Colin Powell: Republican

101 responses so far

• 1 InTheMiddle12 // May 25, 2009 at 8:45 am

  If the fight becomes between two draft dodging faux leaders (Rush and Cheney) and a true American hero, the GOP would be suicidal to reject the real hero.

• 2 nyroughrider // May 25, 2009 at 10:23 am

  Powell addressed the recent political debates swirling around the GOP talk realm and then spoke to the national security debate that both and Obama and Cheney recently refreshed.
  Although I agree with the ‘party-building’ and need for inclusiveness that Colin Powell referred to in his interview on FTN, it is puzzling that he can so easily invoke the name of the Late Great Jack Kemp to symbolize the type of GOP he seeks today as I do.
  He also refers to his reasoned endorsement of Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008 which is even more puzzling while his good friend Jack Kemp endorsed and campaigned for John McCain for President.
  Powell misses the point then if he wants to talk about free market capitalism and competition and tax cuts: The American people are supportive of deeper payroll tax cuts, capital gains rate cuts, corporate tax rates reductions,that the Obama economic plan doesn’t embrace if at all. The American public also wants economic integrity and justice concerning the lack of policy refinement and reform regarding mismanagement and corruption associated with sub-prime mortgages, Fannie Mac, Freddie Mac and the corporate bonuses and bailouts like AIG as well as Washington’s attempt to ‘run’ the car maker companies.
  The story of the first hundred days of Obama is the ginormous spending and debt created, and not real job creation or true capital stimulus.
  Party building comes from at leasy one of several sections of the electorate. What were once Reagan Democrats, blue collar, lunch pail-toting Joe Sixpacks, or even trade union construction industry member families and voters are not regular votes the GOP can count on, but can be won back, nee Joe the Plumber. Creating and securing real jobs for this sector means votes for Republicans.
  Attracting more Latino and African American voters remains a challenge. Of course in the Southwest, and in states like Florida, Texas and California remain opportunities to be more competitive like George W Bush was in the Lone Star State. He is misremembered for this achievement.

• 3 ChristianMiller // May 25, 2009 at 10:54 am

  Powell voted for Obama over McCain. Powell voted for Obama over McCain.Powell voted for Obama over McCain.

  What does this tell us?

  Of course he has to reiterate that he’s a Republican. No one believes him. With friends like Powell who needs enemies?

  C’mon really, how can he tell us with a straight face that he is a Republican and he voted for Obama???

  What prominent Democrat voted for McCain?

  Not one. Why? Don’t they have the ability to think for themselves? Maybe a pro-life Democrat who is somewhat hawkish who likes the free-market? No? None? Hmmm.

  What was it about McCain that Powell objected to? Can we get an answer from this man? Can Bob Shieffer lapdog and sycophant please ask a decent question?

  And Bruce, you share Powell’s views and yet call yourself independent, but Powell claims to be a Republican, so in effect you are saying that Powell should call himself an independent like you, no?

  I really don’t think Powell is that bright, especially when it comes to political philosophy and politics.

  Powell would make a better President than Obama that’s for sure, but that isn’t saying much.

• 4 nyroughrider // May 25, 2009 at 11:27 am

  well we have Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller plus the 11 blue dog dems in the house…so we need to take back at least 40 seats. Minus Specter, Snowe and Collins. you do the math. or a mere ten in senate starting with Specter.

• 5 midcon // May 25, 2009 at 11:28 am

  I hope that Powell does not change his mind. I do not believe that the GOP needs to reinvent itself, nor do I want it to. I have lost all hope that the GOP can become anything more than what it already is. Powell’s involvement could cause a resurgence in the GOP fortunes. The GOP has pretty much issued a DNR. I think we should respect its wishes and move on to something else. No matter how you dress it up, its still the GOP and its time for a change.

• 6 balconesfault // May 25, 2009 at 11:40 am

  “well we have Joe Lieberman “

  Not only voted for McCain – but campaigned for him far more actively that Powell did for Obama.

  And you might note that while left wing blogs screamed, Harry Reid and the Dems allowed Joe Lieberman to keep his Committee Chair.

  The difference between how a party that really wants to be a majority party acts … and what we see in the rhetoric against Powell, a party that champions ideological purity over dialogue.

• 7 jjv // May 25, 2009 at 12:03 pm

  There is zero evidence that Sarah Palin is not inclusive and wants to exclude people from the Republican Party. Colin Powell is a liberal establishment figure. He has deviated from that establishment only fitfully. He is not a supply sider. He has no stomach for the “small wars” needed in the terrorist age. He is for racial quotas, does not defend gun ownership and is for aboriton on demand.

  His only counters are that he has helped in abstinence education and was for don’t ask don’t tell. Again, why is he a Republican? Is Face the Nation a good place to explain the answer to that question?

• 8 jjv // May 25, 2009 at 12:05 pm

  In the Middle:

  Should Democratic Party rejected Thomas Jefferson, who did not serve in uniform, and gripped Aaron Burr to its breast? The question is, is Powellism the basis of a party, not who I’d follow into a literal battle. We followed McCain into a political battle. He is a moderate Republican. The idea that the part that put forward John McCain as its standard bearer is too right wing and the party that chose Barack Obama is in the center is simply lunacy not in accord with the facts.

• 9 bartlettb // May 25, 2009 at 12:09 pm

  The whole point of my post was to draw Powell out on what it is about the Republican Party that makes him want to remain a member rather than become an independent. I don’t know what that might be. But since there is no one pressuring him to remain a Republican and more than a few Republicans who would prefer that he leave the party, I conclude that whatever it is must be something Powell feels strongly about. If that is the case, then I think he should at least try to get other Republicans to accept his vision and share it.

• 10 balconesfault // May 25, 2009 at 12:24 pm

  Bruce – this is a great critique of Powell. If he feels strongly about certain issues, he should get involved in politics and try to actually persuade people in the party to support his positions. Instead, he tends to try to “remain above it all”, as if politics were a tainted process, and simply come out and make pronouncements from his lofty perch on Olympus. I’m sure that’s good for his conscience, but it doesn’t improve the process.

• 11 ChristianMiller // May 25, 2009 at 12:52 pm

  bartlettb, It IS mystifying why Powell wants to remain a Republican. I don’t care if he does or doesn’t but I will say this: If you want to call yourself a Republican, vote Republican. Otherwise either go away or stop telling those of us who VOTE Republican (but, ironically aren’t, like me) how the party should be organized.

  balconesfault “well we have Joe Lieberman ” – he is an Independent now, you haven’t heard?

  If Liebermann had to run as an Independent and WON on that basis, he’s an independent. If Bruce wants to call himself an Independent, fine. If Powell wants to call himself a Republican while voting for a Democrat in a very important election, I would expect him to have some freaking explanation for that. I’m still waiting. I vaguely remember him saying something about the historic value of having a black man a POTUS.

  That is a pretty pathetic reason if you ask me. Maybe he takes the moniker “Black Republican” to heart. To him that means he’s for blacks first, Republicans second.

• 12 petty boozshwa // May 25, 2009 at 1:31 pm

  I’m much more on the Powell wing of the party than the Cheney/Limbaugh/Palin side, but Powell’s commitment to the party has never been very strong. When he was toying with the idea of denying Slick Willie a second term, he said if he ran it would be as a Republican, but out of a sense of loyalty to those that brought him into politics [Weinberger, Reagan, etc] not because he agreed with any of the tenets of the party.
  I agree with Bartlett that the current party resembles the last stages of other failed parties that have dissolved, the most similar examples being the Dixiecrats or the Know-Nothings. Maybe the best focus of those that want a center/right party should be to lay the groundwork for a fusion party with the Blue Dogs and the remnants of Northeastern Republicanism – Kirk in Illinois, Simmons in Connecticut, etc., after Obama’s inevitable overreaching in his second term. Until the Dem coalition gets their primary goals in place – national health care, tax policies to encourage more equitable income distribution, and a different energy policy – I don’t see any role for the Republicans other than spoilers and buffoons..

• 13 sinz54 // May 25, 2009 at 1:47 pm

  I never considered Colin Powell to be a loyal Republican. Rather, I always thought of him as an Independent–the “loyal soldier” willing to work for any type of administration as long as he thought it would help the country.

  I think it’s more relevant to discuss why Bruce Bartlett, a staunch conservative, left the GOP. That Mr. Bartlett refers to those Enhanced Interrogations as “indefensible” suggests that his view of conservatism isn’t like Cheney’s.

• 14 bartlettb // May 25, 2009 at 2:02 pm

  It is precisely because Powell never seemed like a particularly partisan Republican that I find his commitment to the party to be curious and worth exploring. Like many people, I took his endorsement of Obama to be a declaration that he, like me, had left the GOP and become and independent. So why did he go on national television yesterday to assert that he was, in fact, still a Republican? Whatever his reasons are, I would like to know them.

• 15 PincheMK // May 25, 2009 at 3:19 pm

  I really dont understand you republicans that “left” the party.

  I mean, being legally educated, I beleive gays most likely have the constitutional right to marry. But, if you dont think so, then fine. Also, im on the fence on abortion, and think it ought to be a states rights issue, because I don’t think any human being is really qualified to decide that moral issue. But i dont really mind if people beleive either way.

  I drive a pickup truck and own assault weapons, If you drive a hybrid, well fine. I may make fun of you, but im fine with you. And if you hate guns, thats kinda annoying but really, its not a big deal.

  The truth of the matter is CIVIL RIGHTS pale in comparison to ECONOMIC RIGHTS. Marx may have been a commie, but his insights into politics and human psychology are nothing short of genius, and he saw that economics comes first, and everything else follows on its coat-tails.

  No one cares where they have to sit on the bus if they don’t even have money to ride the bus, do they?

  Its our economic liberties which are at stake here – through excessive taxation, a bloated, wasteful government which is both corrupt and stupid, and which is attempting to turn america into exactly the thing that america was never intended to be.

  If you want the government out of your wallet and out of your living room, and you beleive in enforcement of the constitution as written as much as possible, and in empowering the individual as much as possible and disempoweriiing the government as much as possible, then your in my party.

  And I vote republican, and would sooner put a gun in my mouth than vote for a democrat— and the reason for that is that regardless of the MAN you think your voting for, that man owes a ton of things to a ton of people, and no matter what he says, he is going to have to capitulate largely to the demands of his party — and the democrat party pretty much sucks.

  Its so simple, i dont understand why others don’t see it. But they better start seeing it soon, otherwise China’s going to be the top dog, and Europe will be laughing at us.
  And I dont think i could live knowing that French people are laughing at me.

• 16 krove // May 25, 2009 at 3:29 pm

  Pinchy.

  Sorry to break it to you but Bush already sold the USA to China to fund two dumb wars. And the Europeans laughed all the way through Bush’s 8 years, that was when they were not crying.

• 17 midcon // May 25, 2009 at 3:31 pm

  Hopefully we will hear more from Powell about his Republicanism. I don’t think the party is worth saving, but perhaps he sees something I don’t.

  If you review Bruce’s history, it is clear to me that he is a fiscal and economic policy conservative. There is no evidence that he gives a hoot about social issues (except maybe in the privacy of his own mind).

  He said this about Bush in Oct 2004, ” If George W. Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.” Prescient was it?

