RSS Feed MenuFrom David Brooks’ column today:
Just months after the election and the humiliation, everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist.
They pay more attention to Rush’s imaginary millions than to the real voters down the street. The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.
The rise of Beck, Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the rest has correlated almost perfectly with the decline of the G.O.P. But it’s not because the talk jocks have real power. It’s because they have illusory power, because Republicans hear the media mythology and fall for it every time.
balconesfault // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:55 am
chekote: This is why I didn’t understand why McCain was so concerned about pleasing the “base”, i.e. radio talk show listeners, in his selection of a VP.
I don’t think he wanted to be attending rallies throughout the fall with hundreds of people in attendance, instead fo thousands.
But one has to remember that the Religious Right has always been willing to play the long game. In this case, they really had no interest in McCain winning, and were willing to withhold their support for what they already viewed as a likely losing cause in order to “prove their power”. McCain understood this, and cowtowed by putting Palin on his ticket without almost any real familiarity with her except that fundamentalists loved her, and fellow neocon William Kristol was willing to testify for her.
For the Dr. Dobson wing, this worked great. They got tons of fundraising off of Palin, and leapfrogged her over a list of other far more experienced and qualified candidates for 2012. And if she loses in 2012 … even if she gets the nomination and loses in the general election – you can bet she isn’t going away any time soon.
balconesfault // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:59 am
ChekoteRush and others attacked Mac and Huck throughout the primaries and yet said candidates came in first and second.
Yeah – but check out the success of Operation Chaos!
Meanwhile, why does escape hate Jesus so much that he considers a criticism of a multimillionaire talk show jock to be an attack on Christianity? I missed the part of the Sermon on the Hill that went “Blessed are the Bloviators”
LFC // Oct 3, 2009 at 3:20 pm
ltoro1 said… Great, so Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. don’t have any influence. Would Frum please stop talking about them then. Let’s see if he can at least make it one week.
They have a lot of influence on the GOP base. They have very little influence on independents. In fact, they seem to be turning them off.
If the GOP thinks it can take elections with just its base, then by all means they should go for it.
sdspringy // Oct 3, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Balcon, and Frumm and Brooks analaysis is flawed where Mac in concerned. If the Mac is the independent moderate the press portrayed he should have drawn more Independents and Moderates.
The VP is no pull, certainly Edwards did not help Kerry, and who remembers Gore’s VP.
Balcon’s statement that the fundamentalist loved Palin is not correct either. Nobody knew who Palin was until her name was released as a possible VP canadate. Of course they liked her views once those views were talked about but that was well into the campaign.
So Mac. the moderate, Republican maverick should have pulled all those Rinos, Independents, Moderates, Powell style Rep, even without a conservative VP. But did not. Even if Mac had selected Lieberman, he would have still lost the election. VP never mattered either in the loss or possible win.
If you argue otherwise how could Bush get elected twice with the most hated man in America as a VP.
VP is not that big of a deal.
So the Republicans lost not because of the VP or because Mac was not moderate enough. We lost because everyone wanted “hope and change”. Maybe some conservatives stayed home but not enough to make that big of a difference. Maybe some Independents went to Obama because of policies, or fiscal issues, but mainly just for change. And after 4 years of this change they will all run back.
sinz54 // Oct 4, 2009 at 11:17 am
escapevelocity: Actually, the Dems lost the House and eventually the Senate when they “started talking like moderates.”
PROVE IT.
Show me examples of Dems talking like moderates before November 1994.
And when you do, keep in mind who the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate were in 1994. Moderates????
sinz54 // Oct 4, 2009 at 11:24 am
sdspringy: If the Mac is the independent moderate the press portrayed he should have drawn more Independents and Moderates.
HE DID. For a time right after the GOP convention.
Right after the GOP convention, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama in the polls. FiveThirtyEight.com had McCain to win a close election. And Dems were getting VERY nervous.
And then, in September, the U.S. economy fell off a cliff.
McCain made an ass of himself–suspending his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the crisis, where he accomplished absolutely nothing–and then resumed his campaign.
And then, McCain made an ass of himself again, in the debates with Obama, coming off as sputtering and obsessed with earmarks, while Obama came off as cool, confident.
I keep repeating it and repeating it:
THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE SCREWED UP–and the public despised him for it.
Historically, not since 1876 has a highly unpopular President been succeeded to the White House by a candidate from his own party.
McCain kept talking about “reform”–but he never explained just what needed reforming. He couldn’t come out and say Bush’s policies had been flat wrong on Iraq and flat wrong on the economy. If he did that, the GOP base, hated McCain anyway, would have walked out.
So McCain was trapped between a highly unpopular President, and a party base that still liked the President more than they liked him. This is the same trap that Humphrey was in in 1968. And he lost too.
The GOP must come to grips with what Bush did wrong. You can’t offer a positive program to the public that they will accept until they believe that the next Republican president won’t repeat Bush’s mistakes.
