Mlindroo, I will gladly disagree with you on that
> point. I have William F Buckley on my side.
Yes, I know about WF Buckley, but it’s worth noting that the magazine that he founded (NATIONAL REVIEW) never agreed with his position. Opinion polls indicate that Republicans/conservatives remain more supportive of the Iraq War and Global War on Terror in general.
MARCU$
42 Bulldoglover100 // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:00 pm
On the money Mr. Frum …….this is just a politican making the same choice so many moderate Republicans made last November and our party refused to listen then and they are not listening now.
Soon all that will be left are those who are too stupid to govern, such as Palin and Bachman, and those who are making money off the stupidity, Limbaugh/Hannity. The rest of us? will not support them and within 10 years the republican party will not win elections unless it is in a controlled local election. Bring on a new party and keep the right wing nut jobs away from positions of power and see how fast it grows.
43 Bulldoglover100 // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Got a question for the Rocket Scientist here who keep talking about Spector and why he moved, why we don’t need him and the classic “Don’t let the door him him on his backside”…..Why do you think 200 THOUSAND people in PA changed their vote to Democratic? Because what is left of the GOP is meeting their needs? Really? LOL
44 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:07 pm
What does “moderate” mean today as the Democrats keep shoving leftwards towards Communism?
Does it mean shoving leftwards half as fast?
American conservatives wish to conserve a free America. Free politically. Free economically. Free of intimidation by terrorists and tyrants. And a strong superpower in the world, enabling other peoples to become free.
What do moderates wish to do?
45 Cforchange // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Hey David Frum – thanks for the Toomey Growth Club Pelosi connection. Revealing that fact to my rational GOP peers has really made them pause. If it’s not too late… You need to take that message mainstream- the 6 important Club for Growth races with negative GOP results. Gifts from the “club” like Pelosi speak volumes – especially to those who pay limited attention to politics.
PA will soon be able to tell the real power of its “conservatives” because those appalled by the cult like behavior will stay home or vote for Arlen. For those of you who are looking for pure- you’ve got absolving the 2 party system blood all over your hands. Grow up – nobody gets their way 100% of the time, that’s called being able to moderate your actions.
Thanks Arlen – you will fast track either the death or repair of the party. I don’t buy that this move is strictly political ambition – does a cancer survivor of his years need to prove anything???
46 ThisSiteIsLame // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:09 pm
re: mlindroo 10min ago
“Sorry guys, but David Frum wins this debate hands down. Just look at the Dems: did they nominate “full spectrum” latte sipping, brie munching, staunchly pro-choice, pro-gun control cultural liberals to take on Sens. George Allen and Rick Santorum ? Of course not. They did the pragmatic thing and chose somebody they thought could win. Ideological purity be damned. “
I have two main problems with this (Frum’s) line of thinking. To begin with the democrats did put up more conservative democrats in order to take back congress. However, on almost every major vote they vote lockstop with the liberal leadership of the House and Senate. Specter has made a habit of voting against his party on big issues with something close to regularity.
Second to that is the fact that Specter is no longer a satisfactory candidate to Pennsylvania Republicans. I think Frum and his ilk fail to see that alot of Republicans out here are less interested in the GOP’s star, then in a growing dislike for Washington, the Fed and the leadership of their party. They don’t feel represented and they resent being told to hold their noses and take what they could get.
Specter’s move to me, looks like a politician who is in it just for the love of having the power that being in govenrment gives him. He has no ideological position that his voter’s (especially his Republican voters) could readily identify with. At a certain point, whether Frum likes it or not, it makes more sense to move to someone you feel will better represent you, then backing someone who seems to condescend to representing you, just so we can have more guys with R’s next to their names.
Peace Out
47 barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Question… to ANYONE and EVERYONE…
What the heck is it with Frum that he insists on throwing up multiple threads on the same damn topic on the same damn day within hours of each other…???
Perhaps it’s just a “stylistic” difference, but it drives me nuts!
DAVID! You do realize that you’re allowed to not only respond to your audience but even if you insist on the “Mount Olympus” routine of not mingling with us… er… common folk… you’re still allowed to address new points to us within your original thread.
That’s it.
BILL
48 mpolito // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Here are some wise thoughts from David Freddoso over at NRO’s Corner:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2I2NDA2ODA3ZjE0NDM1N2E5ZmI1ZWYzOTY5YjczZjk=
49 Cforchange // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Sally, if you want a free America, you got it. People who built more house than they can afford during the Bush years, now expect it for free or significantly discounted.
50 Bulldoglover100 // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Sally…could you explain just what you mean by this charge? Examples too? Because if you can’t? Your just hurting this party every time you open your mouth….. “What does “moderate” mean today as the Democrats keep shoving leftwards towards Communism”…examples please………
51 conservative08 // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Good riddance to this clown. And any other “Republicans” that vote like moderate Democrats. These out of touch, crusty beltway types are exactly the reason Republicans have lost the past two elections.
Someone who voted for a trillion dollar stimulus package is somehow the answer for a Republican resurgence? Give me a break.
He’s a joke. And so are so many of the other losers who have spent like Democrats. Bye.
http://conservative09.blogspot.com
52 Cforchange // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Sally, if you want a free America, you got it. People who built more house than they can afford during the Bush years, now expect it for free or significantly discounted.
53 amags130 // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Jdipeso: “Undoubtedly, “RINO” Specter’s departure will be cheered by talk radio entertainers and other ideologues holding to a mathematically challenged belief that imposing litmus tests, discouraging independent thought, and alienating important constituencies somehow will create a political majority.”
This is exactly the reason the GOP majority shrunk. Ideological purities do not create political majorities in national politics, period. All it does is marginalize the minority further into obscurity. If the GOP maintains this “with us or against us” stance, the voice of true conservatism will be washed out by the far-right fringe, which will in turn scare away any constituencies needed for electoral victory. If this track continues, I see the “blue dog” Democrats providing the only relevant (as it comes to congressional votes) rebuttal to Obama’s policies, meaning that in order to be heard, more and more “RINO” members of congress will defect to the other party. Interestingly enough, the word “RINO” might ultimately spell the undoing of the GOP.
54 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:29 pm
RINOs to the LEFT of me, and more RINOs on my other LEFT. BullDog admit it, you voted for Hussein Obama, right? It’s these unprincipled ‘moderates’ that are aiding and abetting the Socialist Revolution now underway!
55 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:42 pm
cforchange: “Sally, if you want a free America, you got it. People who built more house than they can afford during the Bush years, now expect it for free or significantly discounted.”
Good example, although you probably didn’t intend it this way. Democrats threatened bankers to their face during hearings that if they didn’t lend to poor people who couldn’t pay the loan back that they would be, er, investigated. Result of gross government interference in private lending markets? You guessed it.
“Sally…could you explain just what you mean by this charge? Examples too? Because if you can’t? Your just hurting this party every time you open your mouth….. “What does “moderate” mean today as the Democrats keep shoving leftwards towards Communism”…examples please……..”
1. See above.
2. Obama apologizing to every tin-horn dictator in the world for the “wickedness” of America, not to mention that embarrassing moment with his ideological soulmate, Chavez.
3. Taking over the auto-industry and then passing it on over to “the workers” (read union bosses).
4. Taking over the large banks, giving them marching orders that will doom them to failure.
5. Making it impossible for us to detect terrorists or to fight them when we do find them with Obama’s bend over backwards for terrorist rights executive orders (read, pacifism here).
6. Yacking on and on about how EVIL Bush is, lies and more lies, and repeated lies from the left, who learned their lessons well on how to do this from Lenin.
7. Turning the MSM into American Pravda, American TASS, and American…what did the Soviets call their one TV network? How long has there been since the MSM has done any serious investigative journalism against leftists?
8. Bankrupting America with multi-trillion dollar “stimulus” bills that will turn it catatonic…that after bee-eye-itching about Bush and his comparatively puny budget deficits.
9. Obama’s hatchet-woman calling conservatives terrorists, not to mention calling vets terrorists. She could give dishonesty lessons to Chavez.
Obama and Dems are following their guru’s Rules for Radicals to a T.
56 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:54 pm
David Frum: What do YOU wish to conserve? Anything?
When we run strong American conservative candidates, believers in free markets, free intellectual and political discourse (no PC), a strong American military, no legislating from the judicial bench, strong American borders, and preservation of traditional American rights as listed in all ten of the first amendments to the Constitution, we win big. American voters KNOW who they’re voting for.
When we run weak-kneed, well the times they are a changin’ and the Constitution must change with it, and the government, well, golly gee, it really does have to grow and grow and make every decision for us because we Americans are too stupid to do for ourselves, and America must be brought down a peg or two because it really is too damned evil for the world type of candidates, we lose big time.
Why? Because American voters know exactly what they’re getting there, too.
57 Chekote // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“Reagan won because the public was looking for an alternative to Carter, NOT because of conservatism.”
How did Gingrich win? Just curious, Sinz.
58 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Well said Sally. This is no time to compromise with pinkos, be they ones with a (D) after their name, or a (RINO) after their name!
59 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:05 pm
AND FURTHERMORE: I can’t help but suspect, from the sudden large number of RINO posters, on this most special of RINO good news holidays, that some of you are leftwing moonbat CONCERN TROLLS! (look it up on Wiki – it means you’re just PRETENDING to be sympathetic to the future of Conservatism, when in fact you’re encouraging this unhealthy schism between real Conservatives and the confused moderates in our party.
60 amags130 // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:13 pm
BillyFLA: “it means you’re just PRETENDING to be sympathetic to the future of Conservatism, when in fact you’re encouraging this unhealthy schism between real Conservatives and the confused moderates in our party.”