  I don’t think Bruce or Powell are “real” Republicans, whatever that is. Neither am I or many others here. At least as an independent, I am in good company.

• 18 midcon // May 25, 2009 at 3:33 pm

  Pinchy, Quit repeat posting.

• 19 Churl // May 25, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  The Republican who endorsed the most anti-conservative presidential candidate since Henry Wallace could be the savior of conservatism?

  If the stuff that Mr. Bartlett is inhaling, imbibing, or ingesting is legal, has no permanent side effects and is not addictive, I really want to try some of it.

• 20 PincheMK // May 25, 2009 at 4:43 pm

  Churl,

  Savior of conservatism and savior of the republican party are two different things…

  midcon,

  Ya i know its lame, but that Tesla guy spewed out like 19000 posts right after mine so i thought it went unnoticed, and id really like to hear some defectors reasons for defecting…

  Plus, i was kinda drunk and in a hurry when i wrote the first one, so it came out sorta not that great…. anyways, wont happen again…

• 21 midcon // May 25, 2009 at 4:53 pm

  Pinchy, the only reason I noticed is that I skipped all the Telsa spew. No harm done.

• 22 folderol // May 25, 2009 at 4:55 pm

  Sorry, but this is starting to sound like The Onion. The way to victory is to espouse big government, high taxes and to get rid of all those pesky socons and undesirables like Cheney, Limbaugh and Palin. This is the “conservatism that can win”? The DNC couldn’t provide a better blueprint.

• 23 folderol // May 25, 2009 at 5:01 pm

  ” Its a pretty small constituency these daysmost of those, like me, who share Powells views have left his party to become independents”

  Why not just become a Democrat if they’re more in accord with your views, as they obviously are?

• 24 sinz54 // May 25, 2009 at 5:03 pm

  PincheMK: Powell was never a conservative. But some genuine conservatives, like Douglas Kmiec, Larry Hunter, and yes, Bruce Bartlett, also walked out and refused to endorse the McCain-Palin ticket. Why?

  Douglas Kmiec didn’t walk out because of the GOP’s stance on social issues. In fact, he’s a pro-life Catholic; he walked out *despite* the GOP’s pro-life stance. The reason he walked out was that he believed the Iraq War was a big mistake. That’s the same reason that Larry Hunter walked out.

  When Mr. Bartlett said that he considered those Enhanced Interrogations “indefensible,” he was hinting that he also disagreed with the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld war policy.

  War and national security trump even economics. And thanks to Bush’s mistakes, the traditional superiority of the GOP on national security and war & peace issues has been shaken. A lot of voters who used to think the GOP was the right party to keep America strong, have looked at how Iraq went and decided otherwise.

  As far as economics goes, the GOP talks conservative but doesn’t act that way. The GOP learned a long time ago that they could sell tax cuts to the voters, by not telling the voters the truth about how exploding entitlements (which are largely immune to cuts or to supply-side theory), make deficits inevitable. The more thoughtful breed of conservatives (and I count myself among them), saw right through that subterfuge.

  The GOP won’t be serious about “disempowering the government” until it tackles entitlement reform, rather than continuing the old bromides of tax cuts. The last Republican president who successfully tackled entitlements was Ronald Reagan. He appointed a commission to keep Social Security solvent into the 21st century. And he implemented their recommendation–for a tax *increase*.

• 25 sinz54 // May 25, 2009 at 5:12 pm

  Mr. Bartlett seems to believe that we could learn some useful lessons, if only we understood Mr. Powell’s motives. I disagree.

  We don’t need a “Gallup poll” of one voter–Mr. Powell. We’ve got public opinion polls of the entire electorate. We don’t need to ask Mr. Powell why the GOP has fallen into disfavor, or why he might still be interested in it. We have already gotten those same reactions from the public at large–and we know what THEIR reasons are.

  While the GOP’s approval rating is at a 25 year low, when it comes to running Congress, the public now prefers the GOP roughly about as much as they would prefer the Dems. That’s a shift since Obama took office, and suggests that the public might like some checks and balances to be restored to what is now effectively one-party rule in Washington.

  But keeping an eye on Obama is about the only reason that the voters are willing to consider the GOP at this point. On just about all major issues, the Dems are at least even with the GOP in the eyes of the voters; and on economics, the Dems are way ahead.

• 26 sinz54 // May 25, 2009 at 5:19 pm

  PincheMK sez: “that man owes a ton of things to a ton of people, and no matter what he says, he is going to have to capitulate largely to the demands of his party”

  Um, the GOP has a few special interests of their own. If you want to see what those are, surf over to http://www.opensecrets.org and look up industries like oil and agribusiness.

  And banking. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 was a blatant giveaway to Enron and the banks and brokerage houses. It gutted the SEC’s ability to regulate commodity futures, Credit Default Swaps, etc. The former led to the collapse of Enron. The latter led to the collapse of the global securitization market last year. And that, in turn, came close to wrecking the U.S. economy.

  That Act was co-sponsored by Phil Gramm, who was McCain’s economics adviser until he shot his mouth off by denying the U.S. economy was in any trouble. For his good work on behalf of Enron, Enron put his wife, Wendy, on their board of directors.

• 27 dropbothparties // May 25, 2009 at 7:54 pm

  Powell is not a republican. He will never switch over to the democrats or be an independent because he wouldnt get the attention he gets now. He supported obama because he is black and then he only did that after it was pretty clear that mccain was going to lose. He never gave Bush the support when he needed it. He was a poor Secretary of State who instead of taking blame falls on the “being a good soldier” line. He may not be a democrat but he is not a republican.

• 28 Smokey // May 25, 2009 at 10:36 pm

  Colin Powell you are allowed to believe whatever you want however your actions in this last election, show by your vote for Obama, to be a Democrat, that was your choice.
  Your voting for Obama whose background as a community organizer, student of the Saul Alinsky school of thought, whose avowed Marxist/Socialists philosophy do not meet with the criteria the Republicans or a real democracy use as a basis for their beliefs. Especially one that had Joe Biden as a VP running mate makes one ask themselves the same question Cheney and Linbaugh did, see what I mean. I now know who you really are and I will act accordingly, you see Colin, I watch your feet and not your lips, something individuals in the real world outside of the belt-line pay close attention to. You might have been a General in the Army and done well for yourself, held offices at the pleasure of Republican Presidents in the past which made certain citizens and the main stream media think you were Republican, yet your actions in the last election said different. I am a Republican who did not like McCain that much, however he was a far better choice than Obama the pretender from Illinois.

• 29 GoramFirefly // May 25, 2009 at 10:58 pm

  Powell: 70% Favorable
  Limbaugh: 30% Favorable
  Cheney: 37% Favorable

  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/25/cnn-poll-powell-vs-cheney-and-limbaugh/

  “Suicide is painless,
  it brings on many changes,
  and I can take or leave it if I please”

• 30 JSharke // May 25, 2009 at 11:44 pm

  Mr Bartlett, the Republican Party – and politics in general – would be much better off with the complete absence of people with your mentality. Strong words indeed, but they were provoked by this statement in your post:

  “But at the end of the day, the job of a political party is to win elections…”

  If “at the end of the day” it is the job of a political party to win elections then we might as well accept that “at the end of the day” the direction of the country is doomed to be decided by the liberal media, Hollywood and the leftist agenda thrust upon our kids via our institutions of learning. For in the absence of any effort by political parties to shape public opinion and not simply mold themselves to “whatever public opinion happens to be,” then we might as well just give up on the idea of philosophical premises and ideological values and embark upon the very dangerous belief that the majority view is “always right.”

  If the only job of political parties is to win elections, then what say you if by some gradual twist of cultural influence a future majority decides it doesn’t like Jews, or that socialism is a good idea? A political party whose job, “at the end of the day,” was to win elections, would by your logic be molded entirely by such a consensus.

  What rot. It is the job of a political party not only to win elections but to win those elections by bringing the electorate round to its way of thinking, by persuading the majority that the values it stands for are the best.

  Barack Obama is a leftist . He’s cut from the leftist crop. Aside from his view on gay marriage (about which the left is in denial), there is absolutely nothing conservative about him. It stands to reason that nobody who voted for him could possibly be a conservative. Therefore, Colin Powell is not a conservative. He is someone who has no problem whatsoever with big-government statism, socialistic economic policy and the premise that America is too big for its boots and must be cut down a size or two.

  The Republican Party is a conservative party. Colin Powell is not a conservative. Stop me if this reasoning is becoming too complicated for you.

  The media is propagating the meme that conservatism – the belief in the founding principles of America and our Constitution – is a form of “extremism” and that modern liberalism – the belief in the opposite – is the “norm.” This is what the Republican Party has to fight, instead of running around like demented idiots determined to cater to people whose views are shaped by MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, Michael Moore, Katie Couric and their history professor.

  We are in the midst of an ideological war the result of which will make or break America. If adapting to the view of the masses is the ultimate standard of value in politics, then we might as well just give up. For if the Republican Party projects the message that “liberalism is good,” then the electorate are simply going to vote for whomever they perceive as being better at liberalism. Guess who that is? It ain’t the Republican Party and never will be.

• 31 JSharke // May 25, 2009 at 11:49 pm

  Mr Bartlett, the Republican Party – and politics in general – would be much better off with the complete absence of people with your mentality. Strong words indeed, but they were provoked by this statement in your post:

  “But at the end of the day, the job of a political party is to win elections…”

  If “at the end of the day” it is the job of a political party to win elections then we might as well accept that “at the end of the day” the direction of the country is doomed to be decided by the liberal media, Hollywood and the leftist agenda thrust upon our kids via our institutions of learning. For in the absence of any effort by political parties to shape public opinion and not simply mold themselves to “whatever public opinion happens to be,” then we might as well just give up on the idea of philosophical premises and ideological values and embark upon the very dangerous belief that the majority view is “always right.”

  If the only job of political parties is to win elections, then what say you if by some gradual twist of cultural influence a future majority decides it doesn’t like Jews, or that socialism is a good idea? A political party whose job, “at the end of the day,” was to win elections, would by your logic be molded entirely by such a consensus.

  What rot. It is the job of a political party not only to win elections but to win those elections by bringing the electorate round to its way of thinking, by persuading the majority that the values it stands for are the best.

  Barack Obama is a leftist . He’s cut from the leftist crop. Aside from his view on gay marriage (about which the left is in denial), there is absolutely nothing conservative about him. It stands to reason that nobody who voted for him could possibly be a conservative. Therefore, Colin Powell is not a conservative. He is someone who has no problem whatsoever with big-government statism, socialistic economic policy and the premise that America is too big for its boots and must be cut down a size or two.

  The Republican Party is a conservative party. Colin Powell is not a conservative. Stop me if this reasoning is becoming too complicated for you.

  The media is propagating the meme that conservatism – the belief in the founding principles of America and our Constitution – is a form of “extremism” and that modern liberalism – the belief in the opposite – is the “norm.” This is what the Republican Party has to fight, instead of running around like demented idiots determined to cater to people whose views are shaped by MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, Michael Moore, Katie Couric and their history professor.

  We are in the midst of an ideological war the result of which will make or break America. If adapting to the view of the masses is the ultimate standard of value in politics, then we might as well just give up. For if the Republican Party projects the message that “liberalism is good,” then the electorate are simply going to vote for whomever they perceive as being better at liberalism. Guess who that is? It ain’t the Republican Party and never will be.

