Have There Ever Been This Many Conservatives At Once On Npr?

50 responses so far

• 1 BarbD // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:07 pm

  That’s because it’s NPR where regular listeners like me would be shocked and horrified by the kind of slug fests that seem common elsewhere

  Seriously, it was a good show. As someone who leans middle-left politically, I’m not likely to vote Republican any time soon. But I’m listening to what you and other more moderate and inclusive voices are saying.

• 2 FilmLadd // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:56 pm

  Which conservatives are you referring to? You’re not very good at distinguishing conservatives from beltway elites.

• 3 johnnycat // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:10 pm

  Wow, I keep posting the hypocrisy of David being proud of associating with conservatives from NRO and people on his site bashing NRO. And they keep deleting that comment. Is this the untenable “shouting” that Frum supposedly frowns upon? Or is it just censorship?

• 4 Go Dog Go! // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:44 pm

  It’s exactly this kind of calm, thoughtful discourse which has made David Frum both persona non grata among Limbaugh conservatives and the voice of reason in a political party run amok. Until the right wing of the party calms down and listens to Mr. Frum’s well-reasoned argument, the GOP will shrink even further in power and prestige. Deep breaths, people.

• 5 Republitarian // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:50 am

  I must be the exception and not the rule because I enjoy both Limbaugh and Frum. I like Rush because he’s entertaining and a great showman. But, clearly he says some things (intentionally) that are off-color, at best. And, because of that, he’s not the best choice for the face of the GOP – or even conservatism. But, he makes some great points, even if in a politically uncomfortable way. And, there’s nothing wrong with that. David Frum, on the other hand, speaks to part of me that wishes to stretch my intellect and broaden my understanding of complicated ideas. And there’s nothing wrong with that either. At some point you have to be for something more than small government less taxes. You have to be able to articulate why those things are important and what type of positive impact it will have on the average voter, especially the more moderate (even wishy-washy) swing voter. It may be uncomfortable for the more orthodox conservative to hear, but it doesn’t make it incorrect.

• 6 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 3:51 am

  I caught the program, since I am an NPR junkie, and my belief in the possible total meltdown of the GOP has been reinforced. As long as the extreme right wing controls the GOP, with Rush Limbaugh controlling both the message and the policy, then the GOP will be marginalized as the internal strife continues.

• 7 mlindroo // Mar 6, 2009 at 5:31 am

  Chekote wrote:

  “David. Why do you keep insisting that Rush has made racial remarks about Obama?”

  Does the juvenile “Barack the Magic Negro” incident ring a bell?

• 8 Yuri // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:08 am

  Rush was referencing an editorial titled “Barack the magic negro” written by David Ehrenstein for the L.A. Times on March 17, 2007. Was Ehrenstein being racial and juvenile? Or does he get a pass?

• 9 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:25 am

  mlindroo. Here we go again a comment from someone who doesn’t listen to Rush. As Yuri pointed out, the Magico song was a parody based on a Los Angeles Times column published in 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story . Rush was making fun AA questioning Obama’s “blackness”. If there are any racists in this indicident, it is them not Rush. Again, before posting about Rush take the time to listen to his program.

• 10 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:30 am

  “At some point you have to be for something more than small government less taxes.” How about maximizing indiidual freedom? How about telling people that they should be in charge of determing the price of healthcare instead of the government? How about telling people that we need to reduce the amount of tax revenue going to DC so that more money is left in our communities and we can, then, decide whether we want to fund the marsh mouse? Sorry, but David’s brand of conservatism is the compassionate conservatism of Bush which was a disaster. David still wants to concentrate power in DC while most conservatives want to reduce the power of DC.

• 11 sinz54 // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:40 am

  BarbD sez: “As someone who leans middle-left politically, I’m not likely to vote Republican any time soon.” I’m curious: What drove you to lean middle-left, originally? Was it something you learned in school, or a personal life experience, or what? And what would we conservatives have to do, to make our policies attractive to you? Unlike the talk-radio loons, I really am interested in a dialogue with folks like you, to understand where you are coming from and whether we could ever get you to vote for us.