Any relevant party has two sides…the far side of its wing and the moderates. Since swing voters are BY DEFINITION moderate, alienating them will ensure electoral defeat. When the left was in the minority, they embraced the moderates in the party as well as the far left and that union won them all these elections. But hey, if you want to hold your own “real Conservative” party, don’t expect to win any elections outside the South.
61 Chekote // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Anyway, the GOP is going down. The old SoCon, eCon and Hawks coalition is permanently broken or is not enough to win. We need a new coalition? To me a coalition of eCons, Hawks and SoMod is the winning ticket. Any other ideas?
62 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:21 pm
amags 230: Well yeah, the Dems compromised with the baby killers, the anti-gun nuts, the muscle bound gay thugs that want to remake America in their own perverse image, etc, etc. Doesn’t mean WE need to do it. Sometimes principle trumps opportunism. If we lose the next election, so what? it will be made up for in the future when all those (currently) apathetic or discouraged ‘joe lunchbucket’ conservatives are (finally) fed up enough to get out and vote their principles. You should be listening to Hannity and Rush today instead of this RINO Frum guy!
63 amags130 // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Thinking about it now, this schism was a long time coming. Reagan conservatism preached low taxes, fiscal conservatism, and a small government that stays out of people’s lives. Then in the late 90s in response to Clinton’s scandals, social conservatism, which is completely AT ODDS with Reagan conservatism, hijacked the party and turned it into a “with us or against us” tent. Put it this way: if I don’t want the government taking away my guns or interfering in my life, how can I in the same breath say that I want the government to prevent people with different views from doing what they want with their own lives (i.e. people that want to gay marry or have abortions or smoke pot in their own house)? You can’t pick and choose which government intervention is OK and expect to have a party with a “pure” ideology.
Rove did wonders to unite these seemingly opposite factions into a winning coalition in 2000 and 2004 but when the Bush presidency came apart at the seams, the schism (THAT WAS ALWAYS THERE) was forced into the limelight. Preaching about “real” Conservatism is a false choice because there are many different types of conservatism, many of them at odds with each other. The GOP tent was once big enough to fit them all. What happened?
64 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Chekote and amags130
I still haven’t actually heard the moderate position on anything. “Moderatism” seems to be merely a positioning device between what they perceive as those [shudder] “extreme” conservatives and those lovable, but sometimes wrong-headed liberals.
But, I contend that the liberals are becoming more Communist every day. If I’m right, does this affect your positioning in any way? If you, as a moderate, depend on positioning as a device for determining your political stands on issues, doesn’t that mean automatically, you too are driven leftwards?
David Frum, you can weigh in on this too. So can the rest of the moderates here.
65 MSheridan // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:33 pm
BillyFLA, I haven’t posted here for a few weeks but I probably come closer than most to matching your accusation of “concern troll,” although I’ve never made any secret of my liberal and non-Republican viewpoint. But I think you overlook something. Those of us on the other side of the aisle are HAPPY with the state of Republican disarray. What part of this do you think we think is bad for us?
Right now, if you visited Daily Kos, you’d see a hell of a lot of gloating plus some honest wonderment as to whether we actually want Sen. Specter plus speculation as to how long it’ll be before the Democratic Party creates its own opposition from within. One thing you won’t see is anyone thinking that this is a good thing for Republicans.
I personally hope that at some point Republicans DO get their act together. Opposition is necessary to keep our system healthy in the long run. However, I’m not in any hurry. Take your time. Think things through. But don’t think anyone on my team is seriously trying to sabotage or trick you into keeping your moderates because, guess what, we’re happy to take them.
66 amags130 // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Sally: You eloquently captured the entire point in this sentence. “Depending on positioning as a device for determining [my] political stance on issues.” That is the definition of a “litmus test”, which discourages independent thinking within a political party. Take what happened with the stimulus vote: we put forth 0 votes in the house and 3 votes in the Senate and trumped that as a victory. However, in the aftermath, those 3 Senators were alienated due to many in the party using positioning to determine political stands rather than what each legislator individually thought. Now, one has defected to the dems and I wouldn’t be surprised if the other 2 don’t follow suit, giving the dems 61 (maybe 62) senators.
Legislatively, positioning has a huge part in determining political stands on issues — that is where compromise comes in and actually pushes legislation through. Just think: if the dems thought we would actually compromise on the stimulus in return for votes, we would have a voice in the legislative process. Instead, our party-line no vote dismissed the idea of compromise and we ended up with a stimulus package much further to the left than it needed to be.
I understand how a party-line no vote strengthens ideology down the line but we live in the NOW as well. We NOW have to deal with a stimulus package and budget for the next 4 years at least and we owe it to ourselves to utilize the legislative process in order to skew the spendulous and budget more in our direction. We still don’t have any ownership over either package when they fail – they were passed by a dem president and congress – but at the same time, we can push our agenda forward more than we have.
67 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:37 pm
amagst130
You may be confusing conservatives and libertarians. There are certain aspects of libertarianism (economics) I’m attracted to, but others I am not (take all the drugs you want, really cut down on American defense and activist American foreign policy–these are the hard-core liberal parts of libertarianism.)
I suspect that if you study the various branches of American conservatism (there are some differences between them, granted) you’ll see what unites them is far more powerful than what divides them.
Simply ask yourself, what in general would you conserve in American civilization if you had the power to do so? Think it through. Obviously we’re not talking specific things like your favorite dress style or the classic Fifties McDonald’s restaurant building down the road. We’re talking political philosophy here.
Once you do, you’ll have a list of core conservative principles in your hands. And you may understand why American conservatives take their American conservative beliefs very seriously.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
68 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Yeah, yeah we need to pay homage to Saint Ronnie. He got people to vote for the R’s, but after all what was he but an affable old fool that could TALK a good game. Never really DID anything significantly conservative. Witness the fact that his PROPOSED federal budgets were CUT by the D’s in Congress and St. Ron still managed to increase the deficit. Between Him (his holiness), G. ‘read my lips’ Bush, and G. ‘unnecessary W.ar’ Bush throwing money away like water to create more terrorists, it’s no wonder we look like such hypocrites (and lose votes because of it).
69 mpolito // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Amags130- social conservatism has been a part of the GOP long before the 90s, or the 60s. It in no way emerged as a result of the 90s; it may have been increased because of them. However, social conservatives were a big part of the Reagan coalition. Also, the “with us or against us” mentality can exist anywhere, and it is certainly not unique to social conservatives.
Chekote- The notion that social issues are the issues that the GOP needs to moderate on lacks evidence. 2006 losses were attributable to the war; 2008 losses were attributable to the economy. Same-sex marriage and abortion were virtually nonexistent issues in these cycles. If anything, these cycles prove that we should move leftward on economic and foreign policy (although I do not support doing either of these things).
70 ChristianMiller // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Good riddance.Yes, I’m happy this obviously self-serving politician has changed his formal party affiliation.
71 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:54 pm
amags130
“Legislatively, positioning has a huge part in determining political stands on issues — that is where compromise comes in and actually pushes legislation through. Just think: if the dems thought we would actually compromise on the stimulus in return for votes, we would have a voice in the legislative process. Instead, our party-line no vote dismissed the idea of compromise and we ended up with a stimulus package much further to the left than it needed to be.
I understand how a party-line no vote strengthens ideology down the line but we live in the NOW as well. We NOW have to deal with a stimulus package and budget for the next 4 years at least and we owe it to ourselves to utilize the legislative process in order to skew the spendulous and budget more in our direction. We still don’t have any ownership over either package when they fail – they were passed by a dem president and congress – but at the same time, we can push our agenda forward more than we have.”
Do you really believe that any Republican, conservative or moderate, actually has the slightest chance of making the slightest dent in the Democrat runaway statist train?
At this point, there is nothing whatsoever to be lost in standing firm on principle. Sometimes, there’s a tug of war going on between expediency and principle, but not now. There is nothing whatsoever that would attract a conservative to cooperate in any way, shape or form with Democrats. And Democrats are wholly uninterested in engaging in any real compromise. Just ask Reid and Pelosi. Note how the three Republicans voted for the “stimulus” package as the Democrats wrote it, with no changes or modifications made by those Republicans.
What we need now are Republicans who will extol, in soaring rhetoric and in detailed “policy wonk” fashion, what it means to be a conservative and how conservatives will free Americans from the creeping tyranny of Democrat governance if Congress is returned to Republican governance in 2011 after the 2010 elections.
Americans were confused by the mushiness of the notion of “compassionate conservatism” offered in 2006 and 2008. So, they thought it wouldn’t make much diffeence if they elected the most leftist president, Obama, to office, or a wholly-owned Democrat Congress. They were wrong. We must let them know WHY they were wrong and what we intend to do about it.
American conservatism, rightly understood, is genuinely compassionate all the time because it preserves and extends individual freedom, instead of crushing it cruelly under enormous taxes, deficits, and regulations. How many unknown businesses have been destroyed by statism over the decades? How many businesses find themselves forced to pay for swarms of lobbyists in Washington to protect themselves from that kind of destruction? No one in Washington knows or cares, because these people don’t pay the big bucks for access and the wholly owned DNC subsidiary known as the MSM never bothered to investigate any of this..
72 amags130 // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Sally: Very valid point. First off, if anything happens to my 50’s McDonalds, there’s gonna be hell to pay! Secondly, I’m not advocating drug use for anybody I know and care about, especially hard drugs like meth and coke. However, I take responsibility myself rather than placing it on the government to do so. It is not within the government’s power to interfere in the private lives of citizens, especially in the case of softer drugs, like pot. If anything, let the libs smoke all the pot they want, sleep through election days, and waste their lives complaining about high carb diets, doritos, and too much milk in their lattes. Yes, small government is in-and-of itself a libertarian principle, but a principle that has defined conservative roots nonetheless. If you disagree, ask why “Atlas Shrugged” is suddenly topping bestseller lists again.
