Let’s Make A Deal

155 responses so far

• 1 mikedbike // Feb 11, 2009 at 7:33 am

  I’m having trouble understanding the point of this article and this website. Is this a website for centrist Democrats?

  In case no one has noticed, the definition of bipartisanship and cooperation is when Republicans and Conservatives surrender completely to a Liberal/Leftist agenda, or at best, are thrown and accept and insignificant bone.

  It isn’t the Republicans who chose not to be bipartisan on the stimulus package, it was the President. He puts on a show while not giving a damn about the opinions and ideas from the other side. In fact, it should be clear to anyone that the President isn’t at all concerned with whether the package fails or succeeds, and he likely knows it will not. He will be untouched either way.

  As for healthcare, the stimulus package already contains a complete victory for socialized medicine. Once accepted, it cannot be stopped.

  Pres. Bush said he had to abandon market capitalism in order to save it. He was wrong. New Majority seems to be saying we need to abandon our conservative values in order to save them. Also wrong.

  If you accept man-made climate change despite no evidence but to just get your foot in the door, you have lost the argument completely.

  I’m starting to think this site is similar to the Republicans for Obama site–designed and run by the opposition.

• 2 Paulie Carbone // Feb 11, 2009 at 8:23 am

  mikedbike, respectfully, your comment is a perfect example of why the Republican party is swirling the drain. I don’t claim to be a conservative or represent the conservative movement. I am, however, someone who used to vote for the Republican party on occasionally. Not any more. If you want to listen to crackpots and deny anthropogenic global warming, go ahead. But the rest of the world has moved beyond that. Frum is trying to get people to constructively engage in the issues of the day, to become part of the conversation, and to avoid a knee-jerk swing to the left by default. Look at the libertarians: they’ve plenty of die-hard ideologues, but no electoral support; most people just ignore them the way you ignore the crazy guy on the street talking to himself. That’s where conservatism is headed as long as people like you keep insisting on ideological purity.

• 3 oenolicious // Feb 11, 2009 at 8:42 am

  The GOP could have taken the ball and run with it, but didn’t. Take for example Obama’s plan to weatherize 2 million homes. Why didn’t they sit down and craft a tax credit for homeowners to weatherize their homes? The Italians are giving tax breaks for people that buy appliances for the home. With Whirlpool showing a 76% drop in profits, why not craft a tax credit for buying energy saving appliances?

• 4 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 8:55 am

  oenolicious. How about letting people keep more of what they earn so that they can spend it on whatever they want? What ever happened to freedom in this country? Why constantly use the tax code to micromanage people’s lives instead of using it to raise revenue to pay for needs such as defense, infratstructure, public education, etc.?

• 5 oenolicious // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:01 am

  Chekote. While I understand what you are saying in principle, I think it would be foolish to pretend that this hasn’t already happened. We give tax breaks for your mortgage, student loans, having children, etc. Since fully 2/3 of the economy is based on consumer spending and now everyone wants to be “green”, it’s a smart move. They could put Obama and the Democrats feet to the fire if they rejected the idea.

• 6 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:03 am

  mikedbike. I share your confusion. When this site was debuted, I thought it would be a vehicle to return conservatism to its roots: limited government, fiscal discipline, strong defense and individual freedom. Instead, Mr. Frum seems to suggest that we move away from said principles and embrace big government just not as big as the Dems want. Again, I just don’t get the point of this site.

• 7 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:09 am

  “If you want to listen to crackpots and deny anthropogenic global warming, go ahead. But the rest of the world has moved beyond that.” The rest of the world is very anti-semitic. As a matter of fact, a recent poll found that 31% of Europeans blame the Jews for the current global financial crisis. Should we follow the world’s lead and join them?

• 8 Oneon1isto // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:13 am

  The comments below need to learn how the game is played. For example, Specter and the other two “turncoat” GOP senators who preempted the filibuster now have huge bargaining power as legislators move forward to consolidate both versions of the stimulus bill, and will be using it to try to ensure that tax breaks remain. Frum’s point should be well taken: if you stymie and remove yourself from the process, you might win a political victory but you lose in the long run. By remaining key to the process, Republicans keep a bargaining chip and can influence debate and policy turnout. They have the chips to make something “bipartisan” and a reputation (whether true in recent years or not) as being fiscally conservative. And because Obama’s been focused prettyn bipartisanship, conservatives can help provide bipartisan legitimacy and fiscal conservative branding to key legislation in return for more pragmatic, mixed bills.

• 9 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:15 am

  oeno. Just because that is the reality, that does not mean we should not work to undue it. What destroyed the GOP was compassionate conservatism. Fiscal discipline, economic issues are the glue that kept various GOP constituencies together, Defense is the other glue. Once the 9/11 faded in people’s minds, there was nothing left to keep the conservative coalition together. Once Bush threw fiscal discipline and free markets out the window, what was the rationale for voting GOP? I think the GOP is Congress are doing just fine. They are finding their voice. They are returning to the ideal of individual freedom instead of embracing collectivism.

• 10 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:22 am

  Oneo. Specter, Snowe and Collins could have used their position to insist that we adopt something closer to the McCain alternative. Something that is focused on putting this country on a road to recovery instead of using this bill to cram every liberal wish list. Specter’s logic just doesn’t hold. “I prefer the McCain approach but we didn’t get the votes so I will sign on to the wrong bill”. The only reason the McCain bill did not get the votes was because two GOP senators broke ranks. Had they held the line, we could have gotten a better deal. Unfortunately, Snowe, Collins, Specter really believe that inside the beltway line that Americans want us to work together. Yes, polls said that. But think about it. If someone asks you: Do you want people to work together or fight? What are you going to answer?