• 12 sinz54 // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:45 am

  Chekote sez: “How about maximizing individual freedom….[rest deleted for brevity]“: I don’t think there’s anything you wrote there that Frum would disagree with. I don’t think Frum resigned from National Review because he disagrees so strongly with economic conservatism. I think he launched New Majority because he sees conservatism becoming reactionary, afraid to even address issues like health care or environmentalism; and because he fears that the angry social conservatives are driving away minorities, just at a time when their numbers are increasing. I’ll bet you that things like “Planet Gore” and Mark Krikorian’s opposition even to LEGAL immigration (he thinks we have too many minorities already) are what drove Frum to break with National Review, and set up New Majority. (When Reagan ran for President in 1980, National Review didn’t have anybody like Mark Krikorian.)

• 13 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:53 am

  sinz54, I will not speak for BarbD obviously, but this is your problem, I think. ” Unlike the talk-radio loons…” The talk radio loons are the ones who are in charge. And as long as the anger and hate that they project in the name of whatever policies they are supporting continues, then you will have no chance of appealing to me, a liberal whose demographic screams Republican. Remember Claire McCaskill and Rush’s parody of Michael J. Fox’s ad? That was not only a low point, but inexcusable, and the ditto heads applauded it.

• 14 Dan Crank // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:08 am

  sinz54 Maybe if we ban all guns, makey marage legal, come up with a green agenda that is earth shatering, nationalize banking and industry, tax the rich, unionize everything and get rid of God. Maybe that would make things more attractive for left center types. I dont know if you have noticed but we already have all of this currently. Do we really want to change all these things just to get some votes. I am a fisical coservative but a little more liberal on social issues That seems to be a popular sentiment these days. It is a proven loser. If building a conservatism that can win again means changing what conservatism is then that will also be a loser. Your mantra of CHANGE will be the downfall of everything that is good in this contry.

• 15 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:10 am

  Ultimately sinz, trying to turn back the clock to the good ole days, ie pre FDR, is not going to sway liberals like me.

• 16 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:47 am

  One more thing, sinz, get off this kick about “strict constructionists” for the Supreme Court. Nothing frightens me more than a bunch of Antonin Scalia clones up there on the bench.

• 17 sinz54 // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:02 am

  dan crank: A mix of economic conservatism and social moderation is NOT a proven loser on the West Coast, or in the Northeast, or in the Research Triangle of North Carolina. The Republican Party used to be a national party, with a substantial presence of GOP social moderates in those states. I can remember GOP senators like Jacob Javits, Ed Brooke, etc. Now the GOP is being pushed back into its Southern and Southwestern strongholds, because the type of Republican you support cannot win in the Blue States, and increasingly cannot win in the Purple States either.

• 18 sinz54 // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:10 am

  owl: The influence of right-wing talk radio is a symptom, not the cause. The cause is the the GOP’s basic strategy of conceding non-Red states (except Ohio) to the Democrats. Karl Rove’s playbook was to turn out the talk-radio and evangelical voters to win all the Red States plus Ohio, and thus achieve a 51% majority in the Electoral College. With that playbook, the GOP only needs to energize its bedrock base of Limbaugh fans and evangelical Christians, via talk-radio and the religious right groups. It doesn’t need to reach voters like you with a different message. It doesn’t need a national, and hence more moderate, message.

• 19 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:23 am

  “Nothing frightens me more than a bunch of Antonin Scalia clones up there on the bench.” Intelligence frightens you, I see. God forbid we should look to our Constitution. Instead, let’s see what the Europeans would do. That’s the ticket!

• 20 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:27 am

  sinz. Frum is beating around the bush. One main issue hurt the GOP in CA and the NE, NY suburbs. Especially with women; Abortion. Instead of running around talking about immigration, global warming, he should take on the HLA plank.

• 21 Dan Crank // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:36 am

  Sinz54: Let us know when you reinvent the wheel. When your left of center conservatism takes hold what will you do with all of those horrible southern (Red state) people with there old tired ideas? There are some current GOP senators you can be proud of Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. HOPE and CHANGE it makes me tingle how about you.

• 22 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:39 am

  sinz: “owl: The influence of right-wing talk radio is a symptom, not the cause….”

  I would not argue with your analyis.

• 23 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:48 am

  And as for the Constitution, God forbid that anyone, let alone a President of the United States, actually thinks that it is just “…a piece of paper.”

• 24 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:51 am

  owl. Your ignorance is showing again. When people talk about strict constructionists, nobody is talking about going back to the good old days. It means following the tenth amendment, i.e. if it ’s not in the Constitution then the issue should be left to the states. Please don’t bring up slavery and discrimination. Those issues are addressed in the Constitution. We are a culturally diverse country. What is acceptable in NY is not acceptable in rural Texas and vice versa. Again, there are three reasons for people to be a liberal.