As it pertains to the national debate in politics, the economic aspect of libertarianism is the most relevant due to the current crisis.
73 krove // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Sally Morem
wrote 5 minutes ago
WOW, do you wonder why the Republicans are now at 21% in party identification?
YOU ARE!
Please keep it up, you are a winner.
74 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Hello Krove,
Any content to the sniping?
75 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:10 pm
If only Newt didn’t have such a disgusting personal life! At least McCain only dumped ONE poor ailing spouse. If only Romney were a Christian! (I mean, who the hell that calls himself a thinking, conservative Christian can vote for some Science Fiction believer that really believes a horny, oversexed teenager found solid gold printing plates with the Book of Mormon engraved on them. And that said book just coincidentally encouraged said horny teen to start a new bigamous, i mean polygamous religion?!?!).
We Conservatives need to find leaders that are not pretenders, whacked out freaks tapping their feet in men’s rooms, etc. OK: Truth comes out, I’m pullin’ for Sarah in ‘12!
76 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:11 pm
amags130
“However, I take responsibility myself rather than placing it on the government to do so. It is not within the government’s power to interfere in the private lives of citizens”
I took this portion of your response out of context for a reason, namely, libertarians seem to think if government leaves their drug use and sex lives alone, nothing else matters. Government is no problem at all…dude.
Of course Ayn Rand didn’t believe that at all. Neither did my own personal ideological guru, Friedrich Hayek.
In fact, statist government right NOW interferes with our lives in every aspect of them. If not in the bedroom, then in the bathroom, in the kitchen, in the living room, in the garden, in the garage, and most especially in the boardroom.
And it will get much, much worse in the next four years.
77 MSheridan // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Oh, and incidentally, what about this?
“…it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
But then, what did Edmund Burke know about conservatism as it related to ideological purity?
78 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:14 pm
BillyFLA, pair Sarah with some potent conservative speechwriters, and watch out Obama. His teleprompter doesn’t stand a chance.
79 amags130 // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Sally: If we act as though our voice doesn’t matter then it doesn’t, period. Saying there is no reason or chance for conservatives to cooperate with dems is counterproductive and will push us further into the minority. The only thing it will produce is far right backlash (they will vote with us no matter what anyway) but in order to find our way to the majority, we have to appeal to the center. It’s a “center-right” nation, not a “right-right” nation. When Bush pushed forward tax cuts and the Iraq War, he depended on dem votes. The backlash within the dems was small enough to keep the party united against the majority in order to make a power play in 2006 and 2008. The party will be united against the dem majority now even if conservatives try to work with the new administration in pushing conservative policy. We need to find battles that the dems will bend on and they WILL bend if the argument is coherent and appeals to blue dog dems. If we get a few blue dog defectors, the fissures that exist within the democratic party will magnify. By adhering to the far right, we are diminishing that schism (and looking at the budget deliberations on the democratic side, those blue dogs are feeling marginalized as well).
However, by putting all of our bread in one basket, which is that the economy will not recover by the 2010 elections, we are making a far riskier play that could net further losses. Sally, you are obviously one of the more informed posters on this site and I’m sure will have a sensible rebuttal to this.
80 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:18 pm
MSheridan
“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
But then, what did Edmund Burke know about conservatism as it related to ideological purity?”
Good quote from Burke. And if he were writing about a good American conservative politician, he would remind the voter that said politician could not vote for all kinds of goodies for that voter lest our Constitutionally mandated limited government be shredded.
As it has been.
81 amags130 // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:21 pm
And yes, I agree the current administration invades our lives way too much and it will get worse. What I am saying is that if we are to take the other side and say government should not interfere in the personal lives of people, how can we say that some interferences are OK and others are not?
82 dragonlady // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Can we all calm down a bit? Yes this is a setback for the GOP. PA is a swing state with many electoral votes. But all politics is local–Specter did this to save his political hide. Polls show the majority of Americans responded favorably to the tea parties and are worried about gov’t spending. Conservatism has not gone the way of the do-do bird. Quite frankly, I think the GOP needs to hit rock bottom before it can rebuild. I don’t trust the current crop of Washintonians (Specter included) to effectively stop the lurch towards socialism. The problem is the GOP ship is rudderless. Let’s not forget the Dem base is no less radical–we just elected probably the most leftist Pres in history of this nation. Ironically, much of his rhetoric is in conservative sounding language (tax cuts and the like). So yes, we need a Big Tent, but the GOP needs to doing some political soul-searching as well. I hope this time is used to reflect and eventually, come back strong. Like Bill Kristol said, it’s time for political entreprenuership and vigorous debate, not a unified political message. Let 1000 Republicans bloom.
83 amags130 // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Ugh, ideological purity. I hate that term because it does not exist in the real world amongst a group of people large enough to represent a majority. You cannot have one pure ideology among 40 Senators or 178 Representatives. Suggesting or believing anything else is disingenuous at best and self-deception at worst. When we were in the majority we did not have “ideological purity”, we had the “big GOP tent”. No one pure ideological school of thought can form a majority. Spectrums within ideologies can. That’s why Specter defected and that’s why the term “RINO” might ultimately destroy the party.
84 barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Hey… here’s a novel thought… why not concentrate on strategies and tactics Toomy can use to win (assuming he’s the GOP nominee) next year either against Specter or another Democrat.
(*SHRUG*)
If anyone sees fit to throw out some ideas I’ll add mine.
(*WINK*)
BILL
85 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:27 pm
“The center will not hold”
amags130
“The only thing it will produce is far right backlash (they will vote with us no matter what anyway) but in order to find our way to the majority, we have to appeal to the center. It’s a “center-right” nation, not a “right-right” nation.”
We used to be a centrist nation WHEN Democrats supported our military and our foreign policy and taxed us far less.
The “center” has moved so far left it can no longer be dickered with by conservatives who wish to conserve America and protect it from tyranny.
America has now been described as a bi-polar nation. We no longer cluster at what used to be the center of the political spectrum, a fact that, unfortunately, David Frum and his moderate allies here have overlooked. They pretend that the Democrats are still the fine fellows who produced Humphrey and Scoop Jackson. They delude themselves.
I hope you don’t agree with their lack of historical analysis of where the parties are.
The spectrum has been pulled so far left by the Dems that Republicans embracing traditional American conservative values, not extremist stuff at all–not fascism or Nazism–are now seen as extremists.
This is what comes of that noted lack of historical analysis.
No, I won’t cooperate with such willful misreading of the beliefs and the goals of American conservatives.
86 amags130 // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:31 pm
If the center has moved and can no longer be “dickered with”, then are you saying we are conceding defeat in national politics? Swing voters win elections. The base will always be there. You have to make some sort of appeal to the center or risk the political wilderness. I’m not talking about the “center” that Obama thinks he has moved. I’m talking about the center that you might call “circa 2004″.
87 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm
“Let 1000 Republicans bloom”
Ha! Not if 300 of ‘em are RINOs – we need to take the weed whacker to them!
88 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:40 pm
barker13
Good idea. If Toomey runs as a Tea Party Republican, he’ll go far.
Describe in ringing rhetoric and in detail why we Tea Party Republicans…
1. Enthusiastically embrace LEGAL immigration, while deploying American military assets to stop ILLEGAL immigration. The mushing together of those two concepts is a standard mode of Dem dishonesty.
2. Love our military and will do whatever it takes to help them do their job. This is the one area where I would increase the budget. After all, the military is one of the few Constitutionally mandated government institutions named therein.
3. Repeal the multiple trillions of dollars of “stimulus” pork.
4. Take back all those “apologies” offered to our enemies. And ask the British to lend us that wonderful sculpture of Winston Churchill again. Symbols do mean something. Obama sure as hell knows it.
5. Not only cut tax rates, but get rid of a whole array of them.
6. Eliminate all prohibitions on drilling of oil. Oil companies would only need to follow simple safety regs. And while at it, eliminate all the deliberately constructed regulatory hurdles to the development of new tech nuclear power plants. Environmentalists are clueless, push them aside.
7. Take back George Bush’s contention that global warming is real. It isn’t.
8. Remove all regulatory requirements that ruined the banking industry and the car industry. Watch them flourish under genuine freedom.
A whole bunch more suggestions for Toomey where those came from.
89 amags130 // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:40 pm
21% of voters identify themselves as Republicans now, the lowest number in 25 years. So how can we fix that?
90 MSheridan // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Sally, I think everyone on this board is agreed that Specter isn’t an American conservative politician, good or otherwise. He was and is pretty middle of the road: left of most Republicans in office and right of most Democrats. His centrism is nothing new, either, but extends back a very long time. I’m not a big Specter fan myself, btw.
However, the hope, as I understand it, that conservative Republicans have is that a party with a clearer and more cohesive national message/platform will be more appealing to voters than a party with a spectrum of opinion and regional divisions. I think that’s absolutely true, too–so far as the minority of highly conservative voters goes. I don’t personally believe that’s how you’ll win the independents or swing voters, and one big reason for my disbelief is that the purer the Republican message gets, the more Democrats have been winning votes they previously had no shot at gaining.
If we on the other side were attempting to marginalize everyone who wasn’t a hardcore leftist, we’d be hemorrhaging voters too. I’ve actually seen a few very liberal bloggers starting to argue just that way and have done my little bit to shut them down. In my opinion, most Americans aren’t rightwing, center-right, centrists, center-left, or leftwing. Most Americans don’t usually pay too much attention at all and vote for whatever seems to be working. When it stops working, they vote the other way. But Americans DO have an aversion to being pushed around, and extremists of any stripe (right or left) do seem to want to own people’s minds.
