Comments on: Base? What Base? http://www.frumforum.com/base-what-base Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: gerrysh http://www.frumforum.com/base-what-base/comment-page-5#comment-49943 gerrysh Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:27:43 +0000 #comment-49943 Way to project your inadequacies on others, larryo. Way to project your inadequacies on others, larryo.

]]> By: InTheMiddle12 http://www.frumforum.com/base-what-base/comment-page-5#comment-44372 InTheMiddle12 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:32:40 +0000 #comment-44372 I really wonder about all of this Reagan worship. It seems to me Reaganomics has not only failed, it ultimately ignited a greed (remember the 80's?) that's driven Americans further from conservative principles than any possible New Deal II. The history on Reagan is still not in, as it isn't in on Clinton either. It's too soon but early indicators are that the entire government is the problem and it must be killed philosophy was the worst idea the nation grew from since slavery. Where is all the discussion about the Wall Street GOPers begging for welfare now from the very system they hoped to kill? And let's not even talk about the 100s of thousands dead from HIV / AIDS that Reagan never acknowledged existed causing some 5-8 year delay in drugs, research and services to the sick. I'm sorry. I can't jump on the Reagan was the best band wagon until everything is analyzed honestly. I really wonder about all of this Reagan worship. It seems to me Reaganomics has not only failed, it ultimately ignited a greed (remember the 80’s?) that’s driven Americans further from conservative principles than any possible New Deal II. The history on Reagan is still not in, as it isn’t in on Clinton either. It’s too soon but early indicators are that the entire government is the problem and it must be killed philosophy was the worst idea the nation grew from since slavery. Where is all the discussion about the Wall Street GOPers begging for welfare now from the very system they hoped to kill? And let’s not even talk about the 100s of thousands dead from HIV / AIDS that Reagan never acknowledged existed causing some 5-8 year delay in drugs, research and services to the sick. I’m sorry. I can’t jump on the Reagan was the best band wagon until everything is analyzed honestly.

]]> By: coleman http://www.frumforum.com/base-what-base/comment-page-5#comment-48597 coleman Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:38:50 +0000 #comment-48597 I think David's analysis is a bull's-eye: Limbaugh speaks for a segment of the GOP that is loud, but shrinking. A steady diet of rancor and resentment simply fails to inspire most independents and moderates. In fact, Talk Radio is off-putting to most Americans, appealing mostly to a core group of nativists, homophobes, and pro-life evangelicals who enjoy the bombastic rhetoric. Michael Steele has a tremendous opportunity to move the party in a new direction, but his credibility will hinge on his willingness to counter and confront Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter when they go too far. And to invite gays, Latinos, blacks, Muslims, Jews, and people who are pro choice to take another look at the GOP. If Steele is passive or tries to placate Talk Radio, he will quickly be deemed impotent and irrelevant. I agree with many of the pro-Limbaugh people that Rush is very smart, often right on economic issues, and at times more of an entertainer than a pundit. But look, he's also a thrice divorced egomaniac with a high school education, a man with a history of drug problems who has never run for public office, who the minute Bush's helicopter lifted off, grabbed the mantle of party leadership. David wrote something quite perceptive: "Most Americans are not ideological at all - and they gravitate to the less ideological party...." Steele needs to make the party less ideological, or nothing will change. I think David’s analysis is a bull’s-eye: Limbaugh speaks for a segment of the GOP that is loud, but shrinking. A steady diet of rancor and resentment simply fails to inspire most independents and moderates.
In fact, Talk Radio is off-putting to most Americans, appealing mostly to a core group of nativists, homophobes, and pro-life evangelicals who enjoy the bombastic rhetoric.
Michael Steele has a tremendous opportunity to move the party in a new direction, but his credibility will hinge on his willingness to counter and confront Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter when they go too far. And to invite gays, Latinos, blacks, Muslims, Jews, and people who are pro choice to take another look at the GOP.
If Steele is passive or tries to placate Talk Radio, he will quickly be deemed impotent and irrelevant.
I agree with many of the pro-Limbaugh people that Rush is very smart, often right on economic issues, and at times more of an entertainer than a pundit.
But look, he’s also a thrice divorced egomaniac with a high school education, a man with a history of drug problems who has never run for public office, who the minute Bush’s helicopter lifted off, grabbed the mantle of party leadership.
David wrote something quite perceptive: “Most Americans are not ideological at all – and they gravitate to the less ideological party….”
Steele needs to make the party less ideological, or nothing will change.