• 25 owl // Mar 6, 2009 at 11:12 am

  Have all the “conservative” politcal blogs been taken over by the extreme right wing?

• 26 Oneon1isto // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:53 pm

  Rivetingly discordant as usual guys, and I’m impressed that “rivetingly” is a word. Chekote: the point of about strict constructionists simply means that if we had bee left with only strict constructionists, we couldn’t have made any of the constitutional gains that have been made in the past. Point being, if you argue for strict constructionism now, you’re arguing for stopping the clock, rather than turning back the clock. Strict constructionist is kind of a misnomer anyway, since even your strictest constructionists don’t stick to the constitution when the most basic personal interpretation is required. Scalia, our most recent SC drummer, constantly wails federalism against a wall (even though he’s a federalist) when it comes to his own personal preferences. Good recent example would be striking down medical marijuana in CA. IMO, strict constructionist in common parlance just means you “dont like them durn activist judges”.

• 27 HollywoodBill // Mar 6, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  The GOP is losing what’s left of its strength in the Southwest, at least AZ and NM. Nevada went Dem in 08. The only candidate who had a snowball’s chance of defeating McCain in 2010 was Napolitano. McCain is probably the only reason AZ stayed Dem this time around. NM is now a Dem state. With the socons firmly in control of the national party, the GOP is going to stay a regional party, headquartered in the South and the Bible Belt. Until that changes, it is going to be out of power.

• 28 realconservativ // Mar 6, 2009 at 3:18 pm

  Checkote -

  What are your thoughts about Michael Steele now? The head of the North Carolina GOP (a black woman) is calling for his resignation (see bejohngalt.com).

• 29 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:31 pm

  Oneo. You are not stopping the clock. For example, social issues would be left to the states. As the culture changes, so will the laws. As Rush says, ignorance is the most expensive commodity in this country.

• 30 Chekote // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:34 pm

  RealCon. Steele stepped in it. But it is too early to call for his resignation. I still prefer Steele over the guy who belonged in a “whites only” club.

• 31 johnnycat // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:42 pm

  I think that what’s missing in this debate is an acknowledgment of the “moderates” of the following (notice I am screaming) It is important to remember that the so-called right-wing of the conservative movement was trying mightily to shore up the sinking ship of the McCain campaign during the past election. They only started doing this with enthusiasm once McCain/Palin spiked in the polls after the Rep. Convention. Before that they were already reconciling to the fact that McCain would lose and that the with him the Rep. Party had already shifted to the left. Add to this the hostility of the mainstream media to conservatives and their obvious support of Obama and you have a fuel for justified conservative anger. Another factor too, is the fact that many conservative journalists were pointing out the fact that Obama appeared to be a very radical candidate and inklings of his agenda could be discerned, but were absolutely ignored by most everyone else, including the “moderates.” let’s even throw in the unfair treatment of Palin and is it any wonder that the conservatives have a justified anger and suspicion toward “moderates” who either endorsed Obama or attacked the MCain/Palin and weakened the ticket? I mean, given what we now see coming out of Washington, should not these same conservatives who were ignored and tried mightily to save the McCain ticket at least be given an apology? I really wonder why the “moderates” continue to think tweaking the right is the best policy.

• 32 sinz54 // Mar 7, 2009 at 8:25 am

  johnnycat: You are rewriting history. The right-wing had their chance during the 2008 primary season. They fell in love with Fred Thompson and literally drafted him into the race. And then Thompson crashed and burned. It’s their responsibility, and their fault, for betting on the wrong horse. By the time Thompson crashed and burned, the only two remaining serious candidates were Romney and McCain. Then the right-wing, led by National Review, tried to switch to Romney; but the evangelicals, led by Huckabee, remained unenthusiastic about Romney because he’s a Mormon. Combined with McCain’s strong support for Bush’s surge in Iraq, which had the overwhelming support of all Republicans except Ron Paul’s small group, McCain captured the GOP nomination. The right-wing has no reason to be angry at anyone but themselves. They lost, fair and square.