91 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:42 pm
amags130
“If the center has moved and can no longer be “dickered with”, then are you saying we are conceding defeat in national politics?”
No. I’m contending a genuine, let it all hang out, conservative campaign will win big time.
It’s time, far past time, to try it.
92 dragonlady // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm
BillyFla, “Ha! Not if 300 of ‘em are RINOs – we need to take the weed whacker to them!” I’m pretty conservative but I don’t think its particularly constructive for the down and out party to drive away its moderates. That’s not what I meant by hitting rock bottom. Do you want to stop this socialist juggernaut or not?
93 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:45 pm
NEW LITMUS TEST
What we Cons need is a new litmus test. The old one (baby killers out of the party) worked well enough in its time. But now we need to weed out these that would be apologists for the gay thugs. I say in order to put an ‘R’ behind your name, you should pledge to support (and by support I mean COSPONSOR, not just make promises) a Federal (not state) Constitutional Amendment that once and for all bans the abomination of homosexual “marriage”. If you can’t SIGN that written pledge, go be a third party ‘moderate’ somewhere!
94 krove // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Sally Morem
wrote 4 minutes ago
I just love your party platform. The voters would give you about 20% of the vote on It. Keep it coming.
Karen
95 dragonlady // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm
BillyFLA, I’m starting to suspect you’re a lib on this site disguised as a Repub trying to stir up trouble. If not, you need to take a step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath.
96 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:49 pm
MSheridan,
Then, do you believe Americans got what they voted for when they voted for Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress? I don’t.
I believe Obama and a number of Democrats tried to insinuate that they were conservative in certain ways, fooling their voters. And now we get this enormous wave of statist, anti-American legislation and speechifying.
There will be a large number of self-proclaimed conservative Dems on the chopping block as angry voters opt for real Republican conservatives, and the leftists you mention go for more leftist candidates in the primaries. I’m expecting a massive swing of Congressional seats in 2010…if…
Only a clear conservative campaign can sort this chaff out.
97 Sally Morem // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Krove, Which part of the Republican platform gives you hives? The part about supporting our military? Loving America? Embracing capitalism? Insisting on supporting immigration laws, instead of saying sneaking into the country isn’t a crime?
I do take this somewhat personally, since, in effect, I helped write that platform as a member of my County Republican resolutions committee. Er, very, very indirectly.
Please clarify. I’ll check in tomorrow, after taking the night off. See ya.
98 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:56 pm
DLady: How dare you! That does it, I’m quite weary of all the namby-pamby “centerists” on this board anyway. I can’t believe Sally and I are the only Conservatives on this so-called “Building Conservatism” site! I’m headed over to see what the Freepers think about today’s sorry developments. I’m sure to find so real R’s over there…
99 krove // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:56 pm
We don’t need no education,
We don’t need no thought control.
No gays and baby killers in the party.
Hey Repugs leave those moderates alone.
We don’t need no evolution.
We don’t need no gun control.
No health benifits for the nation.
Hey let them die alone.
We don’t need no alternate energy.
We just love our great big oil.
Tax cuts for the rich and wealthy
Hey poor people just leave us all alone.
100 dragonlady // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:59 pm
BillyFLA, goodbye troll! I didn’t have a problem with Sally’s comments…they were quite cogent. Unlike yours.
101 krove // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Billy is no troll!! He is 100% Reich wing republican of the highest order. How dare you Dragonperson
102 MSheridan // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Sally,
The left got what it voted for, for the most part. However, I don’t think the center wasn’t voting “for” anything. It was voting against. Those conservatives who now say that Bush wasn’t a real conservative are absolutely correct. And when they say that the conservative principles of small government, prudent and limited spending, and less social engineering haven’t been followed they are also correct. But to expect the public to believe that THIS TIME conservative politicians really, REALLY mean it is asking a bit much.
If the Democrats badly fumble the ball, the voters will turn on them, as is only fair. But Obama was given a huge gift by the outgoing administration: a catastrophic economy and a dump truck full of problems that no one could seriously think would be easily fixed in a short period of time. I’ve argued elsewhere that a big part of the Messiah complex around Obama has absolutely nothing to do with him and everything to do with the public’s desire for a savior. McCain never looked to anyone as if he’d fit the bill, but it looks as if a segment of conservatives has the same issue with Governor Palin. In a better year for Republicans, with a larger field of non-disgraced candidates, I strongly doubt she’d have the same amount of star power.
103 adam1 // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Sally, I voted for Obama and got exactly what I expected.
Someone who is to the left of my actual views, but aligns more closely with my general ideology than John McCain did.
Most of the people I know agree with me in this respect. Some of them are fairly conservative, and so Bush fatigue won them over, but others agree with various parts of the Republican agenda, but disagree with some aspects enough to always vote against it, because their disagreement is treated with disdain by the far right, which has become the voice of the party.
I am socially liberal. I am pro-choice and favor gay marriage. However, I dislike many proposed ideas of universal health care (but I favor moderate reform to help out those who cannot get health care normally) and do not support radical attempts to stop climate change. But I’ll put up with Obama’s health care plans and the inevitable cap and trade or carbon tax scheme in order to try and move the socially progressive agenda forward.
If Republicans move to the far right, then people like me will vote Democrat (essentially, the lesser of two evils) and the Republican party will shrink.
104 Realist // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:07 pm
This doesn’t really matter that much in the big picture. The Dems were going to get their 60 votes in 2010 anyway due to GOP retirements. They only needed one more. This is just an early gift from the Club for Growth, who are finally getting their way, I guess.
105 dragonlady // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:07 pm
krove, we know you’re a troll, too. I think the Daily Kos would be more supportive of your fledging rap career.
106 MSheridan // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Oops, typo:
“I don’t think the center WAS voting “for” anything…
107 amags130 // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:11 pm
MSheridan – you are so right on that messiah comment it kills me. Would Lincoln be the messiah he is if he hadn’t issued the emancipation proclamation and instead been a president in calmer times? Of course not. Obama represents a lot of things to a lot of people in a time where they are looking for ANYTHING which explains why his approval ratings are way higher than the approval of his policies.
108 krove // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Dragon wow it really suits you. We are all trolls here as it’s a public Website. Purity of ideology is not a requirement in the site rules. So suck it.
109 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:12 pm
barker13: Great! Your kind of Republican Party would be a reasonable choice for many voters.
Now let me show you the actual Republican Party we’ve got. In Oklahoma, their state GOP convention just okayed the following party platform:
http://www.tulsagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009_platform_tulsa1.pdf
In addition to all the usual Religious Right planks on abortion and same-sex marriage, the section on Education demands that creationism be taught in public schools, and given professional respect–whether or not Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is taught.
It’s just that sort of thing that is driving away the college-educated, the scientifically-trained, and the young.
That Platform also demands a Constitutional Amendment which would deny birthright citizenship to children born in this country of immigrant parents. That’s a slap in the face to every immigrant, even those who came here legally. If it had been passed 100 years ago, it would have denied citizenship to my own parents.
I don’t recall Ronald Reagan ever endorsing such things, do you?
110 Realist // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Spector was merely reading the writing on the wall. All those new Democrats sitting out there were just too tantalizing to pass on.
What’s funny is that some of the people most disappointed by this are progressives who had a pretty formidable candidate in former Admiral and current Rep. Joe Sestak waiting in the wings.
111 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:15 pm
krove sez: “Purity of ideology is not a requirement in the site rules. “
But if there were such a requirement for purity of ideology, you would pass with flying colors.
112 dragonlady // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm
You stay classy, krove.
113 krove // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Gee thanks sinz.
114 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:19 pm
sinz54: Yeah, the authors of the OK state platform must be just a bunch of ‘trolls’, since they sound “OK” to THIS Conservative!
115 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:22 pm
BillyFLA: Think about this: Why doesn’t the Democratic Party expel its “DINOs” like Ben Nelson? Why did the Dem Senate leadership welcome back Joe Lieberman after he beat back a challenge from Ned Lamont, the candidate of the DailyKOS?
The reason is, the Dems want to maintain a majority. And expelling some of their members for failing some litmus test or other is just losing them votes.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Ideological purity counts for NOTHING if you don’t have votes. Without a majority of votes, ideological purity gets you a nice term paper in high school or college, or maybe a nice website or blog. But it doesn’t win you elections.
116 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:26 pm
BillyFLA: Then don’t ever again claim that the problem is just with ILLEGAL immigrants. Because this proposed Amendment is not limited to illegal immigrants.
117 amags130 // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:30 pm
A party can only fly on two wings.
118 Realist // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:32 pm
David said: “I submit it is better for conservatives to have 60% sway within a majority party than to have 100% control of a minority party.:”
What is so difficult about this to understand? The GOP is becoming a fringe party. Even Pat Bucahan says the party is too White.
That said, Michael Steele has been a disappointment so far. He really should steer clear of TV appearances. His use of the term “baby” all the time doesn’t appeal to anyone.
He has some right ideas but execution has been poor.
119 Realist // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:37 pm
We are witnessing the end of the end of moderate Republicanism. The far right takeover is now nearly complete. While the GOP is saying “good riddance,” Democrats are welcoming a moderate like Specter with open arms–clear evidence that Democrats have become the Big Tent party.