• 32 gary4205 // May 26, 2009 at 12:42 am

  Colin Powell: Liberal democrat.

  You know, I am sick of hearing from Colin Powell, or any other of these idiot “moderates” out there. You morons have had your shot at running my party, and you have destroyed it. So sit down, and shut up, and let the adults take over.

  You silly moderates talk of some mythical candidate you’d like to see. Some magical moderate. Well hell, you just had the most “centrist”, democrat lite, squishy milquetoast “moderate” our party has ever ran, and still, you blew McCain off to go vote for someone who makes Adolf Hitler and Uncle Joe Stalin look “moderate”!

  Barack Obama is a full on communist, of the Saul Alinsky school of thought.

  The only reason McCain didn’t get destroyed was because Sarah Palin was chosen as his VP. She was worth 15-20 percentage points, and millions upon millions of dollars in donations, that would have otherwise stayed in people’s pockets.

  Moderate losers, we’ve tried it you way, again, and the results were exactly the same as always. The moderate got his butt kicked. It happened to Bob Dole, it happened to George H W Bush, once America realized he wasn’t Ronald Reagan.

  Moderates are not leaders. They are followers, lemmings.

  Conservatism works every time it’s tried, always has, always will. We have the blue print for a permanent majority in this nation. But being a “moderate” just isn’t going to get it done.

  We need the bold colors of conservatism, not pale pastels of moderation!

  Leaders are people who are not afraid to stand up when they find something wrong. Leaders will stand up, no matter what it may cost them!

  Sarah Palin is a leader. Dick and Liz Cheney are leaders.

  Colin Powell, not so much.

  Now, go find something shiny to play with!

• 33 midcon // May 26, 2009 at 2:55 am

  Gary,

  You just may be in the minority here. Many of us have left the GOP and yeah we are looking for something shiny to play with but it ain’t the GOP. Calling people names and extremist statements like Obama being a “full on communist” continues to make clear the distinction between many of us and you. One distinction is clearly the style of writing. The other is absolutism, as if you have all the answers.

  It’s your party and you are welcome to it. I am not coming back in. I don’t want back in. Especially if the majority are like you. I don’t know how much clearer I can make it. You can hire a Bob Steele and bring in the Sarah Palin’s but it doesn’t change the fact that they have you and I would be embrassed to be associated with a party that in the 21st century is using terms like “communist” and “moron”

• 34 Bulldoglover100 // May 26, 2009 at 5:26 am

  David David David…why do you let Bruce remove the post he does not like? My post from yesterday is gone. I did not use foul language. I simply stated my opinion that Bruce is what is wrong with our party when he wants to run off the only man capable of beating Obama, which is Powell after the poll issued today.
  Cheney and Limpball are both in the low 30’s. Powell is at 70%..and Brucey wants to hold him accountable?????WHY? and who gives Brucy the RIGHT to hold Colin Powell caccountable just to be in the GOP?

• 35 ottovbvs // May 26, 2009 at 5:28 am

  gary4205
  12:42 AM

  ……I will delighted for the next two election cycles for your philosophy to dominate the Republican party completely. I’ve come to the conclusion it’s going to take that for the for the GOP to come to it’s senses and dispel once and for all those ridiculous myths about McCain and Palin. Because you see the American electorate are NEVER EVER going to choose a Palin/Cheney/Limbaugh/Gingrich/Boehner/Rove/Steele axis over a Obama/Clinton/Pelosi/Gates/Reid.Emmanuel one. It’s that simple. Now you and most of the other rightists here are never going to believe this so as old Ben Franklin pointed out experience is the necessary school for fools. And it’s going to take several semesters. It’s a process that has to be gone through.

• 36 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 5:36 am

  Great posts Gary and JSharke,

  I’m with you.

  And midcon, I’ll say it again, there are only a handful of people here who are true moderate Republicans, Sinz perhaps and maybe a few others, and you aren’t one of those.

  The rest are either like me, Gary, J Sharke, Barker 13, churl, impolito, Smokey, foderal, – conservatives who come here to debate and post our dissent. The others are all committed Democrats who come here to declare the end of the GOP and gloat and sneer. These people often cite polls about the popularity of politicians or party affiliations like it is some sporting event with no meaning.

  I flushed them all out early , anyone with a good grasp of political philosophy can spot them a mile away. They claim they want a “viable Republican party” but they will never vote R themselves even if the party changes on every hot-button issue.

  Communism is real and it is on the march and it is coming here midcon.

• 37 ottovbvs // May 26, 2009 at 5:41 am

  Franco
  wrote 1 minutes ago
  “Communism is real and it is on the march and it is coming here”

  ……..Whaddaya gonna do……it’s a process that has to be gone through.

• 38 Jeffryw // May 26, 2009 at 5:54 am

  “But at the end of the day, the job of a political party is to win elections and to win elections it must be inclusive, not exclusive.”

  The purpose of a political party is to win, but win while STANDING FOR SOMETHING. Otherwise it’s just a power grab for power’s sake.

  And again being “inclusive” has become code word for moving to the left. We already have a left-center party…the Democrats.

• 39 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 6:03 am

  Jeffryw,

  Agreed, One quibble. The center left party is Republican far left are Democrats.

• 40 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 6:06 am

  ottovbvs is here as part of Obama’s re-education plan – it’s part of the stimulus package nobody read.

• 41 george // May 26, 2009 at 6:13 am

  I agree. I left the Republican Party not because it was becoming too conservative, but rather because there was no one who could enunciate the conservative principals I believe in without whining about non-conformers. If the party is to be rebuilt, we need positive communicators open to all points of view. Saint Ronald was willing to take in moderates without worrying about loosing focus. “Moderates” can do the same. Conservatives much reach out to those who agree with us more than the disagree. I’m sure many in the Republican party would kick me out today, because I don’t agree on many litmus issues. Powell may have wandered off the reservation by endorsing Obama (and Americans want to pay more taxes) but if he considers himself a Republican, he is. But he needs to elevate himself above the nitpicking purity fight and move on.

• 42 Jeffryw // May 26, 2009 at 6:14 am

  Franco…you’re right. Center-left IS repubs now! Wow how perceptions of what is “center” have changed! Scary.

• 43 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 6:33 am

  Jeffryw, One way to look at what is happening: The Democrats move left, abandoning the middle and near left ground, opportunistic politicians like Ahnold S, Bloomberg, and others move into the newly abandoned territory.

  The Democrats and media still act like Republicans are extreme, so they can move further left. Take any issue and see where Republicans have moderated their views and see the Democrats attack the moderate views with the same vehemence as they attacked the older, more conservative views. The illusion created is that the center remains the same.

• 44 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 6:49 am

  Jim Geraty at NR writes:”My first thought on former Secretary of State Colin Powells response to Rush Limbaugh and former Vice President Cheney was a chuckle that he sought to influence the future course of GOP by appearing on… “Face the Nation.” Put aside any allegations of bias on the part of Bob Schieffer; few Republicans watch the Sunday morning political chat shows, even fewer on Memorial Day weekend, and still fewer watch the CBS offering.”

  I know I don’t watch these ridiculous shows anymore.

  He has some other good points too.

• 45 bartlettb // May 26, 2009 at 7:20 am

  I’m baffled that anyone would say that I am questioning Powell’s right to be a Republican. I am only interested in his reasons because I’m curious about what they might be in light of his public support for Obama.

  I’m even more baffled that anyone would question my assertion that the purpose of a political party is to win elections. Political parties aren’t churches and political platforms aren’t religious dogma. Nor are political parties interest groups like the NRA with a particular policy agenda. Parties are nothing but coalitions of people and groups with one interest: achieving political power either to change policy or keep it from changing.

  Parties don’t have principles except insofar as they are marketing tools for attracting votes. They change from one election cycle to another depending on the nature of problems that people expect government to address. And coalitions will change for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with principles.

  Conservatives have to accept that they are an interest group and nothing more–and an interest group that cannot win without support from other interest groups with whom conservatives must cut deals and perhaps compromise their principles in order to create a winning coalition. The longer conservatives remain uncompromising and inflexible the longer they will stay out of power, thus allowing the left to implement its agenda unimpeded.

• 46 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 7:26 am

  ottovbvs sez: “Ben Franklin pointed out experience is the necessary school for fools. And it’s going to take several semesters. It’s a process that has to be gone through.”

  I’ve said the same thing myself.

  History lesson:

  The Democrats had to nominate Mondale and Dukakis, foo-foo latte liberals of the McGovern stripe–before they finally got it right with Clinton. It was right after Mondale’s loss that the Democratic Leadership Council was formed, to begin the process of reforming the Dem Party.

  The same thing must happen with the GOP. Let the GOP base have their way! Let them nominate Sarah Palin for President and whoever else they want. Let them write the GOP platform in the apocalyptic rhetoric of Levin and Coulter. Then when they lose 40+ states, they will see that it is THEY whom the electorate has rejected.

  Perhaps only after Palin and Jindal go down in flames, a “Republican Leadership Council” will be formed to begin the process of modernizing the GOP.

• 47 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 7:29 am

  gary4205: Your “blueprint” is so 20th century.

  This is the 21st century.

  The fastest growing voting blocs in America are single women (including single moms) and Hispanics.

  Not only does the GOP base not care about reaching out to these voting blocs, it goes out of its way to insult them–by telling single moms they should have just not had sex, and by telling Hispanics that all those Mexicans braving terrible conditions just to come to America to find work are “invaders” who should just be kicked out of the nation.

  The GOP’s strength is in older white married males. And as a percentage of all voters, that bloc keeps shrinking. If the GOP can’t stop talking only to itself and start talking to the rest of America, it’s toast. Along with your “blueprint.”

• 48 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 7:37 am

  JSharke claims: ‘It stands to reason that nobody who voted for him [Obama] could possibly be a conservative.”

  Douglas Kmiec, a pro-life Christian conservative, voted for Obama. So did Larry Hunter, who in the 1990s had helped Gingrich to write the Contract with America.

  Why?

  Because they were horrified at the Iraq War, in which Bush sent our troops into an insurgency meatgrinder to find WMD that wasn’t there. And being libertarian-minded, they didn’t think that the accretion of power by the Executive Branch was a better way to win the War on Terror than shooting Osama bin Laden in his cave.

  The embrace of Wilsonian messianism by the GOP, where American troops and missiles and bombers go everywhere to “liberate” the peoples from their regimes, has alienated many more thoughtful conservatives.

  Like me, for example.

• 49 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 7:45 am

  Franco: Thank you for conceding that I might actually be a real moderate.

  I really do have principles, even though some in the GOP base believe that moderates can’t have any:

  I believe in not politicizing science.

  I believe in Reagan’s “Peace Through Strength.”

  I’m amazed how so many conservatives don’t see how different that is from Bush’s determination to use our troops to “liberate” the benighted peoples of the earth from evil regimes. When did CONSERVATIVES start embracing a modern “White Man’s Burden”???

  I believe in taking on the rising cost of entitlements.

  I really do believe in limited government. I was appalled at the massive accretion of power in the Executive Branch under Bush–and how so many conservatives applauded it because “their guy” was in the White House.
  Labeling an American citizen an “enemy combatant” and shipping him off to a detention camp is NOT conservative. FDR did that with the Japanese-Americans.