• 33 sinz54 // Mar 7, 2009 at 8:41 am

  HollywoodBill: “With the socons firmly in control of the national party, the GOP is going to stay a regional party….” If the GOP is to break out of its current funk, the SoCons have to lose on some visible issue. That’s the only way to show that the GOP isn’t in their pocket. I would like to see the national GOP take on the SoCons on some symbolic issue, one where the SoCons have only weak arguments. And that issue is embryonic stem-cell research. The GOP platform should enthusiastically endorse it, and applaud Obama’s attempt to reinstitute full Federal funding of it. Just today, RedState.com was off in reflexive denunciation of Obama’s plan. But on this issue, the SoCons aren’t making sense: Those embryos, left over from in-vitro fertilizations, would be discarded anyway to die. So if they’re going to die anyway, then taking their stem cells doesn’t matter all that much. (The SoCons lost that battle when they lost the fight over in-vitro fertilization. Once that became widespread, you had zillions of embryos left to die.) Nancy Reagan wants full support of embryonic stem cell research too.

• 34 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 12:02 pm

  sinz: I don’t think that you actually addressed the point I was making. As far as the latter days of the campaign, I think the evidence that Obama was a lot more radical than he was found out and discussed eloquently by National Review (which you mischaracterize and try to discredit). For conservatives to have supported Obama and/or weakened McCain/Palin, in light of what is now coming out of Washington proves them wrong. And for the moderates to continue to go on the attack when a compliant and biased mainstream media is supporting the most statist/socialist policies proposed since FDR is self-defeating. I stand by my historical analysis and my conclusions.

• 35 sinz54 // Mar 7, 2009 at 1:15 pm

  johnnycat: It may surprise you, but I happen to agree with you about the defections of conservatives like Douglas Kmiec to Obama. I knew they would be proven wrong. Obama was, and is, a doctrinaire liberal, though he had obviously moved to the center during the campaign. Neither David Frum nor I supported Obama. As for the McCain/Palin ticket, the hard-right base of the GOP had done their level best to weaken and discredit McCain for years. They never forgave him for the McCain-Feingold bill, which reduced the power of some of the Christian PACs in an election campaign. Before McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, it was unclear if the GOP base would even campaign for McCain. Initially, most Republicans and conservatives were enthusiastic about McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin. I know I was. It was only after Sarah Palin opened her mouth without a prepared speech, and revealed herself to be completely ignorant on world issues, that some of us conservatives became disappointed with her. And we were right. Sarah Palin’s ignorance negated one of McCain’s strongest points–that he and his ticket would have the experience and knowledge to hit the ground running, in comparison to the inexperienced Obama. I too stand by my analysis.

• 36 sinz54 // Mar 7, 2009 at 1:24 pm

  johnnycat: One more thing: After McCain locked up the GOP nomination, his first choice for a running mate was Tom Ridge. Tom Ridge was pro-choice, and McCain hoped to appeal to some of the disappointed female voters who had supported Hillary’s losing candidacy. Well, the pushback from the Religious Right began immediately. Led by Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review, they threatened to withdraw their support from McCain if McCain put Tom Ridge on the ticket. And without the Social Conservatives, no GOP candidate can win anymore. McCain was forced to do some quick thinking, and replaced Ridge with Sarah Palin. You have accused David Frum or some like him of “weakening” McCain’s candidacy. For your information, the Religious Right would have *destroyed* McCain’s candidacy by refusing to support him or even vote for him, if he didn’t appease them with a pro-life social conservative (who turned out to be Sarah Palin).

• 37 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 1:41 pm

  Sinz54: I agree that social conservatives are an important part of the conservative coalition and we should tread lightly whenever we are asked to distance ourselves from them. It appears that you see it the same way. Frankly, I like the fact that people who have very strong principals exist within the movement and are willing to stand up for those principals when they feel they are threatened. I think that is a qualitative difference that distinguishes us from the left: people here are not willing to easily sacrifice everything they believe and in fact, have worked for, because of strategic political calculation. that’s not to say that social conservatives do not contemplate strategy-believe me they do. It seems to me that the Frum-ites and yourself are frustrated by the social conservatives. I just wonder where that comes from.I believe you misread them and you are basing your strategy to build a “New Majority” on false pretenses and ideas that are not coming from within the movement and those who have fought for so long to build it. You are trying to modify the message so that it will not be easily ravaged by the left. Because of this, I think, you misread the left as well.