120 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Well I love this – seems the clear majority on this “Con” site want us to be more like the Dems, including emulating their lack of scruples when it comes to winning. The moderates on this board want us to be more like the Dems in our policy positions as well. And to add insult to injury *I* get accused of being the troll! There is already a party that fits that description, and A. Specter just signed up with it today. I guess if we’re happy to settle for Socialism, we can just bite our tongues and look the other way when fellow Republicans advocate Socialized medicine, gun confiscations, homosexual marriage, and polite compromise with an “American” leader named Hussein!
121 krove // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Go get em Billy, you DA MAN. Keep your principles till the end. Go for it. Also
122 sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:50 pm
BillyFLA: “Well yeah, the Dems compromised with the baby killers, the anti-gun nuts, the muscle bound gay thugs that want to remake America in their own perverse image, etc, etc.”
Here’s something you probably didn’t know:
The Log Cabin Republicans is a group of gay Republicans. They got their start in the early 1970s in California, when they campaigned to defeat the Briggs Initiative. That Initiative would have banned gays from teaching in California public schools.
It might have passed anyway. But Ronald Reagan’s opposition to it proved decisive.
So I guess by your standards, Ronald Reagan was also a “RINO.”
And then there was Barry Goldwater, often considered to be the original “Mr. Conservative” even before Reagan. He was an advocate of gay civil rights on libertarian grounds; and in his later years, advocated gays serving in the military. Another RINO!
123 greg_barton // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Yes, Billy, the folks on here want you to be more like Democrats. They want you to win!
I, however, want you to be more like Republicans and wallow in the minority for a few generations so we Democrats can get real work done.
sinz54, Ronald Reagan was a RINO. That’s why Republicans promote him so much. It’s so they won’t think too hard and find out how many times he raised taxes and pandered to the gays.
124 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Well here’s a quote from the actual leader of the GOP, (M. Steele), cut and pasted directly from GOP.com. Thank God at least ONE Republican agrees with me:
“Let’s be honest-Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.
Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.”
125 ottovbvs // Apr 28, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Conservatives of the hard right variety withi 60% sway control the party which has been the situation for the past eight years at least. It’s what’s brought about the current situation.
126 MSheridan // Apr 28, 2009 at 6:38 pm
This really IS a red-letter day–I agree with NRO’s Andrew Stuttaford on something. He wrote:
************************************************
These remarks by Jim DeMint are not what I’d describe as grounds for good cheer:
“I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that dont have a set of beliefs.”
He’s missing the point.
If it comes to a choice, I’d rather have 60 Republicans in the Senate, however squishy some of the views of some in their ranks, than 60 Democrats who are all certain of theirs. Anyone who truly believes in limited government ought to understand that voting against can be as valid as voting for. If it takes a few Specters to see off a Democratic majority, so be it.
As for the idea that reducing the GOP to a rump of true believers (whatever that might actually mean: there are plenty on the right who interpret the terms “limited government” and “free people” in very different ways) is the essential first step in a Republican restoration, it is, I am afraid, a bad mistake. Wildernesses are, almost always, for losers.
127 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 6:50 pm
The so-called conservative party loses a couple of elections and all of a sudden its the fault of the real conservatives. I think its the fault of moron G. Bush’s (both of them). Borrow and spend to fund an unnecessary war, turn our (former) allies against us and create enemies faster than they could kill them. That’s what has passed for “Conservatism” in the past couple decades. Gee, how’d that work out for ya, GOP? Am I the ONLY one who sees that starting and getting bogged down in an unnecessary war on borrowed Chinese money is NOT conservative?!?!
128 ottovbvs // Apr 28, 2009 at 6:50 pm
“As for the idea that reducing the GOP to a rump of true believers (whatever that might actually mean: there are plenty on the right who interpret the terms “limited government” and “free people” in very different ways) is the essential first step in a Republican restoration, it is, I am afraid, a bad mistake. Wildernesses are, almost always, for losers.”
…….The Morlocks were let out of the cellar and they’ve taken over the house. They converse in this ridiculously hysterical language that sounds as if it comes from fringe nutcases rather than a mainstream party. You only need to listen to some of the dialogue from these folks. They are taking the party to marginalization.
129 ottovbvs // Apr 28, 2009 at 6:53 pm
“BillyFLA
wrote 1 minutes agoThe so-called conservative party loses a couple of elections and all of a sudden its the fault of the real conservatives. I think its the fault of moron G. Bush’s (both of them)”
Of course you had nothing whatever to do with voting for GWB and have never posted a positive comment about him in you life. Of course not. You’re reaping what you have sown.
130 conservative08 // Apr 28, 2009 at 7:02 pm
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers. – Ronald Reagan
131 conservative08 // Apr 28, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Arlen Specter= epic fail.
http://conservative09.blogspot.com
132 Robert L. Mayo // Apr 28, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Mr. Frum,
With respect, I think you’re wrong.
You are operating on the assumption that positioning on the ideological spectrum is the dominant factor in electoral success. If that were true then nominating a moderate conservative against a more extreme liberal would be an easy win for the GOP.
Yet Barack Obama is President.
Certainly, there are political extremes that are unacceptable to the vast majority of the electorate. Thankfully, neither David Duke nor William Ayres is electable. However, between those extremes I believe there is more ideological flexibility among voters than you realize.
Yes, there are hard core ideologues in both parties, but that does not describe the bulk of the electorate. For most voters ideology matters, but only to a limited degree. Voters also value a candidate (and a party) that rejects corruption, can competently govern, follows in office what was promised in campaigns, knows the principles it stands for and does not tolerate hypocrisy.
To demonstrate the relative importance of non-ideological factors in electoral success, as a thought experiment consider the following alternate history:
August 2003 – President Bush recognizes that his Iraq strategy is failing, fires Secretary Rumsfeld and embraces Gen. Patraeus’ counter insurgency strategy.
January 2004 – Congressional Republicans appoint a panel of retired Federal Judges to investigate allegations of corruption within the GOP and mercilessly reject any found guilty.
September 2004 – Republicans adopt a unilateral ban on earmarks.
January 2005 – Congressional Republicans are unified and use reconciliation to pass a voluntary alternative flat tax and free market health care reform.
September 2006 – Republicans cut wasteful spending and set the country on a path to a balanced budget.
If this, however unlikely, had been the history of the last 8 years, would the GOP be in total collapse today? I think the only fair answer is no. Yet none of these actions would have been ideological shifts.
Within a broad ideological range, voters will support candidates, and a party, that are seen as standing for honesty, integrity, competence and vision. Primary challenges may move the party to the right, but on a deeper level they are an attempt to force the party to be true to its core beliefs.
A left wing President and Congress were elected not because of their ideology, but because they were trusted. If Republicans ever hope to regain that trust, putting principles above politics is a necessary first step.
133 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Ottovbvs: I did NOT vote for W the second time, once he proved himself to be a reckless, non-Conservative that was ruining the GOP. And you’re right – I did not say anything positive about him after he led us into disaster. But I hardly think THAT is the reason for the failures of the GOP. Believe me, it was those Republicans who supported him BLINDLY into the disaster that he created which reflected badly on us. The best thing for the GOP to do is ADMIT Bush was a non-Con, and error, and apologize sincerely rather than keeping our collective heads up our butts, never admitting a mistake (much like W himself) and pretending all will be forgiven. If there’s one thing the GOP needs, it is to confront our failures rather than hand out bullshit about how the future will judge Bush kindly. God that makes me wanna puke and it makes all of us look as stupid and misguided as Bush. W Bush = epic fail, and he took the rest of the GOP with him!
134 danbmil99 // Apr 28, 2009 at 8:36 pm
A few choice lines from this grab-bag:
“when obama fails and he will fail…..”
“Constitutional Amendment that once and for all bans the abomination of homosexual “marriage”.”
“The truth is that the Republicans are going to be better off without the pretenders and the RINOs”
“What does “moderate” mean today as the Democrats keep shoving leftwards towards Communism?”
What’s a moderate to do? Clearly you don’t want my vote, so you won’t get it. Happy now?
135 snookie // Apr 28, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Well its just good clean fun watching the Republicans tear themselves apart from within. There was nothing at all conservative about Georgie boy but the Republicans all stayed silent even as he caused great harm to this country within and without. Not a peep was heard from the Repubs who crave authority and a daddy figure above all. You have the extremely inept Michael Steele saying “good riddance” like a child along with the bloviating of the Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh crowd. Now all the chickenhawks have come home to roost. Happy? I know I am.
136 InTheMiddle12 // Apr 28, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Mr. Mayo. You, along with many on this site, continue to misread President Obama. A President who doesn’t support gay marriage, gave a tax break to those making under $250k, has one wife, two kids, goes to Church, lives with his mother-in-law and holds classic family conservative values.
The GOP is as bad as it is NOT because of the things you stated but rather the denial that continues to permeate through the ranks. Until the GOP leaves behind the ridiculous immature partisanship that the electorate rejected, there will be no healthy GOP.
Arlen Spector is likely just the first. Don’t be surprised to see some Rs go Ds in the Congress too.
137 BillyFLA // Apr 28, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Snookie: I can see you’re a “D”, but that’s OK, at least we can agree on one thing, that it was GW Bush that led the suicide parade of us GOPers, and we (mostly) followed him like a bunch of idiots. And still can’t admit we did wrong!
138 sqrrrl // Apr 28, 2009 at 10:50 pm
As someone who would love to vote for conservative candidates but doesn’t, I’m completely sympathetic to the abandonment moderates feel. Specter is right to switch parties.
There are two fundamental problems with the GOP today; placing ideology above pragmatism and governance, and the hijacking of the party by social conservatives and the contradictions it introduces into the party platform.