  I believe that our current health care system is a mess and badly needs reform. Reform that includes substantial involvement from private insurers. Anything that could lead us to single-payer should be opposed.

  See? I really do believe in some things.

• 50 Cforchange // May 26, 2009 at 8:21 am

  Franco, I do not agree with your small tent exclusionary antics so I’d say you are not a good candidate for the necessary recruiting committee. But I do believe we are going to have to let you and your crew run another election before you lose your steam and wave the white flag.

  Sorry to disappoint you but I am a Republican – registered and voting so for 30 years. Ohhh please tell me what to do – should I switch parties?

• 51 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 8:35 am

  I have another principle: I strongly affirm the right of privacy. Your home really is your castle.

  For that reason, I cheered when the Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws in 2003. Social conservatives, like Concerned Women for America, had filed friend-of-the-court briefs with the Supreme Court to ask the Court to uphold sodomy laws.

  There is NOTHING conservative about sodomy laws. They are a violation of your right to use the home you own for recreational purposes.

• 52 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 8:39 am

  bartlettb wrote:”Conservatives have to accept that they are an interest group and nothing more–and an interest group that cannot win without support from other interest groups with whom conservatives must cut deals and perhaps compromise their principles in order to create a winning coalition. The longer conservatives remain uncompromising and inflexible the longer they will stay out of power, thus allowing the left to implement its agenda unimpeded.”

  This works both ways and we are engaged in a game of chicken. And it is interesting that the moderates, who apparently have no philosophically integrated political principles, want those of us who have them to simply compromise with you in order to “win”.

  Win what? Can’t you see why we could care less if we must abandon our principles?

  The centrists in the Republican party do not see the threat of leftism as much as conservatives, and therefore want to use the conservatives fears as a cudgel to get them to vote for the lesser of the evils.

  The centrists, who do not fear the leftists as much, are either naive or essentially statist Republicans – people who will gain or survive quite well under the constraints of leftism and statism, so they are willing to compromise.

  However, our fears of leftism INCLUDES statist Republicans, so you can’t scare us into voting the lesser of evils because we are starting to fear both equally.

  If one believes, as I do, that the result of a Swarzenegger is the same as any Democrat, there becomes little reason for a conservative to vote Republican.

  And Republicans need, more than any other interest group, conservatives.

  If you really think you will have a net gain of voters by moving the party left I think you are mistaken.

  It is a fool’s errand to go after so-called independents. These folks are mostly Democrats in their thinking and when they are not they are politically ignorant to have a fully formed opinion and easy prey for the promises and spin of the left.

  Are there disaffected Dems out there who will vote R if they nominate the right guy or gal? Not many, and certainly not enough. I just don’t see where the votes come from.

  Conservatives are radicalized at this point and are much less willing to hold their noses while voting than they were in the past.

  It can be seen with the McCain campaign. Why did McCain pick Sarah Palin? Stupidity? That’s possible but there HAD to be a reason. Before Palin, McCain was under the impression he would simply inherit conservative voters because they had nowhere else to go. Why did he feel the need to balance the ticket? Something changed his thinking on that one, and it wasn’t a sudden ideological insight or conversion on McCain’s part.

  Technically speaking Bruce is right about the nature of political parties, but they are organized around naturally occuring opposing philosophical principles, and at some point, if the principles become too muddy, the party has no real message it can give to voters, which then results in failure.

  We see the results of years of compromise with the left has brought us. Years ago our economy was more privatized, we could afford some socialist government programs, and we have only added to government, never subtracted, so this method of compromise that has happened in every Congress for the last 50 years, has now reached a tipping point. Once the government controls 50% of the economy it effectively controls all of it, turning the whole country socialist. We are seeing that pattern play out right now.

  Government gobbles up stuff, and it has been for years, and at some point it needs to take over everything to survive.

• 53 Bulldoglover100 // May 26, 2009 at 9:06 am

  Brucy..you keep deleting my post that point to your fallacy and that ask the question WHY HOLD POWELL TO A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES?

  Delete again, LOL I have all day

• 54 JSharke // May 26, 2009 at 9:06 am

  sinz54
  7:37 AM
  SAID:

  “JSharke claims: ‘It stands to reason that nobody who voted for him [Obama] could possibly be a conservative.”

  Douglas Kmiec, a pro-life Christian conservative, voted for Obama. So did Larry Hunter, who in the 1990s had helped Gingrich to write the Contract with America.

  Why?

  Because they were horrified at the Iraq War, in which Bush sent our troops into an insurgency meatgrinder to find WMD that wasn’t there. And being libertarian-minded, they didn’t think that the accretion of power by the Executive Branch was a better way to win the War on Terror than shooting Osama bin Laden in his cave.”

  All of that is irrelevant. Obama wasn’t running after Bush. If anyone who is genuinely conservative voted for Obama, there is only one possible reason: spite. In terms of people with integrity who vote for the candidate who most represents their values – it was impossible for anyone with genuinely conservative values to vote for Obama, unless they were simply “making a point.” And even if they were, it was an impotent point since Bush wasn’t running.

  As for the Iraq war, you can continue to misrepresent it as an operation to “find WMD’s that weren’t there.” This is one of the most disingenuous and pervasive myths regarding the Iraq war and one that should have been nipped in the bud years ago. The primary reason for the war was regime change and UN resolution violation. The Authorization for the Use of Force bill passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses was the legal basis for the war. The Authorization bill began with 23 whereas clauses justifying the war. Only two of these clauses referred to stockpiles of WMDs. On the other hand, twelve of the reasons for going to war referred to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.

  If disagreeing with the previous Republican President is enough for a “conservative” to support the socialist, far-leftist opponent of the next Republican candidate, then I would dispute that their so-called “conservative” values were ever solid in the first place. Not one of the so-called “conservatives” who voted for Obama have so far been able to explain what they like about the guy except for some wishy-washy reference to his character and speaking skills. If you support his economic agenda, you’re a leftist. If you support his social agenda, you’re a leftist. If you support his geopolitical agenda, you’re a liberal. It would be dishonesty at its worst to support Obama’s agenda for America and still claim to be a “conservative.”

• 55 JSharke // May 26, 2009 at 9:09 am

  Typo below – should have said “Obama wasn’t running *against* Bush.”

• 56 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 9:11 am

  sinz54

  There are two ways a person can align with a political party or philosophy. The first is looking at each issue one by one and seeing which party most goes along with you on the issues.

  The other is to look at where you stand philosophically and then look at the political parties from that point of view.

  I am a conservative libertarian. I am conservative in the sense that I don’t want government involved in social engineering or experimentation, therefore I am against massive social programs that distort basic human incentives and can destroy social structures like the family. Religion has been around since day one and I want my government to allow ALL religions, no matter how whacky to be allowed to operate.

  I am libertarian in that I believe in the sanctity of the individual and the right to worship, consort with whomever and trade with whomever, say whatever. I recognize the political and philosophical problems with the abortion debate. I have my own views which are sympathetic to both sides, but the pro-life people are on more solid philosophical ground, even though politically it is a loser. I am not going to vote on that basis though.

  I am for having fewer laws that are more effectively enforced, not thousands of laws that are applied differently in different cases with different penalties. I am for free trade, equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. I could go on, but almost everything modern Democrats want to do go against my philosophy and a lot of Republicans do as well, but the Democrats are now leftist dominated and this is very dangerous.

  Part of the reason they are so far left is because they have had the “floor” to spout their questionable but seductive philosophy, while Republicans haven’t taken the arguments head-on to refute them. Reagan did and was the last President to do so. For reasons of fear and intimidation they have allowed these memes to thrive and this is what is at the core of it all.

  I want a Republican who knows what the other side is up to, knows why it is wrong, and is unafraid to fight them in debate of the common assumptions. So far, every single one of these people has been a conservative, and I believe that is because if you know your core beliefs you can debate any topic on philosophical grounds.

• 57 bartlettb // May 26, 2009 at 9:17 am

  Bruce Bartlett: I don’t have the power to delete anyone’s posts. Complaints should be directed to David Frum.

• 58 JSharke // May 26, 2009 at 9:44 am

  Is there something wrong with this comment system? It keeps throwing an error screen when I try to post.

• 59 JSharke // May 26, 2009 at 9:45 am

  bartlettb: “I’m even more baffled that anyone would question my assertion that the purpose of a political party is to win elections. Political parties aren’t churches and political platforms aren’t religious dogma. Nor are political parties interest groups like the NRA with a particular policy agenda. Parties are nothing but coalitions of people and groups with one interest: achieving political power either to change policy or keep it from changing.”

  You’re “baffled” that someone would “question your assertion”? It takes a person with confidence and integrity to stick to their principles and hold their ground in the face of disagreement and opposition. It takes another kind of person entirely to admit that they’re “baffled” that anyone could possibly disagree with them.

  No, political parties aren’t churches and political platforms aren’t religious dogma. But neither am I the straw man you claim made those arguments. If you cannot see a fundamental difference between religion – based on faith and mysticism – and a political ideology based on reason and an objective perception of reality, then I’m in two minds whether to even continue this debate at all.

  Besides which, you seem unable to make such a flimsy argument without contradicting yourself. You claim that the sole purpose of a political party is to win power in order to “change policy or keep it from changing,” but how can this be, if the only way a political party can win power is, according to you, bending to the whim of the masses – a whim which is largely shaped, like I said, by the liberal media, Hollywood and an education system with an overwhelming liberal bias? If we leave it up to the media to shape public opinion, then how does the act of getting into power – which would then be a case of kowtowing to the populist sentiment shaped by the media – achieve the goal of “changing policy”?

  If, for instance, it is the ideological goal of a political party to end a culture of welfare dependency and the majority wants the government to expand welfare entitlements – and that political party agrees with you in denying its job is to change public opinion – then we have a problem. I don’t know Bruce, it just feels weird to have to explain such basic logic to a grown adult.

• 60 JSharke // May 26, 2009 at 9:46 am

  “Parties don’t have principles except insofar as they are marketing tools for attracting votes. “

  What more can I say? You are dead wrong. Politics is not a season of “American Idol.”

  “Conservatives have to accept that they are an interest group and nothing more–and an interest group that cannot win without support from other interest groups with whom conservatives must cut deals and perhaps compromise their principles in order to create a winning coalition. The longer conservatives remain uncompromising and inflexible the longer they will stay out of power, thus allowing the left to implement its agenda unimpeded.”

  And the liberal interest group gets to implement *its* agenda…..how exactly? By compromising on the expansion of the welfare state, on the redistribution of wealth, on quadrupling the national deficit, on appointing racist leftist judges to the Supreme Court, on implementing the most radical left wing agenda in US history?

  The only reason why the left gets away with this is because they dominate the mechanisms which shape public opinion. They are better at shaping public opinion than conservatives. They hold more influence in the media and in colleges. THIS is why Republicans – conservatives – have to fight back. THIS is why the role of the Republican party is not simply to accept where popular opinion is going, but to improve their power to shape it too. Public opinion does not appear in a vacuum. It does not come out of the ether. It’s shaped by the media, by popular culture. And it’s largely shaped by those who live in a make-believe world of ivory towers: Hollywood writers, celebrities, academics, journalists. Have you ever stopped to wonder why the overwhelming majority of those who lead lives of fantasy (for instance Hollywood celebs) are leftists? If we accept that popular opinion is to be guided by people like THIS, then we are well and truly screwed as a nation. Republicans have a harder job on their hands than anyone else. They don’t just have to win elections, they have to do something about the overwhelming cultural influence which is turning people against the very principles which make them Republicans in the first place. If you believe in those principles then you’ll fight for them. If you don’t, you won’t. It’s as simple as that.