• 38 HollywoodBill // Mar 7, 2009 at 1:42 pm

  Sinz, while I basically agree with your analysis particularly about Tom Ridge, I was hoping that McCain would exhibit some of McCain 1.0 from 2000 and call the bluff of the Agents of Intolerance. While some so cons wouldn’t support the ticket, I still don’t think thatAL or MS or any other Bible Belt state would go Democratic. And johnnycat, you’ve got to be kidding to think that any Republican moderate would do anything to support Palin or any other socon candidate . This isn’t quid pro quo. Two Western based Republican politicians and look how poorly they performed in the West. This is a notice for 2012 and beyond. No more regional candidates nor socons will be acceptable on the national ticket. And it might take a few years in the wilderness for that to sink in. Palin is a loser as is the Louisiana exorcist.

• 39 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  Hollywood: I think that is premature to conclude that socon is automatically a loser and then to support g-ay marriage and turn pro-abortion. g-ay marriage was obvioulsy not the reason that McCain lost as just looking at the marriage amendments which had a lot of support among those that voted for Obama. OK so the moderates will not support a socon candidate…so then what? They are an important part of the movement and are one of the most reliable constituencies. Are you going to deal with them and< what I believe to be their very legitimate concerns by trashing them? If you want to take over the Republican Party, I don’;t think that’s a good idea. I await your thoughts on this…

• 40 HollywoodBill // Mar 7, 2009 at 2:42 pm

  johnnycat–There are whole regions of the country where the socons cannot win elections. In California, we haven”t elected one statewide since 1986 and the gubernatorial candidate was Tom Bradley–as in the Bradley Effect. Colorado threw out Marilyn Musgrave. AZ threw out JD Hayworth. And of course, PA thankfully voted out the third tem incumbent, Man On Dog Santorum, the poster boy of the socons. The only regions where socons appear to be capable of winning elections is the South and the Bible Belt. And there’s not enough votes there to win national elections. The electorate is telling the Republican party that certain candidates will not win elections in some states. The GOP needs to listen if it wants to win elections–which is ultimately the goal of the GOP, and not to promote a theocratic philosophy.

• 41 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 2:49 pm

  Ok Hollywood. So what would you do with socons? It seems that they are able to deliver the south pretty consistently, which is absolutely vital for Republicans in national elections. If we need to abandon the socons, my question is how do we do it? I personally do not not that supporting abortion and being against genderless marriage are political losers. But assuming for the sake of argument I agree with you, how would you go about alienating millions of loyal voters within the party? What technique would you use. That’s what I’m asking…

• 42 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 3:04 pm

  Let me put this question another way Hollywood: If you were the dictator of the Republican Party how would you shape it? I am assuming you would banish the socons and move the party socially to the left. That would include being pro-abortion and supporting let’s genderless marriage. Let me add this question: because this would actually be moving the Republican Party to the left of most of the Democratic presidential candidates, who did not supporty marriage but civil unions (which Palin also supported) how does this help us win votes? By being more leftist than the Democrats?

• 43 HollywoodBill // Mar 7, 2009 at 3:25 pm

  I’m in favor of candidates winning elections and setting the national platform. The embroyonic stem cell research from Bush in 2001 is a loser. Contrary to the socons, most Americans favor unrestricted first trimester abortions. Roe is going nowhere. And Governor Jon Huntsman of Utah of all places is promoting the idea of same sex civil unions. That would one up the Dems and could be a box office winner. Palin was in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. She is a religious extremist who did not win any support for McCain and probably caused him votes particularly in the Western states. But I am sick of moralizing busybodies trying to regulate morality and luckily I am from a state that will vote against socons all the time. A Dem is more acceptable in the Western libertarian based Republican states than the Revival Tent Republicans. It would be a relief for the GOP to return to its real libertarian roots–not the faux ones of Bob Barr and Ron Paul. The elecorate is refusing to put so cons into office except in the South and the Bible Belt. The GOP needs to listen.

• 44 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 4:07 pm

  Hollywood: so I guess the answer is that you would, gladly, jettison the socons. While you did that you would be jettisoning people who have a fundamental cultural disagreement with liberalism and that does not only include the so-called “extremists” you believe you have your finger on. Go over to the Big Hollywood website…or New Criterion and you will experience great writing on cultural issues, that dare I say, incorporate a moral perspective to poignant analysis on issues of the day. Once you jettisoned the socons you would probably lose these people too. I think this is suicidal for the Republican Party. Where would all those you jettisoned because you feel they are extremists go? I am anti-abortion and I am against genderless marriage. In your Republican Party I would not have a voice and would be labeled an extremist. Wouldn’t I. Tell me, Bill, where do you think I should go?