Government by its very nature is about pragmatism and balancing competing interests for the common good. A party that allows no dissent, no moderation, and no compromise simply can not effective govern. Ever. The people of this country are smart enough to realize that, and they’re tired (at least I am) of the extremes at both end of the political spectrum and just want government that works. I’d love to see education reform that promotes competition and gives career paths to teachers. I’d love to the federal government reduced and more authority given to states. And I’d love to see spending controlled and debt reduced. I also know that there is a place for government and that it can be a very powerful and effective tool in improving everyone’s lives without being overly intrusive.
But the social conservatives are the bigger problem, particularly for people like myself that side more with the fiscal conservatives. The two positions simply aren’t compatible. Start with the premise that republicans are for more efficient and less intrusive government and believe that free markets are best at determining which business survive and which perish. Its a defensible position and there is a fair amount of science to it in economics. But those same economic principals apply to ideas and social values. If the population is smart enough to recognize and reward the best businesses and push those based on outdated models, isn’t it also smart enough to recognize and reward social values that have merit and discard those that are no longer relevant? Why are conservatives so afraid that social values are changing? Why is it OK to let GM and Chrysler or any of the banks fail, but not ‘traditional marriage’?
The pro-life agenda has similar contradictions. Beyond the fact that nobody is ‘pro-abortion’ and the debate from conservatives is just dishonest, the absolutist views don’t hold up. If it is never acceptable to take an innocent life under any condition, we’d have to change the way we do a lot of things. Police would never be able to carry or use a gun or engage in a dangerous high-speed pursuit in fear they may accidental kill an innocent bystander. We’d have to disband the armed forces, or at least substantially change our tactics in order to eliminate civilian casualties. The reason these sound ridiculous is because they are. We accept on a daily basis that a single innocent life is not greater than the common good. What everyone agrees on though is that in the pursuit of that common good that we don’t get callous or endanger life unnecessarily. The same applies to the issue of abortion. There is common ground on minimizing the number of abortions, on giving mothers options that preserve both lives. But there are cases where the best outcome is in sacrificing an innocent life, and so long as we are vigilant in making sure people treat that decision with the weight it demands we can find common ground.
But, of course, until republicans recognize that there *is* common ground and it is best reached through compromise and cooperation….
139 JoeTuesday // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:49 pm
I live in Los Angeles, and anytime you get a group of young professionals sitting around a table for dinner, a few similarities rise to the service. 1) We, and everyone we know is socially liberal–if it doesn’t cost a lot of money, and it’s not hurting anyone, the government should butt out. Gay marriage, abortion, stem cells, all of it–leave it alone. 2) We are all fiscally conservative, and would support difficult cuts during normal economic times to see a balanced federal, state, and local budget. 3) We have no choice but to vote D every 2-4 years, because there is simply NOBODY to speaks to our concerns in the R party. If the repub tent could expand to include people like me, they’d grow their rolls precipitously.
140 palomino70 // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:54 am
Many conservatives seem to think they can regain a majority by thumbing their noses at moderates; witness the self-reassuring refrains of “we lost because we weren’t conservative enough” and “if we kick out the RINO’s, we’ll be stronger”. But the conservative triumphs of recent electoral history–Reagan’s landslides, 1994 House takeover, even W’s victories–were achieved with significant support from moderates.
There’s a fundamental misconception informing much of the GOP’s recent rhetoric: that staying true to conservative principles and attracting or accommodating moderates are mutually exclusive endeavors. They aren’t; indeed all successful political parties do such things–it’s the art of politics. Until the GOP gives up the feel-good purges (and the fantasy that the base alone is enough to win) they’re likely to be a shrinking minority.
141 palomino70 // Apr 29, 2009 at 2:24 am
Sally, So you think Toomey can win by saying the following: “Drill baby drill. Deregulate banks. Global warming is a hoax.” Uh, I don’t think that’s a winning formula. He’s running in Pennsylvania, not Mississippi.
As for Palin, the sooner the GOP gets over her as their spokesmodel, the better. Remember the truism “you don’t get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression.” Well, she made a 1st impression, and it’s not the kind that gets you elected president. She’s a punch line.
142 ChristianMiller // Apr 29, 2009 at 4:50 am
If Frum et al can take the beltway blinders off for just a moment, they could see that this short-term setback will blossom into a huge long term gain.
We are going to see Spector run for his seat as a Democrat and many Democrats who have vilified him will end up voting for him. We are seeing the duplicity of Democrats – voters and politicians on full parade.
If Spector has any principles at all, he has just moderated the Democrats, and as a serial traitor I don’t expect him to walk in lock-step with Democrats, because then he will will get no publicity, which is definitely against his “principles”.
In fact, if Spector betrays Democrats half as much as he has betrayed Republicans it will be a net gain for Republican interests.
For all the blather about “ideological purity”, it is interesting that these same people say Republicans are “rudderless” and the electorate doesn’t know what they stand for. Yeah, that’s because the party, with the likes of Spector and McCain, is incoherent. You can’t have such a giant tent and a distinct message at the same time.
And Spector’s venality is on full display for everyone. Can’t get Republicans to vote for you? Become a Democrat! Anything to stay in power. I mean, the man is 78 years old! He could retire. He has an unbelievable retirement plan and plenty of money, but no, he’s going to become a Democrat instead. Says it all, baby!
Anyone who wants this type of politician in his/her party for near-term expediency is almost as bad as Spector himself, and is nothing more than a cheerleader for an elephant mascot, which in its’ own way, is a betrayal of American principles.
143 sinz54 // Apr 29, 2009 at 7:01 am
Robert L. Mayo sez: “A left wing President and Congress were elected not because of their ideology, but because they were trusted. If Republicans ever hope to regain that trust, putting principles above politics is a necessary first step.”
Your analysis is totally wrong.
American voters don’t elect candidates because they seem “principled.” We’ve got plenty of officeholders all across the land who aren’t exactly philosopher-kings.
Voters are very pragmatic about elections. They elect candidates whom they trust to actually solve problems the voters care about.
I have always believed that “Nothing succeeds like success.” You sell principles on the strength of your ability to apply those principles to solve real problems and achieve real successes.
Bush did NOT alienate the voters because of his principles or lack thereof.
He alienated the voters by plunging us into a counterinsurgency war in Iraq to find WMD that wasn’t there.
He alienated the voters again by presiding over the worst financial collapse since the 1970s, just two months after having assured our G-7 trading partners at the G-7 summit that the American economy was doing well.
If Republicans hope to win back the trust of the American voters, they have to show that they are competent, that they have real solutions to America’s problems.
The reason the GOP has fallen so low in the public’s esteem is that they don’t seem to have any solutions to today’s problems. In fact, they don’t even prioritize issues the way the rest of the nation does. To non-Republicans of all types, health care reform is a big issue; to the GOP base, it’s a non-issue. To the entire rest of the country, Goverment action is needed to stimulate the economy and get it humming again. To the GOP base, the economy naturally recovers by itself, just as Adam Smith said (and just as 20th century economists have refuted).
144 sinz54 // Apr 29, 2009 at 7:43 am
Franco: It is a SLANDER to accuse us of having “malleable principles.” We have FIRM principles. They are just not the same as yours.
Here are some of my principles:
1. A deep abiding respect for historical truth. I reject all forms of historical revisionism driven by ideology, including Amity Shlaes’ nonsense.
2. A deep abiding respect for scientific truth, the scientific method, and the work of scientists. Creationism is nonsense, and global warming really is happening
3. Anyone who is born in America has the Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ANYONE. That includes gays, lesbians, and the children born of immigrants, whether legal or illegal.
4. Free markets are the best mechanism for picking winners and losers. That means I reject socialism. But I also reject the corporatism of the GOP, where men like Phil Gramm huddled with industry lobbyists from Enron and other companies to craft special legislation to grant them favors. Enron would never have become the giant company it did (after which it crashed), if it hadn’t been for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which exempted its commodity futures trading from SEC oversight.
And those principles of mine are not “malleable.” I stand by them.
145 ChristianMiller // Apr 29, 2009 at 8:08 am
sinz, Well, I don’t see how your principles differ from Democratic party principles. I don’t disagree with your principles, as stated, myself, but it does depend on lots of definitions which you haven’t given. They are mostly platitudes and when government gets involved and makes and enforces actual laws – that is when the divergence happens.
Are people allowed to believe in Creationism if they choose. Isn’t that also the pursuit of happiness? I don’t believe in it myself, but I also believe I don’t have all the answers and that it is dangerous for a government to outlaw or even just disparage others beliefs.
Global warming whether you know it or not is a belief system. You believe some scientists and disbelieve others. You have no independent empirical evidence. You are entitled to your beliefs IMO. But you are as much a believer in Global warming as Creationists are believers in creationism.
As to # 4 which I concur, you must be livid at Spector’s stimulus vote like I am. How do we punish politicians who so radically diverge from our principles, reward them be re-electing them?
Please tell me where Spector is a man of any remote principle. Now if you can’t, then what kind of person is willing to go along with him based on his flimsy and erratic support for whatever principles you may have.
146 barker13 // Apr 29, 2009 at 8:10 am
Re: Sally Morem; 4:40 PM –
“If Toomey runs as a Tea Party Republican, he’ll go far.”
(*NOD*) (*THUMBS UP*)
Good start. Thank you! I’ll be chiming in with my own specifics after I get through reading the “new” posts on this thread. (*WINK*)
Re: Sinz54; 5:12 PM –
“barker13: Great! Your kind of Republican Party would be a reasonable choice for many voters.”
Thanks. (Er… I think.)
Compliments aside… any actual proposals, Sinz? You know… positive proactive suggestions rather than just venting over what disturbs you?
Hey… don’t get me wrong… though we often disagree, we also often agree – I’m not slamming you or even disagreeing with you on some of your points, but you’ve failed to share any position specific recommendations concerning the issues and policies Toomy should concentrate on and what specific proposals he should make and support.