• 61 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 9:47 am

  Re: Franco; 10:54 AM –

  “Powell voted for Obama over McCain. Powell voted for Obama over McCain. Powell voted for Obama over McCain.”

  Yep.

  Yep… yep… yep…

  (*SHRUG*)

  “And Bruce, you share Powell’s views and yet call yourself independent, but Powell claims to be a Republican, so in effect you are saying that Powell should call himself an independent like you, no?”

  Umm… pretty good point. Mr. Bartlett…??? Rejoinder?

  Re: Jjv; 12:03 PM –

  “There is zero evidence that Sarah Palin is not inclusive and wants to exclude people from the Republican Party.”

  Yep. (*SHRUG*)

  (How Bruce Bartlett believes insulting Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh serves to strengthen either the GOP or his own personal persuasiveness simply escapes me.)

  Re:Bartlettb; 12:09 PM –

  “The whole point of my post was to draw Powell out…”

  Call him up! Reach out to him. Ask him to respond directly to your column. (*SHRUG*)

  Re: Bartlettb; 2:02 PM –

  “It is precisely because Powell never seemed like a particularly partisan Republican…”

  I’d swap out “partisan” for “principled;” Powell was never a particularly principled Republican.

  The “Armitage/Plame” affair alone… (*SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)

  Re: PincheMK; 4:43 PM –

  “…I’d really like to hear some defectors reasons for defecting…”

  I’ve “defected” from the GOP twice.

  First time… when George Herbert Walker Bush broke his “no new taxes” pledge and also allowed the Kurds to be slaughtered after our “victory” in Gulf War One… well… two strikes was enough for me.”

  Second time… early 2006 after reaching my threshold for GOP congressional corruption, incompetence, and irresponsibility along with Bush’s incompetence along with Bush’s mismanagement of what had turned into the (at the time) failing Iraq occupation.

  Hmm… two Bushs… two defections…

  (*SHRUG*)

  Last November I pulled the lever for Bob Barr. Back in ‘02 I pulled the lever for Perot.

  Back to Bush and my latest “defection” in ‘06, it seems to me that Bush lost his frigg’n mind after winning re-election. I voted for him in ‘00 and again in ‘04, but after his re-election he started engaging in totally off the wall stunts like trying to appoint his third grade music and arts teacher to the US Supreme Court.

  (Something like that, right… Miers…)

  Then there was the “ports scandal” such as it was.

  I’m a libertarian leaning “Big L/small c” kinda conservative. I’m a constitutionalist. I’m a nationalist. I believe in the rule of law. I’m opposed to the deindustrialization of America. Black poverty, incarceration rates, social dysfunction… 14-20 million illegal immigrants while a large segment of our own fellow citizens rots… unacceptable to me.

  BOTH Parties are the “Party of Wall Street” depending upon which hedge fund managers, bankers, corporate titans we’re talking about.

  BOTH Parties are deeply corrupt as is the system.

  Neither Party “puts America and Americans first” as their key goal of “service” to the nation.

  I could go on and on, but you get the picture of where I’m coming from. Still, as a “lesser of two evils” and oft-times the far better representative of what I believe… out of our two Party system I’m kinda “stuck” with the Republicans far more often than I’m “stuck” with the Democrats.

  Anyway… you asked… hope this gives you some feel for where I’m coming from when I post and as it applies to “partisan” politics.

  BILL

• 62 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 10:21 am

  Re: Sinz54; 5:03 PM –

  “Douglas Kmiec didn’t walk out because of the GOP’s stance on social issues. In fact, he’s a pro-life Catholic; he walked out *despite* the GOP’s pro-life stance. The reason he walked out was that he believed the Iraq War was a big mistake. That’s the same reason that Larry Hunter walked out.”

  Well, give 126 Members the Dem caucus in the House at the time kudos for joining with Republicans Ron Paul, Connie Morella, Jim Leach, Amo Houghton, John Hostettler, and John Duncan in refusing to give Bush a blank check to go to war, but a majority of Senate Dems were WITH Bush back when it came time to relinquish their constitutional powers and responsibilities.

  When it comes to foreign policy both Parties largely favor (and have largely favored for quite a long time) antagonizing Russia, alienating Turkey, kowtowing to China, placating Zionism, pissing away trillions on failed “humanitarian” and “nation building” exercises… and so on and so forth, etc…. etc…. etc….

  Let’s not confuse “sides” here. Bush’s foreign policy was far more “Wilsonian,” perhaps “Rooseveltian,” than truly “conservatives” in the sense of “conservative thought” from Washington to Eisenhower to… er… Ron Paul. (*SMILE*)

  “…thanks to Bush’s mistakes, the traditional superiority of the GOP on national security and war & peace issues has been shaken.”

  True.

  “As far as economics goes, the GOP talks conservative but doesn’t act that way.”

  BINGO. (Thus my own “defection” from the GOP. Again… two strikes was enough.)

  Thing is… since we DO live in a two Party state… it’s “out of the frying pan and into the fire” when it comes to my outrage against “the system.”

  “A pox on both their houses” is fine and dandy on principle… but it leaves one homeless in the real world.

  Thing is, folks, for purposes of this discussion and so many like it all over this blog… certainly for voters like me, for citizens like me, neither a Powell nor a McCain is any sort of “solution” to what ails the GOP in my mind.

  BILL

• 63 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 10:23 am

  JSharke: The UNITED NATIONS did NOT call for the use of force in 2003 to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. So for the United States to claim that they took it on themselves to enforce U.N. resolutions is bogus.

  Besides, Saddam had been violating U.N. resolutions before 9-11. Yet Bush, as a candidate for President in 2000, NEVER considered that a casus belli for another war against Iraq.

  So your argument on Iraq is bogus.

  And your refusal to accept that the Iraq War was a VIOLATION of the principles of many thoughtful Americans, both liberal and conservative, is YOUR problem. If YOU want to claim that the only reason that Americans turned against the Iraq War was “spite,” that’s YOUR problem.

• 64 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 10:27 am

  JSharke: I would like to show you the sheer magnitude of this “disagreement,” which you have gone out of your way to belittle as unimportant or even irrelevant. The following webpage takes a while to load; be patient:

  http://beezone.homestead.com/womenvets2005_2006.html

  What exactly did these women die for? What has America accomplished with their blood? And in what way is it consistent with traditional principles of conservatism?

• 65 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 10:58 am

  Re: Bulldoglover100; 5:26 AM –

  I’m with BDL100 on the “censorship” issue.

  Now I don’t care WHO it is removing posts that have no business being removed; I simply want it stopped.

  Re: Bartlettb; 7:20 AM –

  “I’m even more baffled that anyone would question my assertion that the purpose of a political party is to win elections….Parties don’t have principles except insofar as they are marketing tools for attracting votes.”

  Bob. Let me try and help you out. It’s that SECOND statement I cut out which modifies your initial statement of… er… “bafflement”… which causes the hair to stand up on the back of my neck and no doubt equally appalls others who share my basic values.

  Can you understand that…???

  “Parties don’t have principles except insofar as they are marketing tools for attracting votes. They change from one election cycle to another depending on the nature of problems that people expect government to address. And coalitions will change for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with principles.”

  Not in “our” world, Bob. In “our” world political power is a tool to serve principle, not the other way around. You’ve got the cart before the horse! (*SMILE*)

  We view principles as the standard to which political power should cling – not the other way around. (*SHRUG*)

  “Conservatives have to accept that they are an interest group and nothing more…”

  No. (*SHRUG*) No we don’t.

  Sure. Agreed. There’s no “just one conservatism.” There’s room for debate and disagreement. However, this debate and disagreement must play out between recognizable goal lines. For example, Franco in his 5:36 am post listed a bunch of us who far more often than not share common outlooks. It’s not necessary that Franco and I agree 100% of the time on specifics, but whether it’s me and Franco or any combo of contrasting self-identified “conservatives,” there’s gotta be common philosophical and PRINCIPLED shared outlooks and shared policies. 90%… 80%… 70%… different folks decide how much “diversity” is too much, but you get the basic thrust of my point, I trust.

  Sinz and I are on that line of “two different branches of conservatism” on one level. I truly do believe he’d serve “my” political interests best as an active Democrat because he’d move the Democratic Party Right as opposed to moving the Republican Party Left, but I’d never call for Sinz to be expelled from the Republican Party (if he were a member). When push comes to shove we still tend to agree more than we disagree and where we disagree it’s simply because Sinz is confused, not that he’s a backstabber like a Specter.

  (*GRIN*) (Sinz… just having some fun with ya!) (*WINK*)

  Anyway… Bruce… any less “baffled” after this explanatory post?

  BILL

• 66 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 11:09 am

  Re: Sinz54; 7:26 AM –

  “The Democrats had to nominate Mondale and Dukakis, foo-foo latte liberals of the McGovern stripe–before they finally got it right with Clinton.”

  You’re missing the key component, Sinz – true conservatism.

  1) (1984) Reagan vs. Mondale. Conservative Reagan won; liberal Mondale lost.

  2) (1988) REAGAN’S HEIR APPARENT vs. Dukakis. In other words, Bush, running as a conservative, vs. Dukakis, a liberal; conservative candidate Bush won; liberal Dukakis lost.

  3) (1992) George H.W. Bush – no longer seen as Reagan’s heir, indeed, looked upon by many as the Reagan legacy’s betrayer – vs. NEW Democrat, fairly moderate Democrat, Bill Clinton.

  Sinz. 1992 was NOT a “conservative Republican” vs. “liberal Democrat” election. No. It was unfocused, tainted, tarnished, failed Bush vs. pro-gun, pro-death penalty, “good old boy” NEW Democrat Clinton.

  Yes, the Dems “got it right” with Clinton, but only because the GOP got it so WRONG with President Bush as opposed to earlier Reagan heir apparent “conservative” Bush.

  BILL

• 67 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 11:19 am

  Re: Cforchange; 8:21 AM –

  “…we are going to have to let you and your crew run another election…”

  Umm… CforC… the last time “our crew” ran for election was ‘80/’84.

  As previously noted (by me), GHWB ran AS a conservative, as Reagan’s heir, in ‘88 (and btw… WON)… but certainly the Bush of ‘92 was not “our” candidate (if by “our” you mean true conservatives’).

  “Dubya” in 2000…??? Hey… don’t blame that one on “my” side! I supported Forbes – don’t know who Franco supported by I doubt it was Bush in the primaries.

  By my count… “your” side lost the presidential elections of ‘92, ‘96 and ‘08.

  As for ‘00 and ‘04… again… neither the “compassionate” Bush of ‘00 promising no income taxes for families earning less than $45K nor Bush The Conquer of ‘04 were example of “our” favored candidates; rather, Bush was looked upon as the lesser of two evils in both the ‘00 and ‘04 general elections.