• 45 HollywoodBill // Mar 7, 2009 at 4:21 pm

  However, johnnycat, the moralizing busybodies of the GOP are incapable of winning statewide elections except in the South, not to mention national elections. And we are not going to prostelyze ourselves for the evangelical movement. The realities are what they are. New England, The Pacific Coastal states, now the mountain West and the Great Lakes states are incapable of electing so cons. The GOP is not on a kamikaze run. Its goal is to win elections. For example, no so con is running for the GOP nomination for Governor of CA ffor 2010. Because they can’t win. And Arizona might also get a Dem governor in 2010 because the incumbent who replaced Napolitano is a hard core so con and is going to have a rough time winning reelection. Keeping the socons in control of the GOP is a suicide mission too. Ultimately, the voters will sort it out in time. But all projections indicate that sooner or later the socons are going to be leaving the island with 2016 being the most accepted date.

• 46 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 5:29 pm

  i disagree hollywood. you are casting a very long net on the future of the gop on the basis of some electoral defeat. you nor i can predict with certainty what will be conservative’s fate in 8 years. in 2005 they were writing the dems off as unelectable. what is left, then, is an ideological argument. for the most part i am a libertarian and believe hayek and von mises. i just happen to think genderless marriage and abortion are wrong. because neither of us have a crystal ball on the future what is left is to push for what we believe in. that’s the wise course.

• 47 sinz54 // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:43 am

  Johnnycat sez: “so I guess the answer is that you would, gladly, jettison the socons.” NO. FALSE. But I think it’s time that the GOP leadership confronted the SoCons and told them that it’s time for the SoCons to start compromising on their agenda. That the GOP cannot keep dutifully writing their entire agenda into the GOP platform. The SoCons should be reminded that they are one faction within a broad coalition; and in any coalition, no faction can constantly get its own way on everything. There are a lot of ways that the GOP can soften its stance a bit on these hot-button social issues, without totally reversing its traditional stances: Let abortion revert to the states; don’t tell liberal states like Vermont or Massachusetts that they have to ban abortion too. Give homosexuals the rights they’re asking for, in inheritance, hospital visitation, etc., without full marriage. Allow embryonic stem-cell research on embryos that would have been discarded anyway. Welcome homosexuals and single moms into the GOP. Etc.

• 48 sinz54 // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:52 am

  JohnnyCat: I agree with you that two elections (2006 and 2008) are still not transformative. What I have been arguing is that the demographic trends in America are what are tilting against the GOP. Obama won states like New Mexico with the Hispanic vote, which the GOP ceded to the Dems with the collapse of Bush’s immigration bill. Obama won just overwhelmingly among young voters, who are, of course, tomorrow’s middle-aged voters. Obama won among single women (including single moms), who helped Obama carry the suburbs. The yearly Pew Survey of religions in America shows that white married Protestants–the GOP’s bread and butter–are now down to just 51% of the electorate, and that number decreases every year. If the GOP can only win among white married Protestants, it will never win another national election again. The GOP *must* start thinking about how to target groups other than white married Protestants.

• 49 HollywoodBill // Mar 8, 2009 at 9:10 am

  The socons were given a seat at the table, but they keep insisting on the surf and turf while the rest of us are stuck with the rubber chicken. Their totally dogmatic views are alienating the rest of the GOP and while even
  Frum says to moderate the stances, the reality is that the voters are saying NO. The socons are now incapable of winning statewide seats in most regions outside of Dixie and the Bible Belt.

• 50 HollywoodBill // Mar 8, 2009 at 9:19 am

  Jon Hunstman, the Governor of Utah, of course a Mormon, has come up with an intruiging course to G-A-Y marriage: State accepted civil unions with full parity. He is taking a tremendous amount of flack for it, but it has promise since it out Dems the Dems and offers a practical solution. And this issue is certain to be a campaign issue in the CA 2010 gubernatorial race because there is already talk of repealing Prop8 being on the ballot. But the hard core line of overturning Lawrence v Texas is no longer acceptable nor is the overturning of Roe going to happen. If the Socons want to keep Dixie within their grasp, fine. But the rest of the GOP is done with the theocracy. Give us libertarian Republicanism. And the real thing, not the faux Bob Barr or Ron Paul version

You must log in to post a comment.