“That Platform also demands a Constitutional Amendment which would deny birthright citizenship to children born in this country of immigrant parents.”
“Immigrants” or ILLEGAL aliens, Sinz…???
Tsk, tsk… oh, Sinz… why did you have to lie…??? It just DESTROYS your credibility!!!
Here’s what’s ACTUALLY called for in said platform:
“7. We support a Constitutional amendment that would deny U.S. citizenship to any child born in the United States if neither parent is a legal resident.”
Damn it, Sinz… how the heck can people honestly debate if some refuse to be… er… honest?
(*SIGH*)
BILL
147 barker13 // Apr 29, 2009 at 8:34 am
Re: Realist; 5:32 PM –
“Even Pat Bucahan says the party is too White.”
And Pat’s right… as he usually is. (*SHRUG*)
See, this is where the GOP needs to delink from Wall Street Journal “Greed is Good” types and pay attention to the Buchanans, Dobbs, and yes… even Naders.
Now don’t get me wrong – the WSJ is overall pretty much 90% on target regarding editorial positions, but they – and other “$2,000 suit, $200 tie Republicans” – worship far too uncritically at the shrine of “Free Trade” and don’t pay enough attention to either “Fair Trade” or nationalism.
Yep. I said it. Nationalism. America first.
This doesn’t mean “Fortress America” nor does it mean we strive for total self-sufficiency turning our backs on the world economy. No. It simply means that the GOP needs to show it gives a damn that NATIVE BORN BLACK AMERICANS are unemployed and underemployed (in the best as well as the worst times!) in scandalous numbers and that illegal alien labor directly and negatively impacts them while enabling the “upper classes” – as likely if not more so to be Democrats – to exploit illegal labor.
And no… to anticipate knee jerk responses… I’m not calling for the GOP to simply and cynically create/exploit a wedge between blacks and Hispanics. I also believe the GOP needs to pound home that we’re not “anti-immigrant” nor “anti-Hispanic,” but rather that just as we care first and foremost for our own black American citizens, we also care first and foremost for our own CITIZENS of Hispanic extent, LEGAL residents of Hispanic decent, and that as long as our minority CITIZENS are still behind the curve as concerns achieving the American Dream that THEY will be our national priority… not foreigners… and certainly not foreigners who break our laws.
Beyond all this, the GOP needs to be the Party of ALL citizens… of ALL American workers. We need to be the Party that opposes outsourcing, that opposes offshoring, that wants all Americans to have access to jobs that afford a middle class existence for most and the opportunity of upward mobility for all.
Anyway… more later.
BILL
148 barker13 // Apr 29, 2009 at 8:39 am
Re: Realist; 5:37 PM –
“While the GOP is saying “good riddance,” Democrats are welcoming a moderate like Specter with open arms–clear evidence that Democrats have become the Big Tent party.”
And hopefully these so-called “moderates,” if they actually are moderates, will temper the hard Leftism of the Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party.
Yes… hopefully the Democratic Party will be pulled to the Right by their new “moderate” brethren.
(*WINK*)
BILL
149 barker13 // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:11 am
Re: Sinz54; 5:50 PM –
Sinz. I’m with you on pushing for a more libertarian leaning conservatism, but when it comes to social issues, we also need to ensure we’re defending constitutionalism.
Gay rights. Perfect example!
Sinz… you know and I know and indeed we all know that the Founders never meant the Constitution to be read in such a way as to REQUIRE gay marriage be given legal status nor indeed can anyone truly believe in all sincerity that the Founders would have viewed state laws against gay marriage to be unconstitutional.
Right? Can we at the very least acknowledge reality…???
Yes… I agree with you on both personal preference/belief grounds (libertarian) as well as pragmatic grounds that the GOP should support – or at the very least NOT OPPOSE – civil same gender unions and not “preach” against even gay marriage as allowed state by state by each state’s democratic mandate (direct popular ballot or legislature passed law). At the same time, the GOP should on constitutional principle oppose activist judges and courts “creating” supposed “rights” in direct opposition to the expressed will of the People and/or their duly elected representatives.
Following me…???
I’m a conservative. I’m a libertarian-leaning conservative. I’m a libertarian-leaning constitutionalist conservative! And that’s the perspective I believe the GOP Party establishment should emulate.
The “Religious Right” aren’t my enemies and they shouldn’t be yours. These folks hold sincere and historically speaking rational views. These views need to be respected even if or when we disagree.
Take abortion. Me? In simplest terms I believe abortion should be pretty much legal and (for adults) unrestricted during the first trimester, pretty much illegal in the third trimester (unless it’s undeniable that the mother’s life is at risk and their’s a choice to be made between most likely saving the mother OR the baby, and as for the second trimester… that’s where the true debate should be centered.
IN ANY CASE, THOUGH… do you find folks who believe that legally protected life begins at conception to be horrible, evil disgusting people? I don’t. I assume you don’t. At the other extreme, I certainly do consider anyone who would abort a fetus at eight months… nine months… let’s go all the way and think “partial birth abortion”… as an exercise in “late term birth control” to be a horrible, vile human being.
What I’m trying to get across is that there’s a difference between respectful policy disagreement leading to civil debate and accepting true evil as anything less than true evil. Yes, a dedicated “pro-lifer” who would blow up or support the blowing up of an abortion clinic is a terrorist or terrorism supporter unworthy of respect. Yet a dedicated “pro-lifer” who peacefully protests abortion is just someone with whom you might disagree. At the other extreme there’s those who would kill an unborn full-term or near full-term viable baby for any reason at all including “convenience” based upon “second thoughts.” These folks are in my humble opinion NOT worthy of respect.
BILL
150 barker13 // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:17 am
Re: Robert L. Mayo; 7:13 PM –
(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)
BRAVO!
RIGHT ON…!!!
(*THUMBS UP*)
BILL
151 steveb // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:28 am
Republicans need to hold on to moderates, even extreme ones like Specter. If you look at congressional records objectively you can see why. Democratic Sens. Nelson, Bayh and Lieberman have been given a lot of praise for their somewhat conservative stands over the years; and I would venture to guess the Republicans would be glad to have any of them switch parties and join the Republican ranks. In fact in 2008 many did lobby Lieberman to cross over. Ironically, Specter himself was quoted as being all for the Lieberman switch.
I would like to see him vote with Republicans in September, Specter said. Hes practically there. That would have the consequence of giving us a Republican Senate.
Now, if Republicans are so eager to celebrate centrist Democrats who agree with them some of the time, why are they so unwilling to hold onto centrist Republicans who agree with them most of the time? According to The Political Guide, since 1990, Arlen Specter has voted with the majority of his party 72.9% of the time and missed only 2.8% of the votes. In all likelihood PA is going to elect a Democrat in 2010 and the Republican party will miss out on those potential votes.
Believe me, I am no big fan of Specter and others like him who often cross the aisle and vote for things like the recent stimulus bill. However, I’d rather have them then lose a seat to the other side
152 barker13 // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:39 am
Re: BillyFLA; 7:19 PM –
I regret voting to re-elect Bush in ‘04.
Still… to be fair… Bush didn’t really go off the deep end till his second term was underway and absent hindsight…
(*SHRUG*)
Other than commission, I blame Bush most for his omissions. If only he’d used the bully pulpit to lead the American People and Congress (particularly Republicans in Congress who controlled Congress) away from corruption and fiscal irresponsibility and towards honesty, integrity, and true conservative economic values.
He wouldn’t use his veto. He wouldn’t defend “us” (the American People) against “them” (the GOP appropriators) and by enabling Congress’ excesses while under Republican control he allowed the GOP to provide the rope ultimately used to hang them in ‘06 and later ‘08.
To pull back and “defend” Bush for a moment…
(*SIGH*)
I believe the guy actually believed he “had” to go along with RINO Congressional nonsense in order to win their agreement to let him do whatever he felt necessary to “win” the “war on terror.”
Yep. He gave the Congressional GOP carte blanche on domestic spending in exchange for them giving him carte blanche on military and security issues.
Of course I believe it was a lousy bargain (and unnecessary to boot!), but in the final analysis I believe Bush was SINCERE in believing he was doing “what needed to be done” in order to safeguard the American People from terrorism.
(*SHRUG*)
I often wonder… how would things have been different – and would they have worked out better from my perspective – if within hours, days, weeks, or months of being re-elected Bush would have fallen into a non-life-threatening coma (or create your own scenario!) leading to Cheney serving out Bush’s second term.
In terms of “controlling” the Republican Party and Republican Congressional Caucus, I wonder if a “President Cheney” would have proactively used every power at his disposal as “Head of Government,” “Head of State,” and “Titular Head of the Republican Party” to get the RINO Congress on board with true conservative principles (cut the spending… cut the growth of government… root out the corruption…) and thus perhaps reversed the tarnishing of the Republican Brand or… would a President Cheney have worked WITH the RINO Congress… stoked their pursuit of power by whatever means necessary?
Oh, well… we’ll never know.
BILL
153 barker13 // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:42 am
Re: Steveb; wrote 11 minutes ago –
I dispute your premise.
I for one never called for nor would I have supporting bringing Lieberman into the GOP.
BILL
154 steveb // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:47 am
Republicans need to hold on to moderates, even extreme ones like Specter. If you look at congressional records objectively you can see why. Democratic Sens. Nelson, Bayh and Lieberman have been given a lot of praise for their somewhat conservative stands over the years; and I would venture to guess the Republicans would be glad to have any of them switch parties and join the Republican ranks. In fact in 2008 many did lobby Lieberman to cross over. Ironically, Specter himself was quoted as being all for the Lieberman switch.