  BILL

• 68 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 11:39 am

  Re: JSharke; 9:06 AM –

  “If anyone who is genuinely conservative voted for Obama, there is only one possible reason: spite.”

  Well… I can see why that’s your immediate reaction, but let me share my pre-election thinking on the matter:

  I viewed HRC as Satan. (Well… close enough; totally unprincipled, a danger to democratic government if given the power of the Oval Office.)

  I would have voted for McCain against Clinton.

  McCain vs. Obama… I voted Bob Barr. If I had believed McCain had a chance of winning I would have voted… Obama.

  Yep.

  Understand… I detest John McCain. But rather than revisit all the reasons why, just accept my sincere beliefs regarding the man and work forward from there.

  I knew that AT BEST the economy would decline somewhat slower, socialism would grow at a slightly slower pace under a President McCain as opposed to a President Obama.

  Foreign policy? Well, let’s just say neither man impressed me and that both had their strong points and weak points with regard to how I look at things as a citizen and vote. Again… doesn’t matter whether you and I agree or disagree about specific policies, for the sake of this exchange all that is necessary is that you accept as sincere my views.

  So… from my perspective… an Obama presidency is a disaster… a McCain presidency when it comes to policy ALMOST as bad.

  Here’s the deal though: As President and titular head of the GOP as President, McCain would have used every means and level of power and influence at his disposal to either subvert or destroy *my* side of the GOP. The moment the Republican Study Committee got “out of line” and tried to derail some “compromise” between President McCain, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid… McCain would have done his best to crush them – his own conservative wing.

  (*SHRUG*)

  So… (still following…?)… after four years, my guess is that President McCain would have destroyed the conservative building blocks of future GOP leadership while at the same time captaining a failed presidency which would lead in four short years to a Democratic landslide (following the failed Bush AND McCain presidencies).

  Oh… and bear in mind… since in this scenario Obama had LOST the ‘00 race as Dem nominee… who would that have left basically unopposed to take the ‘12 democratic nomination and then win the general election. That’s right! Hillary Rodham Clinton!

  Supporting Obama…??? Well, I would have done it as an act of desperation. The “reverse logic” being that after four years of Obama and a Democratic Congress laying waste to the American economy a backlash would develop (hopefully as soon as 2010 returning one or both Houses of Congress to GOP control) but definitely by 2012.

  AND… with McCain having been discredited… this would allow breathing room for “Gingrichian/Reaganite” conservatism to take back the Party.

  See where I’m coming from. It’s chess. (*SHRUG*)

  BILL

• 69 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 11:43 am

  Re: Bartlettb; 9:17 AM –

  I’ll gladly take your word that you’re not deleting posts.

  Allow me to suggest – to recommend, to ask in fact – that YOU contact Frum and ask him to knock it off (or to instruct the person deleting under his authority to knock it off).

  Show us that your values aren’t totally out of line with ours.

  (*WINK*)

  BILL

• 70 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 11:47 am

  Re: JSharke; 9:44 AM –

  “Is there something wrong with this comment system? It keeps throwing an error screen when I try to post.”

  Short answer… yes. (*CHUCKLE*) I only wish I knew if “they” designed it this way or purpose!

  JS: When you finish typing in your comment, always highlight and copy it. Then log out. Then log back in. Then paste your comment back in the appropriate thread’s comment box and hit “add comment.” That should do it!

  BILL

• 71 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 11:52 am

  Jsharke/Barker 13: The error screen means your session has timed out. You have to go back to the main page and login again.

• 72 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 11:57 am

  barker13: No, it is YOU who is missing the key component: Carter’s failed presidency.

  It’s difficult to oust a sitting president who decides to run for a second term. Numerous advantages of incumbency. Had Carter not had double-digit inflation and hostages in Iran, he might well have won re-election.

  As it was, Carter and Reagan were actually tied in the polls till the debates, at which point Reagan made the voters remember Carter’s failures (“Are you better off now than 4 years ago?”). And that’s why Reagan won.

  Reagan’s election was due to disgust with the incumbent, Carter. Voters were so desperate to get rid of Carterism that they were willing to try anything–even Reagan’s doctrinaire conservatism.

  That’s similar to what happened in 2008. Many moderates, and even some conservatives, were so disgusted with Bush (and so worried that McCain would be a third Bush term) that they took a chance on a liberal–Obama.

• 73 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 2:59 pm

  barker13,

  Your logic on McCain in 2008 mirrors mine. McCain would have destroyed the conservative wing of the Republican party and further destroyed the Republican brand. By the time 2012 came the landslide would have been devastating and we would have a leftist Dem in office for 8 years till 2020, by then, with the groundwork laid from the McCain administration’s many compromises laid from 2008 to 2012 we would become Venezuela Norte.

  sinz “Many moderates, and even some conservatives, were so disgusted with Bush (and so worried that McCain would be a third Bush term) that they took a chance on a liberal–Obama. ”

  Er, Obama campaigned as a centrist and many clueless moderates who are only now recognizing the full consequences of leftism voted for him, much to their chagrin. Obama will be reason they come running back to the GOP.

  And polls are famously inaccurate. I don’t know why so many of you moderates worship polls.

  The only accurate poll is the election itself, and exit polls are second because the field is entirely made up of those who actually voted. Having worked for Gallup and a couple other polling companies along with how I see polls selectively reported on and spun, I have little faith in them – I’ve seen the sausage being made and it’s …. shocking.

  “As it was, Carter and Reagan were actually tied in the polls till the debates, at which point Reagan made the voters remember Carter’s failures (“Are you better off now than 4 years ago?”). And that’s why Reagan won.”

  This may or may not be true, and no poll can prove this point. Many people don’t pay attention to the election or come to a decision until closer to the election and to attribute their breaking for Reagan by a debate performance which corresponds to the time-frame many are making decisions is a little narrow. Besides, the debate performance is predicated on reality on the ground and people’s existing perceptions as they already exist and develop. Therefore to ascribe, in isolation, a shift in public opinion to a debate performance is a real stretch.

• 74 bartlettb // May 26, 2009 at 3:29 pm

  Re defeating incumbants, let’s not forget Bush 41. Re Reagan in 1980, the default position is that the election was his to lose. But people had doubts about him. Thus the importance of the debate is not so much that Carter screwed up as that Reagan showed that he was not crazy.

  Incidentally, these story lines about elections are very, very important in terms of determining future election strategies. Those with good knowledge about them have a responsibility to speak up lest incorrect story lines become embedded in the public consciousness.

  That’s one reason why I write so often about Kemp and Reagan. Since I worked for both of them, I’m trying as best I can to keep mythology from getting people on the wrong track insofar as they wish to emulate them.

• 75 bartlettb // May 26, 2009 at 3:36 pm

  Incidentally, just today I got an e-mail from a very prominent libertarian criticizing my view that all those who run for public office are interested in acquiring political power. They may wish to use that power for good, from a libertarian point of view, but their desire is to acquire power nevertheless.

  What I found curious is that this person cited Ronald Reagan as an example. Yet this person was a furious critic of Reagan as governor, as a presidential candidate, and as president. He was at best a sell-out, in this person’s published comments at the time, and at worst an agent of the left disguised as a conservative.

  My point is simply that how any person or historical event appears depends on one’s perspective.

• 76 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 4:18 pm

  Re: Sinz54; 11:57 AM –

  “barker13: No, it is YOU who is missing the key component:”

  (*SIGH*)

  (*SHRUG*)

  OK, Sinz… if that’s the way you wanna play it.

  (*SNORT*)

  Seriously, Sinz, it’s quite clear you argue just to argue.

  YOU brought up Mondale and Dukakis. I countered both examples. NOW you come back with Carter…?

  Focus, man! Focus…!!!

  (*SNORT*) (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

  Re: Franco; 2:59 PM –

  “barker13, your logic on McCain in 2008 mirrors mine.”

  (*HANDSHAKE*) (*MUTUAL BACK SLAPPING*)

  (Sinz. Pay ATTENTION to me. Pay ATTENTION to Franco. We’re trying to EDUCATE you…!!!)

  BILL

• 77 ireign // May 26, 2009 at 4:33 pm

  Mr. Bartlett, perhaps you address this in the comments but I would be interested to know what “conservative” positions of Powell’s do you support?

  He is staunch proponent of quota-like goals in university admissions, recently said he favors a bigger government, agrees with Democrats on judges (and made that part of his endorsement for Obama), doesn’t really have a coherent foreign policy other than he tends to be dovish, and has in the past been a staunch proponent of gun control.

  What is the conservative or even libertarian case for Powell?

• 78 ireign // May 26, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  Mr. Bartlett, perhaps you address this in the comments but I would be interested to know what “conservative” positions of Powell’s do you support?

  He is staunch proponent of quota-like goals in university admissions, recently said he favors a bigger government, agrees with Democrats on judges (and made that part of his endorsement for Obama), doesn’t really have a coherent foreign policy other than he tends to be dovish, and has in the past been a staunch proponent of gun control.

  What is the conservative or even libertarian case for Powell?

• 79 ireign // May 26, 2009 at 4:43 pm

  I would also add that regardless of whether Powell could win, what would Republicans get from a Powell administration that is significantly different from an Obama one? I don’t see much of a difference in viewpoints. Moreover, I am not sure Powell could win. Wesley Clark, who is more intelligent than Powell (C student vs Rhodes Scholar) proved to be disaster as a candidate. Obviously, Powell is very good at schmoozing with others to advance his career but has shown any brilliance in foreign policy or war? I haven’t noticed.

• 80 bartlettb // May 26, 2009 at 4:45 pm

  I have no idea what “conservative” positions Powell holds. All I know is that he has repeatedly and publicly declared himself to be a Republican despite having endorsed Obama. I also voted for Obama despite having spent my life working in Republican politics because I was–and still am–disgusted with the Republican Party for various reasons that I partially explained in my Impostor book. But I took the logical step of leaving the Republican Party and declaring myself to be an independent. Powell has not; on the contrary, he has reiterated his membership in the Republican Party. I would like to know whay. Perhaps his reasoning would be persuasive to me and I would rejoin the GOP, or perhaps not. I don’t know. But I respect General Powell and would take very seriously whatever reasons he offered. I would just like to know what they are.

• 81 Baghdad_Bob // May 26, 2009 at 5:02 pm

  Yes, Colin Powell is Worthy to be our Glorious Leader. Never mind that he endorsed Barack Obama – that never happened so forget about it. Anyway you can’t blame him for that, he was voting his skin color; along with 51% of everybody else who voted for The Chosen One
  .

• 82 ireign // May 26, 2009 at 5:17 pm

  Bruce Barlett wrote, “Thus the ultimate message Powell has to offer Republicans is the most persuasive one of allfollow him and win or follow Cheney-Limbaugh-Palin and lose. Personally, I would like to see Powell follow in the steps of Dwight D. Eisenhower and run for presidentIll sign up for his campaign today even if it means having to rejoin the Republican Party.”

  Yet, you have given no evidence that he can win, that the only alternative is him or Palin, or named a single position that makes you want to renounce your independence, possibly re-register as a Republican, and devote your time to helping him win.

  “I would like to know whay. Perhaps his reasoning would be persuasive to me and I would rejoin the GOP, or perhaps not. I don’t know.”