]]> By: Chekote http://www.frumforum.com/base-what-base/comment-page-5#comment-49078 Chekote Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:33:48 +0000 #comment-49078 A few observations. Most people who talk about Rush never listen to his show regularly. They get their information about him through the MSM or other leftie organizations. I have been listening to Rush pretty much every day since 1995. Mac lost because he mishandled the economic crisis. He first came out against the AIG bailout. Then when Bush went ahead with it. Mac reversed his position. (Really stupid thing to do since is not like Bush would have stopped the bailout because of Mac's position. He then compounded the problem by suspending his campaign. He threatened to be a no show for the first debate and then sheepishly showed up. More, he had little to show for going to DC. And ended up voting for that pork laden TARP bill after running around for months threatening to "name names" and "make them famous". And let's not forget that Obama had $600 million to spend convincing the American people that he was a tax cutter. In the end, most voters said that Obama was more likely to cut their taxes than Mac. When the GOP loses to the Dems on taxes it is over. A few observations. Most people who talk about Rush never listen to his show regularly. They get their information about him through the MSM or other leftie organizations. I have been listening to Rush pretty much every day since 1995. Mac lost because he mishandled the economic crisis. He first came out against the AIG bailout. Then when Bush went ahead with it. Mac reversed his position. (Really stupid thing to do since is not like Bush would have stopped the bailout because of Mac’s position. He then compounded the problem by suspending his campaign. He threatened to be a no show for the first debate and then sheepishly showed up. More, he had little to show for going to DC. And ended up voting for that pork laden TARP bill after running around for months threatening to “name names” and “make them famous”. And let’s not forget that Obama had $600 million to spend convincing the American people that he was a tax cutter. In the end, most voters said that Obama was more likely to cut their taxes than Mac. When the GOP loses to the Dems on taxes it is over.

]]> By: Heritage1776 http://www.frumforum.com/base-what-base/comment-page-5#comment-47476 Heritage1776 Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:22:29 +0000 #comment-47476 Everything you say here David is pretty much spot on. The only point of contention that I have is that you put Bill O'Reilly in the same sack as Rush, Hannity, and Coulter. He is simply not. As Jon Stewart told him, "I like you. You're not ideological." This is well known, despite constant efforts by the Left to paint him as "extreme" or even "fringe" just because he shouts on his show. He is decidely right-of-center, and holds certain views that iritate the Rush loyalists quite a bit. He's even called Rush more "entertainment" than "political commentary." The broad paintbrush is dangerous in the hands of anybody, David. Please be mindful. And, of course, thank you for an otherwise excellently informative article. Everything you say here David is pretty much spot on. The only point of contention that I have is that you put Bill O’Reilly in the same sack as Rush, Hannity, and Coulter. He is simply not. As Jon Stewart told him, “I like you. You’re not ideological.” This is well known, despite constant efforts by the Left to paint him as “extreme” or even “fringe” just because he shouts on his show. He is decidely right-of-center, and holds certain views that iritate the Rush loyalists quite a bit. He’s even called Rush more “entertainment” than “political commentary.”

The broad paintbrush is dangerous in the hands of anybody, David. Please be mindful. And, of course, thank you for an otherwise excellently informative article.

]]> By: buzzricksons http://www.frumforum.com/base-what-base/comment-page-5#comment-55269 buzzricksons Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:02:57 +0000 #comment-55269 The thing is, Reagan came to the presidency with experience running a large state well, running a union in a complicated industry (from a labor environment point of view), and having spent decades immersing himself in these issues and coming to his own understanding of policy. That's in part due to his engagement as a public speaker for GE (or whoever it was), where he was out preparing his own speeches all the time. Not only was he a gifted speaker and speechmaker, he was a proven political executive of a large enterprise (CA) and could debate policy from a position of understanding many facets and nuances of the issues. Arguably, Clinton had many (but perhaps not all) of those talents to recommend him as well, although he floundered as president for his own reasons. I have not heard tell of anyone with those talents currently in the GOP stables. Therefore, I do not believe the party is going to coalesce around a standard-bearing candidate anytime soon. However, it's early yet; '12 is still a ways off, you say? Reagan almost beat Ford in '76; who from the sad sacks of '08 are you looking towards with great hope and inspiration in '12? The thing is, Reagan came to the presidency with experience running a large state well, running a union in a complicated industry (from a labor environment point of view), and having spent decades immersing himself in these issues and coming to his own understanding of policy. That’s in part due to his engagement as a public speaker for GE (or whoever it was), where he was out preparing his own speeches all the time. Not only was he a gifted speaker and speechmaker, he was a proven political executive of a large enterprise (CA) and could debate policy from a position of understanding many facets and nuances of the issues. Arguably, Clinton had many (but perhaps not all) of those talents to recommend him as well, although he floundered as president for his own reasons. I have not heard tell of anyone with those talents currently in the GOP stables. Therefore, I do not believe the party is going to coalesce around a standard-bearing candidate anytime soon. However, it’s early yet; ‘12 is still a ways off, you say? Reagan almost beat Ford in ‘76; who from the sad sacks of ‘08 are you looking towards with great hope and inspiration in ‘12?