I would like to see him vote with Republicans in September, Specter said. Hes practically there. That would have the consequence of giving us a Republican Senate.
Now, if Republicans are so eager to celebrate centrist Democrats who agree with them some of the time, why are they so unwilling to hold onto centrist Republicans who agree with them most of the time? According to The Political Guide, since 1990, Arlen Specter has voted with the majority of his party 72.9% of the time and missed only 2.8% of the votes. In all likelihood PA is going to elect a Democrat in 2010 and the Republican party will miss out on those potential votes.
Believe me, I am no big fan of Specter and others like him who often cross the aisle and vote for things like the recent stimulus bill. However, I’d rather have them then lose a seat to the other side
155 barker13 // Apr 29, 2009 at 10:13 am
Re: Snookie; 8:43 PM –
“There was nothing at all conservative about Georgie boy…”
Well… let’s not overstate the case. “Northing…???”
Bush wasn’t *my* idea of a true conservative, but depending upon how you define conservatism he was seen as more conservative than McCain. Bush’s economic policies were surface conservative (lower taxes) without being honestly conservative (lower spending). Obviously on social issues he was pretty much doctrinaire “Religious Right.” Still… I and many other would dispute whether this in and of itself is REAL conservatism vs. conservatism as seen through a libertarian sense of personal freedom.
“…but the Republicans all stayed silent even as he caused great harm to this country within and without. Not a peep was heard from the Repubs who crave authority and a daddy figure above all.”
Bullshit. (*SHRUG*)
When and where Bush was right… I said he was right. Where and when he was wrong… I said he was wrong. And that goes for the RINO Congresses of 2001-2006 too.
Nor was I alone, Snookie. (“Snookie”… ha! ha!… cute)
It’s because folks like me do have limits to what we’re willing to accept that Al D’Amato was defeated in ‘98, why the RINO Congress was “dismissed” in ‘08, why George Herbert Walker Bush lost his bid for re-election in ‘92… and so on and so forth.
You’d be surprised and perhaps amazed by how many of us actually have principles we place above self-interested so-called pragmatism.
(*WINK*)
BILL
156 sqrrrl // Apr 29, 2009 at 11:50 am
Barker: “…you know and I know and indeed we all know that the Founders never meant the Constitution to be read in such a way as to REQUIRE gay marriage be given legal status nor indeed can anyone truly believe in all sincerity that the Founders would have viewed state laws against gay marriage to be unconstitutional.”
Yes, you’re right that they probably didn’t think of gay marriage. They also didn’t think of all the amendments that have been added to the constitution since it was first drafted. But the fact that had the foresight to define a process to amend the constitution demonstrates they understood that society changes and that the constitution wasn’t perfect then nor would it always be in the future. Who cares if 200+ years ago gay rights weren’t a big concern? Slave rights weren’t much of a concern back then either. Society has evolved, so has the constitution and our understanding of it.
Barker: ” the GOP should on constitutional principle oppose activist judges and courts “creating” supposed “rights” in direct opposition to the expressed will of the People and/or their duly elected representatives.”
We’ve had ‘judicial activism’ since 1803 when it was established that the court has the power and responsibility to not only apply the laws, but to ensure that laws are consistent with the constitution. So yes, if the court must still evaluate and reject laws that are incompatible with the rights outlined in the constitution (many of which are vague and broad, like the 14th amendments “equal protection” clause) regardless of the popularity of the views expressed in that law. If the will of the people is strong enough, they can try to amend the constitution so that the laws would be consistent and protected against judicial review.
Don’t get me wrong, there are occasional court decisions I think are way off base and not grounded in any reasonable interpretation of the law or constitution, but far too often people dismiss unpopular court decisions as ‘judicial activism’ without really understanding history and the role the court plays.
157 Sally Morem // Apr 29, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“Lets take this moment to nail some colors to the mast. I submit it is better for conservatives to have 60% sway within a majority party than to have 100% control of a minority party.”
Not if that 40 % keeps moving leftward. Conservatives will lose by default by caving into the moderates who keep drifting leftward along with the Dems they seek to appease. And America will lose, is losing big time as every single freedom is stripped away by Dems and their oh so understanding moderate allies.
158 Sally Morem // Apr 29, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Why the asymmetry? Why is it so important for Republicans to cross the aisle in mute admiration for statism? Why is it also perfectly understandable for Pelosi to crack down on the conservative and moderate Dems in the House who may be tempted to cross the aisle to help Republicans.
Why do moderates tacitly assume that liberals are the kind and compassionate ones, and conservatives are uncaring, uncompassionate, evildoers?
Again, why the asymmetry? Any truth tellers out there willing to rat out the moderates?
159 Sally Morem // Apr 29, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Why are moderates so concerned with gay marriage and gay rights. As soon as the liberals take full control, they won’t give _____ for gays. Why do I say such a thing? Because liberals like to control everything, and I do mean everything.
Once they gain control, you can kiss your sexual freedom goodbye. They’ll come after you based on their deep concern for public health. You gays, you swingers, you bed hoppers–you’ll be painted as a threat, spreading your diseases throughout the population.
Just as they’ve cracked down on smoking, and are now beginning to crack down on food, so they will crack down on your evil ways. Make no mistake.
Once property rights are killed and political rights are killed, so will “privacy” rights.
160 illwilly // Apr 29, 2009 at 12:58 pm
You are insane Sally
161 ldkrn // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:00 pm
“Why do moderates tacitly assume that liberals are the kind and compassionate ones, and conservatives are uncaring, uncompassionate, evildoers?”
Well, because history mostly bears that out. Ask immigrants, gay people, working women, anti-war activists-basically anyone who isn’t a white, Christian conservative-how kind and compassionate conservatives have been to them over the years, and there’s your answer.
162 ldkrn // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:03 pm
“I submit it is better for conservatives to have 60% sway within a majority party than to have 100% control of a minority party.”
Sorry, David. For conservatives, all that means is that 60% of the party will be intolerant bullies, working for ideological purity, and there goes the neighborhood again.
163 ldkrn // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:07 pm
“If Toomey runs as a Tea Party Republican, he’ll go far.”
Yeah, as far as 21% will take him.
*rolls eyes*
If what I’m reading here is representative of conservative thought as a collective, you guys are going to be in the woods for a long, long time…
164 Gil-Galad // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Frum, you hack, it was Bush with you at his side that ruined the GOP, and inflicted serious damage on the economy.
165 barker13 // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Re: Sqrrrl; 11:50 AM –
“…all the amendments that have been added to the constitution since it was first drafted.”
Umm… Sqrrrl… all the amendments that have been added are… er… AMENDMENTS that have been ADDED.
(*SMILE*)
(And if you don’t get it… well… another black mark against the American educational system.)
(*CHUCKLE*)
“But the fact that had the foresight to define a process to amend the constitution demonstrates they understood that society changes and that the constitution wasn’t perfect then nor would it always be in the future.”
Which… er… is again WHY we have an amendment process and why when someone wants to change the Constitution (adding to it… subtracting from it…) the only true Constitutional tools available are the amendment process itself or a full blown Constitutional Convention.
(*SHRUG*)
“We’ve had ‘judicial activism’ since 1803…”
At least! Still… doesn’t make it right. AND… even if you think it is right… doesn’t mean Congress doesn’t ultimately retain the authority to simply override judicial review… assuming they had the balls, the numbers, and the support of the Executive Branch.
We’re going a bit far afield into Constitutional theory here, but for what it’s worth, I believe that it were just explained to the American People how fundamentally undemocratic this whole concept of “judicial review” is when misused that they’d “get” it.
Anyway… broad theory aside… what was your point again? What specifically were you disagreeing with me on…???
“Don’t get me wrong, there are occasional court decisions I think are way off base and not grounded in any reasonable interpretation of the law or constitution…”
Then here we meet on common ground.
(*WINK*) (*HANDSHAKE*)
BILL
P.S. – Frankly, I’d like to see a Constitutional Amendment defining the High Court’s role and power with regard to judicial review and specifically the power to overturn (judicially veto) democratically passed legislation.
Perhaps… and this is just off the top of my head… something along the lines of:
In order to declare a law or action unconstitutional, seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices would have to act in concert – a supermajority.
Congress – by two-thirds majority – would have the power to override the Court’s decision acting within 30 days of the Court’s decision.
Anyway… just thinking aloud. (*SMILE*) Any thoughts on the broad concept?
166 R // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Yes I’m HAPPY! I’ll be even happier when John McCain is no longer pretending he is a Conservative.
It will remove from the Senate one more Republican who doesnt represent me. This removes a gigantic obstacle to party unity, morale, and thus turnout and votes.
Washington Post-ABC News Poll: 35% of Americans consider themselves Conservatives, while only 23% consider themselves liberal.
Even though many Conservatives stayed home, McCain still got close to 60,000,000 votes. Conservatism is not going away anytime soon. We have to stop letting the Liberals and the media define us. And David Frum should stop trying to drag the Republicans to the center.
167 barker13 // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Re: ldkrn; wrote 35 minutes ago –
“Yeah, as far as 21% will take him.”
So you’re making the prediction that come November, 2010, assuming Toomy is the GOP candidate vs. either Specter or an as yet unidentified Democrat, that Toomy will get no more than 21% of the vote?
Well… I suppose if Toomy is the nominee… we’ll see.
(How’d your 401K and other investments fair over the past year or so, ldkrn? Not being nosy… just trying to gauge how your bets usually pay off.) (*WINK*)
Oh… and it’s not “*rolls eyes*” it’s (*ROLLING MY EYES*)
(*WINK*)
BILL
You must log in to post a comment.