  The language, tone, and substance of your comments are far different from your post. I am not asking about you rejoining the GOP but asking what makes you support Powell.

  This is worse than a puff piece.

• 83 KFIR // May 26, 2009 at 5:35 pm

  While I could not agree more with Mr. Bartlett, those who wish to see a renewed Republican Party free of the Cheney-Limbaugh-Palin wing and its extremist ideology cannot simply look to one great individual, like Colin Powell, or anyone else to lead it. It is not enough. Things have gone too far, as has the GOP, to think that everything can be set right by a group of charismatic leaders. No, the Republicans who are now independents, and all those still within the GOP who silently hope for a return to more balanced rational thinking have to begin somewhere. I propose the following.
  We must all ask the question loudly, online, on radio, on television, everywhere, no matter how difficult it may be. That question is WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING A ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICAN?!
  Why shouldn’t we embrace this part of the GOP history. Not because it has all the answers to our problems. It is not the future of the GOP. But by embracing the role and philosophies that Rockefeller Republicans had in the GOP’s past, we can lead the party back to a place where it can ground itself once more, change its image and substance, and fashion a new political platform for the 21st Century.
  So I urge everyone who reads Newmajority to start asking themselves and others, as our new battle cry, WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING A ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICAN? THERE IS NO SIN IN IT!!!

• 84 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 5:56 pm

  Funny how people who vote for far left wing Democrats as the alternative to voting McCain want to re-invent the Republican party. I suggest they go re-invent themselves into a coherent political philosophy.

  It is not as if pro life McCain was going to repeal Roe V Wade. He wasn’t going to prosecute the war in Iraq any more forcefully than Obama is. He was not, in short a conservative by any stretch. He was not going to radically change our economic system as Obama has. It is, to use Bruce’s preferred word, baffling.

  What is wrong with being a Rockefeller Republican? They are statists and we have had our fill of State power, any more and we’re all doomed, unless you work for the government already, and even then your standard of living and your personal freedom will steadily and perhaps precipitously diminish.

• 85 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 6:00 pm

  KFIR, …”the Cheney-Limbaugh-Palin wing and its extremist ideology…”

  Extremist?

  Really, go read some history . Or anthropology will do, or a political tome or two, even a travel book on other cultures. You could read a fith grade text book even to discover that you are way out of your league here.

  Try educating yourself before spewing this kind of shallow rhetoric.

• 86 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 6:10 pm

  The philosophy of Rockefeller Republicans in the past was what exactly?

  Go along to get along?

  One world government by elites like themselves?

  Line the pockets of our friends and smash our political enemies to maintain power?

  Please enlighten us.

  I happened to be one of the 385 people in the world who has read Rockefeller’s manifesto for his 1968 campaign for the R nomination. What utter drivel.

• 87 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 6:11 pm

  And Bruce – you voted for Obama? How’s that working out for you? Any job offers yet?

• 88 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 6:15 pm

  Who do Republicans have to nominate in 2012 for Powell to actually vote for the party which he claims membership?

  There is a reason I don’t belong to a golf club. I don’t play golf. What’s Colin’s excuse for being a Republican?

• 89 JSharke // May 26, 2009 at 6:39 pm

  sinz54@10:23 AM:
  “The UNITED NATIONS did NOT call for the use of force in 2003 to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. So for the United States to claim that they took it on themselves to enforce U.N. resolutions is bogus.”

  A spiffing non-sequitur if ever I heard one. It simply does not follow that since the UN didn’t agree with the use of force, that the US did not invade Iraq on the basis of the reasoning behind the UN resolutions. Simply put, there was a very good reason for those UN resolutions – despite the UN being otherwise morally impotent in many ways – and the US decided that since the impotent UN would not do anything to enforce those resolutions, they would take action regardless.

  The fact is that the UN, an organization which has shown itself to have startlingly low standards of value, nonetheless perceived Saddam Hussein’s regime to be a grave danger to the world. And indeed it was. It was that reality – not the opinion of the UN – which drove us to take action. And if the reason for the war wasn’t “regime change” then why was Saddam given an ultimatum: step down as leader of the Ba’ath Party and allow a successor to take over, or we’ll take you out by force? If “finding WMDs” had been the main reason for war, as liberals so disingenuously continue to claim, then why give a chance for the Ba’athists to remain in power without invading the country? It was Saddam we went after, not WMD’s, although the threat of WMD’s most certainly was real. The Democrats issued statements warning against the grave danger of Saddam and WMD’s all throughout Clinton’s Presidency, into Bush’s and in fact right up to the exact moment they realized they could gain political currency by opposing the same military action they’d urged for years. For a stunning indictment of the lies and betrayal of the Democrats regarding the Iraq war, I suggest you read Horowitz and Johnson’s “Party of Defeat,” the central thesis of which has to date not been successfully challenged despite there being a cash prize on offer.

  sinz54@10:23 AM:
  “Besides, Saddam had been violating U.N. resolutions before 9-11. Yet Bush, as a candidate for President in 2000, NEVER considered that a casus belli for another war against Iraq. So your argument on Iraq is bogus.”

  What good would it have done Bush’s campaign to run on an Iraq war ticket? The threat of the Middle East was hardly the issue of the day. It sure was after 9/11 though.

  sinz54@10:23 AM:
  “And your refusal to accept that the Iraq War was a VIOLATION of the principles of many thoughtful Americans, both liberal and conservative, is YOUR problem. If YOU want to claim that the only reason that Americans turned against the Iraq War was “spite,” that’s YOUR problem.”

  Right back at ya – the appeasement and non-engagement of a dangerous psychopath like Saddam Hussein would have been, likewise, a violation of the principles of many other thoughtful Americans.

  Bush’s military action liberated 50 million from two of the most barbaric and oppressive regimes in history. It also planted precious seeds of democracy in the Middle East. The road to world peace is the spread of free trade and democracy – the two single greatest pacifiers in history. Contrast Bush’s achievements with the Clinton-backed Iraq sanctions of the 90’s, which were responsible for the deaths of twice as many Iraqis as died in the Iraq war. Madeline Albright, in a TV interview, called these deaths “worth it.” Yet I didn’t see a single liberal or anyone else protesting on the streets and calling Albright the devil.

  Furthermore, I did not claim that the only reason why Americans turned against the Iraq war was “spite.” I suggest you either reappraise your eye prescription or learn to read. We can, however, assert that the disgracefully agenda-driven and non-objective reporting of the liberal media had a lot to do with it.

• 90 JSharke // May 26, 2009 at 6:52 pm

  sinz54@10:27 AM:
  “I would like to show you the sheer magnitude of this “disagreement,” which you have gone out of your way to belittle as unimportant or even irrelevant. The following webpage takes a while to load; be patient:

  http://beezone.homestead.com/womenvets2005_2006.html

  What exactly did these women die for? What has America accomplished with their blood? And in what way is it consistent with traditional principles of conservatism?”

  What exactly is the point you are trying to make with that link – that people die in war? There has not been a single war in history in which people did not die. Are we to conclude that none of these wars have ever been just because of this?

  If you want to know what these women died for then perhaps you should read the excellent book “The Bomb in My Garden” written by Mahdi Obeidi, one of Saddam’s nuclear scientists. From this you will learn just how close Saddam had been to developing nuclear weapons prior to the war – and how quickly he was likely to have developed them had we not removed him from power. The individual character traits of Saddam was also a deciding factor in his removal – he was a dangerously reckless tyrant who had a decidedly blas take on the concept of “consequence.” Sooner or later, the intersection of religious jihad, secular radicalism and WMD’s was going to catch up with us in explosive fashion. To have left Saddam in place and done nothing about his threat would have been a spectacularly irresponsible thing to do. The families of every single US solider who died in Iraq ought to be extremely proud of their effort and their sacrifice.

• 91 JSharke // May 26, 2009 at 7:10 pm

  bartlettb@4:45 PM:
  “I have no idea what “conservative” positions Powell holds. All I know is that he has repeatedly and publicly declared himself to be a Republican despite having endorsed Obama.”

  So Colin Powell’s “declaration” is now a standard of truth? And this declaration is more decisive to you than his *actual* values? If you have no idea what conservative values that Powell holds then you have no factual basis upon which to label him as a Republican and hence a conservative (I will remind you again that the Republican Party is a conservative party).

  Let’s get down to the nitty gritty. What is it, exactly, about Obama’s ideological agenda – his political values and views – do you suppose Powell agrees with? Which of them will you now claim are compatible with conservatism? If Powell is a Republican (conservative) then which of Obama’s policies are palatable or attractive to someone with conservative values?

  If Powell supports the Obama agenda then he’s not a conservative and not a Republican. It really is as simple as that. I really cannot fathom his motive for continuing to claim that he’s still a Republican. Obama is without a shadow of a doubt the most left leaning President in the history of the United States.

  bartlettb@4:45 PM:
  “I also voted for Obama despite having spent my life working in Republican politics because I was–and still am–disgusted with the Republican Party for various reasons that I partially explained in my Impostor book.”

  I will ask the same question of you. What is it about Obama’s ideological values and his agenda for America that you felt worthy of your support? Let’s try and frame your support of Obama not in terms of your “disgust” with Republicans, but in terms of what values you feel Obama brings to a US Presidency. You did not, of course, have to vote for Obama as part of not voting for McCain.

  bartlettb@4:45 PM:
  “But I took the logical step of leaving the Republican Party and declaring myself to be an independent. “

  That’s not necessarily an illogical step of course. But claiming to be a conservative and voting for Obama most certainly is.

  bartlettb@4:45 PM:
  “Powell has not; on the contrary, he has reiterated his membership in the Republican Party. I would like to know whay. Perhaps his reasoning would be persuasive to me and I would rejoin the GOP, or perhaps not.”

  Given his support for Obama, his continued claim to be a Republican has no logical rhyme or reason. Nor does your voting for Obama, unless of course you would like to outline to us the intersection between your political views and those of Obama. Powell may reiterate his membership of the Republican Party just as anyone may reiterate their membership of whatever Party, group or club they like, without it necessarily having any factual or logical basis. I am a member of the Triads. It doesn’t matter that I’m not Chinese, my claim is enough (or is it?).

  bartlettb@4:45 PM:
  ” I don’t know. But I respect General Powell and would take very seriously whatever reasons he offered. I would just like to know what they are.”

  You mean before or after you write an article in which you proclaim his suitability to lead the Republican Party? Seems a fair question to ask.

• 92 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 7:47 pm

  Re: Bartlettb; 4:45 PM –

  “I also voted for Obama despite having spent my life working in Republican politics because I was–and still am–disgusted with the Republican Party for various reasons that I partially explained in my Impostor book.”

  OK. So… you’re saying you had a temper tantrum…??? Other than “punishing” the GOP, did you have any “patriotic” reason for voting for Obama as opposed to say… voting for Bob Barr or your former boss Ron Paul?

  Don’t get me wrong, I understand and actually respect anger and a desire to “punish,” but surely that can’t be the be all and end all of your voting for Obama – you must have had some other reason… or am I wrong?

  Take me for example. I voted for John Hall in ‘06 in order to FIRE my (then) RINO Congresswoman Sue Kelly.

  HOWEVER… in “firing” her my ultimate goal was to push the GOP back to brand of fiscal conservatism by getting rid of a RINO who talked the talk but didn’t walk the walk – not just on financial issues, but on a whole host of issues.