Reagan could never have won, if people thought of him as another Nixon.
sdspringy // Oct 4, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Conservatives did come to grips with the things Bush and the GOP did wrong. This mainly was the increase in government and no responsible fiscal policy. Thus the conservative saw no difference between Bush and Mac., whereas the Frumm Republicans were just fine with both problems.
While the Dems were always posied to run away from the war, no matter which one, and for any reason. Conservatives saw the only redeeming quality of Bush was to stick and finish. And here we are after an election of a Dem proclaiming the necessity of the “necessary war” and the Dems are again poised to run as fast as they can.
The “GOP” / Frumms are always ready to throw Bush under the bus, and Obama is continuing many of the Bush policies and we still have the likes of Sinz54 proclaiming another apology is required.
EscapeVelocity // Oct 4, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Look, Brooks can endorse Barrack Obama for president, but he has lost all credibility as a conservative in doing so…..ditto Buckley Jr.
sinz54 // Oct 5, 2009 at 9:36 am
sdspringy: Conservatives did come to grips with the things Bush and the GOP did wrong.
Conservatives were a day late and a dollar short:
In the 2008 GOP primary debates, the only two candidates who had anything negative to say about the economy were Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. All the others said the economy was doing well, and Bush should get credit for it. In National Review, Larry Kudlow said that the U.S. economy was “the greatest story never told”; and in column after column, that magazine kept touting how well the economy was doing.
Finally, Alan Greenspan actually said that the complexity of the derivatives markets and the credit markets helped reduce risk.
BTW, I had been subscribing to an investment newsletter, Growth Fund Guide, which for years had been warning its subscribers about just this problem. Another investment newsletter, Dow Theory Letters, did likewise.
So it’s not like no one could have forseen this. Some savvy investors did. But in the political arena, conservatives, for the most part, did not.
DFL // Oct 5, 2009 at 9:58 am
The Republicans lost in 2006 because most Americans believed that the adventure in Iraq was a waste of blood and money. Brooks supported that war. The Republicans lost in 2008 because of the Iraq war combined with the Wall Street debacle. Brooks supports the war in Iraq and is chummy with Wall Street. Perhaps David Brooks and his policies are what got the Republicans into trouble.
EscapeVelocity // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Show me examples of Dems talking like moderates before November 1994.
Bubba Clinton and the DLC
Joe In NH // Oct 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm
In line with what Brooks is saying, it must be remembered that the fact that you have a few million Americans who take one side of an issue AND are very vocal about it doesn’t really mean much anymore in a country of 300 million. A recent poll found 35% of Democrats think Bush knew about 9-11 coming in advance and did nothing about it. Another poll has over 25% of Republicans saying Obama was not born in Hawaii. Here we are talking about millions on the left and right who the vast majority of people, ie, people in the middle, think are crazies. I realize the birther poll is suspect to many because it was done for Kos, a known left blog,even though by a reputable polling company but the point here is that 1 or 2 or even 4-5 million ditto heads and $1.89 will get you a coffee (at Dunkin Donuts and not Starbucks) but won’t get you the White House.
sinz54 // Oct 5, 2009 at 5:58 pm
escapevelocity:
True, Clinton acted moderate.
And you’ll notice, Clinton went on to serve two terms, and retired with a much higher approval rating that Bush did.
Don’t you get it? When the public wants change, it’s the public officials who are perceived as out of step in their own districts that get the shaft. Clinton was smart enough to change with the times.
balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 7:12 pm
A recent poll found 35% of Democrats think Bush knew about 9-11 coming in advance and did nothing about it.
Well, remember that in the same poll, 15% of Republicans thought Bush knew about 9-11 in advance, as well.
My belief is that per normal for Rasumssen, the question was vastly oversimplified – the way the question was put, it is likely that many remembered the whole “Bin Laden Determined to Strike” memo stuff, and conflated the fact that Bush was aware Al Qaeda wanted to attack America, and the accusation that Bush knew something was coming down on 9/11 and did nothing to stop it.
We see that same sloppiness from Rasumssen on their healthcare polling – they seem determined not to ask about specific portions of the healthcare bill, instead just asking things like “Do You Support Obama’s Healthcare Bill”. Which explains that while 65% of the American Public respond favorably to the question of a Public Option, about the same percentage tell Rasmussen that they oppose Obama’s plan. Which makes one wonder if they want a Public Option without the other stuff … or if they’re just generally misinformed.
Whichever the case – Rasmussen doesn’t seem interested in finding out.
Goliath Has Nothing to Fear from These Davids « Calvin Freiburger Online // Oct 6, 2009 at 4:13 pm
[...] Nothing to Fear from These Davids October 6, 2009 — Calvin Freiburger David Frum is promoting David Brooks’ latest column, in which Brooks says: Just months after the election and the [...]
prm79 // Oct 6, 2009 at 6:56 pm
You and Brooks need to quit riding the coattails of real conservatives…I’m sick of bottomfeeding, spineless RINOs throwing this grassroots movement under the bus. Your no better than that evil man on MSNBC, Janine Garafalo, who thinks tea partiers are racists.