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/base-what-base/comment-page-5#comment-53499 sinz54 Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:40:12 +0000 #comment-53499 BethuneDaja: No one is suggesting that the GOP should abandon the principles of free enterprise and fiscal responsibility. But the specific policies we advocate can't just regurgitate what worked 28 years ago. What we saw last year was Republicans waving around Reaganomics (or 1980s style supply-side economics) as the panacea that would get us out of our current economic troubles. That was all we had to offer: Let's do the exact same things Reagan did, because what the heck, they worked 28 years ago. I'm not an economist. I don't know what the conservative solution to deleveraging should be. But I do know it ain't supply-side economics. BethuneDaja: No one is suggesting that the GOP should abandon the principles of free enterprise and fiscal responsibility. But the specific policies we advocate can’t just regurgitate what worked 28 years ago. What we saw last year was Republicans waving around Reaganomics (or 1980s style supply-side economics) as the panacea that would get us out of our current economic troubles. That was all we had to offer: Let’s do the exact same things Reagan did, because what the heck, they worked 28 years ago. I’m not an economist. I don’t know what the conservative solution to deleveraging should be. But I do know it ain’t supply-side economics.

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/base-what-base/comment-page-4#comment-44542 sinz54 Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:26:39 +0000 #comment-44542 ErinScott: Your points are all excellent. I have just one more point to add: The entire Republican Party, not just McCain, was left flat-footed by the sudden economic collapse during last summer. Remember that in the GOP debates during the primary season, every Republican candidate (except Huckabee) had stoutly maintained that the economy was in good shape "thanks to the policies of President Bush." No Republicans saw the storm coming; and after the storm hit, the GOP didn't speak convincingly as to what to do about it. The congressional Republicans seemed divided between nihilism (let the U.S. economy collapse if need be, eventually the free market will correct itself) and a wholly inappropriate application of Reaganomics to the totally different situation we faced. The economic crisis we are facing is being driven by massive deleveraging. And the GOP didn't have any proposals for dealing with it. The Democrats pitched this as "Great Depression II," requiring "New Deal II." Incorrect as that may be, it was simple to explain and appeal to history--and the voters bought it. ErinScott: Your points are all excellent. I have just one more point to add: The entire Republican Party, not just McCain, was left flat-footed by the sudden economic collapse during last summer. Remember that in the GOP debates during the primary season, every Republican candidate (except Huckabee) had stoutly maintained that the economy was in good shape “thanks to the policies of President Bush.” No Republicans saw the storm coming; and after the storm hit, the GOP didn’t speak convincingly as to what to do about it. The congressional Republicans seemed divided between nihilism (let the U.S. economy collapse if need be, eventually the free market will correct itself) and a wholly inappropriate application of Reaganomics to the totally different situation we faced. The economic crisis we are facing is being driven by massive deleveraging. And the GOP didn’t have any proposals for dealing with it. The Democrats pitched this as “Great Depression II,” requiring “New Deal II.” Incorrect as that may be, it was simple to explain and appeal to history–and the voters bought it.

]]> By: bethunedaja http://www.frumforum.com/base-what-base/comment-page-4#comment-40696 bethunedaja Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:13:33 +0000 #comment-40696 It was a different electorate in 1980 according to everyone but Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine and he ignored those like JJWFromME who believe that Reagan represented a different electorate and a time long past. Conservative principles like limited government, free enterprize and free markets, individual liberty, self-discipline, individual responsibilty, equality of opportunity, equality before the law, constitutional originalism and a strong national defense never go out of style. Such underlying principles can be used as the basis for policies today in the area of the environment, health care, social services, education, crime, immigration, the judiciary etc. that are very different from the policies advocated by the Democrats and Barack Obama. Articulate and principled candidates can adapt these principles noted above going forward just like Reagan adapted them to the electorates of 1980 and 1984. It was a different electorate in 1980 according to everyone but Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine and he ignored those like JJWFromME who believe that Reagan represented a different electorate and a time long past. Conservative principles like limited government, free enterprize and free markets, individual liberty, self-discipline, individual responsibilty, equality of opportunity, equality before the law, constitutional originalism and a strong national defense never go out of style. Such underlying principles can be used as the basis for policies today in the area of the environment, health care, social services, education, crime, immigration, the judiciary etc. that are very different from the policies advocated by the Democrats and Barack Obama. Articulate and principled candidates can adapt these principles noted above going forward just like Reagan adapted them to the electorates of 1980 and 1984.

]]> By: bethunedaja http://www.frumforum.com/base-what-base/comment-page-4#comment-44156 bethunedaja Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:00:32 +0000 #comment-44156 Also, David you should continue to read National Review on Line. Maggie Gallagher has a comment, "Obama v. Rush," in The Corner. And if you really want to know why Rush has become Obama's punching bag please read Maggie's comment. This is not about Rush, David, and you are playing right into Obama's hands by implying and acknowledging that you think it is. As Maggie puts it, "Rush is absolutely right, this is not about Rush: it's about Obama having his cake (stimulus) and eating it too (blaming the Republicans and corporate America - not Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Democrats) for the recession. Also, David you should continue to read National Review on Line. Maggie Gallagher has a comment, “Obama v. Rush,” in The Corner. And if you really want to know why Rush has become Obama’s punching bag please read Maggie’s comment. This is not about Rush, David, and you are playing right into Obama’s hands by implying and acknowledging that you think it is. As Maggie puts it, “Rush is absolutely right, this is not about Rush: it’s about Obama having his cake (stimulus) and eating it too (blaming the Republicans and corporate America – not Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Democrats) for the recession.

]]>