  In other words, I was voting to cut off my nose to spite my face in the NEAR term with my mid and long term hope being to return true conservatism to control of Congress sometime in the future.

  Now I’ve already explained my vote for Barr as opposed to McCain. Again, my reasoning (whether you buy it or not) was ultimately “pro-conservative” as I define conservatism; you’re reasoning though… to vote for Obama simply to punish the GOP… that doesn’t sound “noble” in the least – it comes across as petulant and petty.

  Re: Franco; 5:56 PM –

  “Funny how people who vote for far left wing Democrats as the alternative to voting McCain want to re-invent the Republican party. I suggest they go re-invent themselves into a coherent political philosophy.”

  I’m with Franco.

  I’ve gotta be honest, I’m trying to understand your various positions, Mr. Bartlett, squaring them with your biography vs. your postings… truth be told, I’m left scratching my head.

  BILL

• 93 Bulldoglover100 // May 27, 2009 at 4:53 am

  Faster Brucy Faster! …walk faster and keep deleting my post that ask why Colin Powell should be held to a different standard than other GOP members?

  What a weak person you are to keep deleting this question.

• 94 bartlettb // May 27, 2009 at 7:08 am

  I repeat that I am not deleting anyone’s posts. This is not my web site and I don’t have the power to do so even if I wanted to. Bruce Bartlett

• 95 sinz54 // May 27, 2009 at 8:53 am

  JSharke asks: “why was Saddam given an ultimatum: step down as leader of the Ba’ath Party and allow a successor to take over, or we’ll take you out by force?”

  Because that was a lie.
  Kristol and Wolfowitz wanted regime change as far back as the 1990s. The ultimatum was pure public relations.

  And the proof is that Bush kept touting “building a democracy” in Iraq, on the (false) theory that democracies don’t foment terrorism. Bush was careful never to remind Americans that he had made this, uh, offer you speak of.

  The U.S. invaded Iraq to act in what Bush perceived was our own self-interest. That’s what he said, at the 2004 GOP Convention. He didn’t DARE tell the American people, after years of war and thousands of deaths, that we were only acting to support U.N. resolutions. He might have lost the 2004 election if he had.

  But all this points up an important point: The rationales for the Iraq War kept sliding around.

  Bush didn’t dare tell the American people what the ORIGINAL reason was–the one spelled out by the Project for a New American Century. It was to smash Iraq to avenge Vietnam and demonstrate to the whole world that America was “indomitable” (their word) as it had been in World War II.

  The Iraq War was a perversion of true conservatism. It represented a kind of naked Wilsonian adventurism that had always been associated with DEMOCRATS, never conservatives.

• 96 sinz54 // May 27, 2009 at 9:01 am

  barker13 and JSharke: In 1980, conservatives cheered when Democrats like Roy Innis (Congress of Racial Equality), Ben Wattenberg, and Jeane Kirkpatrick endorsed Reagan for President. Don’t you remember the famous “Reagan Democrats”?

  We didn’t say they were “having a temper tantrum.”

  When the leader of your party drags America into disaster, your responsibility as a citizen transcends your responsibility as a party member. You should do whatever you think necessary to help the nation.

  And that’s true whether the standard-bearer of your party is named Jimmy Carter, or is named George W. Bush. Both men badly damaged the nation. And I’m sorry that both of them ever became President.

• 97 sinz54 // May 27, 2009 at 9:07 am

  barker13: Bruce Bartlett isn’t repeating his reasons for leaving the GOP in this thread. But here’s a quote from him:

  “Democrats finally accepted that applying ideological litmus tests was self-defeating. If some moderate or conservative wanted to run in a district that would only elect a moderate or conservative, then it was stupid to insist that they endorse every liberal item in the Democratic agenda. Moderates and conservatives were permitted to dissent from the party line on issues such as gun control if that was what it took to win.

  “This ‘big tent’ approach was highly successful and greatly helped Democrats retake control of Congress in 2006. What probably hurt congressional Republicans the most, however, was their down-the-line support for every action by George W. Bush, no matter how ill-conceived, poorly implemented or at odds with the party’s basic philosophy, such as when he insisted on a massive expansion of Medicare in 2003.

  “As a consequence, the Republican brand was destroyed. The party is now widely viewed as corrupt, incompetent, ideologically rigid and out of step with the American mainstream. It should be engaging in self-examination, developing an agenda that addresses the real problems faced by Americans and reaching out to the millions of voters who have left the GOP in recent years. Instead, Republicans are pushing out the last of the party’s moderates as if that will somehow make them more popular with the very moderates whose votes are essential if they are to regain power.”

  http://tinyurl.com/d8yvwz

  Jsharke: Your incessant attempts to defend the Bush policies and the Bush legacy are precisely what will keep the GOP from recovering.

  The public was willing to elect an ultra-liberal with no executive experience in a time of war, rather than go with the Bush policies again. That should tell you how unpopular those policies are.

  Yet you love those policies, you keep defending those policies, at a time when the public is glad to have been rid of Bush and his policies.

  The GOP won’t recover till it rids itself of the Bush legacy, much as the Dems had to rid themselves of the Vietnam and Carterite legacies.

• 98 JSharke // May 27, 2009 at 1:52 pm

  Sinz54@8:53 AM:
  “JSharke asks: ‘why was Saddam given an ultimatum: step down as leader of the Ba’ath Party and allow a successor to take over, or we’ll take you out by force?’ Because that was a lie. Kristol and Wolfowitz wanted regime change as far back as the 1990s. The ultimatum was pure public relations.”

  So what? The Democrats wanted regime change all throughout the 90’s also. There is a C-SPAN video on YouTube from the early 90’s which features Al Gore castigating the first President Bush for failing to remove Saddam. And also, how does wanting regime change as early as the ’90’s mean that the ultimatum was a “lie”? Removing Saddam from power one way or another was always going to be a “regime change.” The logic of the ultimatum was that a Ba’athist successor to Saddam would surely realize that if he behaved in the same way as his predecessor then he too would face the same ultimatum.

  Sinz54@8:53 AM:
  “And the proof is that Bush kept touting “building a democracy” in Iraq, on the (false) theory that democracies don’t foment terrorism. Bush was careful never to remind Americans that he had made this, uh, offer you speak of.”

  I didn’t actually catch anything that made sense in that paragraph. Firstly, Bush promoting democracy is not “proof” of anything you are trying to assert here. Secondly, democracy might not be a guarantee of the end of terrorism but you cannot deny that the spread of democracy has been, along with free trade, the greatest contributor to world peace in human history. In case you hadn’t realized, capitalist democracies don’t go to war with each other (there’s no reason to.) Thirdly, there was never any attempt to hide the ultimatum made to Saddam. It was headline news.

  Sinz54@8:53 AM:
  “The U.S. invaded Iraq to act in what Bush perceived was our own self-interest. That’s what he said, at the 2004 GOP Convention. He didn’t DARE tell the American people, after years of war and thousands of deaths, that we were only acting to support U.N. resolutions. He might have lost the 2004 election if he had.”

  Again, you’re constructing a straw man argument in your insinuation that anyone is claiming that the reason we went to war was merely that Saddam was disobedient to the UN. The reality is that the reasons for the resolutions would have existed whether the UN laid them down formally or not. It was the reasons behind the resolutions – the grave threat that Saddam imposed to the rest of the world – that necessitated war, not the technical existence of UN resolutions per se out of the context of geopolitical reality. We went to war mainly for US interests, which is a perfectly acceptable reason to go to war. The castration of the power of a psychotic, reckless tyrant like Saddam, poised as he was to develop nuclear weapons within a very short time, was imperative and entirely related to the interests of America and Americans. Go read “The Bomb In My Garden” – every doubting American should.

• 99 JSharke // May 27, 2009 at 1:54 pm

  Sinz54@8:53 AM:
  “But all this points up an important point: The rationales for the Iraq War kept sliding around. Bush didn’t dare tell the American people what the ORIGINAL reason was–the one spelled out by the Project for a New American Century. It was to smash Iraq to avenge Vietnam and demonstrate to the whole world that America was “indomitable” (their word) as it had been in World War II.”

  Don’t be so childish. That is nothing more than the stuff of college-level conjecture. It was “to avenge Vietnam”? I’m not even going to dignify that inanity with a reply. Again, the reasons for going to war in Iraq were clear, were stated and were fully justified.

  Sinz54@8:53 AM:
  “The Iraq War was a perversion of true conservatism. It represented a kind of naked Wilsonian adventurism that had always been associated with DEMOCRATS, never conservatives.”

  If the reason for going to war in Iraq was one based on American interests – ultimately, the protection of American citizens, the #1 reason for the existence of our military in the first place – then it was not at odds with conservative values at all.

• 100 JSharke // May 27, 2009 at 2:08 pm

  Sinz54@8:53 AM:
  “Your incessant attempts to defend the Bush policies and the Bush legacy are precisely what will keep the GOP from recovering.”

  Really? I’m what’s keeping the GOP from recovering? Little ‘ole me? *Shucks*

  But yes, I will defend whichever of Bush’s policies I feel are worthy of defense. No more, no less. My doing so will harm the GOP not one bit. Also, with Obama currently in the process of screwing the nation up beyond anything we’ve seen in US history (just look at the projected deficits) and proving that he’s not the “pragmatic centrist” he fooled independents into believing he was, the GOP is set to look more attractive than ever. We’ll see this, of course, in 2010.

  Sinz54@8:53 AM:
  “The public was willing to elect an ultra-liberal with no executive experience in a time of war, rather than go with the Bush policies again. That should tell you how unpopular those policies are.”

  Rather, it tells me just how disgracefully unprofessional, counter-objective and hysterically biased the liberal mainstream media was in their agenda-driven promotion of perhaps the worst US Presidential candidate in history. They managed, for example, to convince the masses that the economic crash, caused mainly by a combination of Democrat policy and the Federal Reserve, was the fault of Bush and “deregulation.” They also failed to ask any important questions about their Messiah, acted like a promotional wing of the Obama campaign and catapulted him into celebrity status in perhaps the shallowest, image-driven campaign in modern history.

  The public (well, slightly over half of them) was prepared to elect a man many thought was someone entirely different, thanks to the mainstream liberal media and the bang-up job they did in promoting such an awful candidate. Of course, the utter ham-fisted, lily-livered incompetence of the McCain campaign didn’t exactly hurt.

  Sinz54@8:53 AM:
  “Yet you love those policies, you keep defending those policies, at a time when the public is glad to have been rid of Bush and his policies.”

  Stop being so infantile Sinz. You do yourself no favors by sounding like a teenager posting comments to YouTube. I “love” those policies? Why bother use such a glaringly inappropriate and exaggerated word like “love”? I don’t “love” the policies of Bush, I simply see value in some of them, not all. I’m hardly sittin’ up a tree with the man. Bush was by no means a fantastic President, he was a good one. He was by no means anywhere near as incompetent as the liberal media and blogosphere painted him as. The anti-Bush hysteria of the last 8 years long since lost any possible claim of objectivity and quickly descended into the kind of shrill histrionics which have ruined political discourse in recent years.

• 101 KFIR // Jun 1, 2009 at 4:13 pm

  ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICANS!

You must log in to post a comment.