• 11 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:28 am

  Mr. Frum, I don’t agree that global warming is a top issue. A recent Pew poll put this issue at the bottom of voters’ concerns. Further, another poll found that 54% of Americans believe that the media is hyping global warming. Should the GOP return to its great tradition of conservation? Sure. But a carbon tax? What next, a carbon credit if we breath less?

• 12 oenolicious // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:29 am

  Chekote. Undo the labyrinth that is the tax code? I’d bet if you did a poll of people and asked them about a flat tax a majority would support it, until you said, “Oh and the by the way, no child tax credits, no mortgage deduction, etc.” This was a missed opportunity to call out Obama and Congressional Democrats. How could they explain not voting a tax break for all American homeowners to weatherize their homes and save energy?

• 13 oenolicious // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:32 am

  Chekote. Funny you mention the Carbon tax. You should check out an article in Der Spiegel about how it hasn’t done a thing in Germany because of the way it was structured under EU law.

• 14 Oneon1isto // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:34 am

  Chekote: true words. Although I’m not sure how the McCain bill could have passed without Democratic support, did it have it? If it loses by just two GOP senators, than you’re telling me he had the blue dog contingent with him? I don’t know about that. What I do know is that Republicans are the minority, and in order to maintain influence they’re going to have to tweak, rather than ram through, legislative efforts. And believe me, the tweaking is needed. I’m a little confused about your question though, and how it relates to Specter et al working together…

• 15 Paulie Carbone // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:35 am

  “The rest of the world is very anti-semitic. As a matter of fact, a recent poll found that 31% of Europeans blame the Jews for the current global financial crisis.” Huh? What does anti-semitism have to do with global warming? I wasn’t talking about Jews or Europe or anything like that. I was pointing out that there’s a scientific consensus that carbon emissions contribute to global warming and there’s a political consensus (in this country) that something needs to be done about that. You’re free to disagree, of course, but by doing so you’re only going to further marginalize yourself. Also, don’t delude yourself that “compassionate conservatism” is what hurt the GOP. An extreme laissez faire stance may well keep various factions of the conservative base together, but it’s not at all (really, at all) popular with the general public. People don’t dislike Bush because of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. You may, but that’s not what most people were upset about.

• 16 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:59 am

  Paulie, you said the world not scientific consesus. At one time there was scientific consensus that the world was flat. During the 80s, there was scientific consensus about the “nuclear winter”. I say that we take politics out of science. Let’s have scientists without a political agenda present evidence. Having Gore (what exactly are his scientific credentials?) talk about the end of civilization before Congress is not the way we should develop environmental public policy. As far as the laissez faire approach, what are you talking about? Faith based intiative? Medicare part D? No child left behind? Republicans have expanded the federal government too. So what are you talking about? As far as regulation, I have been in the financial regulatory business for almost two decades. It is not a question of too little regulation. It is a question of too much ineffective regulation.

• 17 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 10:05 am

  oneo. Tweaking is not enough. There have to be substantial changes to that horrendous bill. One suggestion that I have is for the GOP to stop talking about our children and grandchildren having to the debt. That’s too long term and people are looking a few years, not decades, down the road. They need to talk about the inflationary effects of all this printing of money. In an few years the value of our savings could be wiped out.

• 18 oenolicious // Feb 11, 2009 at 10:14 am

  I’m sorry. I was trying to use the example of weatherizing homes as an example of the sort of ideas that should have been put out as alternatives. Instead Boehner showed up 2 hours before the vote with his “plan” and in a gross attempt to out tobacco auctioneer Obama said it would create twice as many jobs. It was just cover so the membership could go on tv and say, “But we had a plan!”, which no one would even question, because the talking heads wanted them on to criticize the bill.

• 19 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 10:21 am

  oeno. Boehner plan was scored using Christina Roemer’s (sp?) – Obama’s economic advisor – model. It was not thrown together. I really think that tweaking is not appropriate giving the times we live in. Obama is a Marxist and his intent is to remake America into a socialist state. What made this country an economic powerhouse is capitalism. This is the time to fight to preserve our system not the time to nibble at the margin. I don’t want government to run my life. Let freedom ring.

• 20 oenolicious // Feb 11, 2009 at 10:34 am

  Yes. I know it was based on Romer and her husband’s work. The only problem is that he fudged the fact that it’s obvious Boehner never read the paper. Here’s just one link, unless you want to read the actual paper, which is dense to say the least. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/01/the-romer-view-of-tax-and-spending-multipliers-revisited.html

• 21 Paulie Carbone // Feb 11, 2009 at 10:52 am

  It’s a bad sign when debate about any economic policy invariable gets reduced to an abstract clash between capitalism and socialism. It’s a sign that people aren’t taking economics seriously. If there’s an empirical argument that a free market policy can address an economic problem better than government, than everyone agrees that the free market policy is preferable. But people are interested in real world results. Implicit in the view of those who frame issues that way is no notion that any sort of government intervention in the economy is fundamentally illegitimate, hence the epithet “socialist.” That is laissez faire extremism. As a matter of political reality, there is no interest in restoring the Lochner era, there is no point to continuing to argue the New Deal. There’s an excellent case to be made that activist government got out of hand during second-half of the 20th century (Carter), and political movement organized around curbing such excesses would be politically viable. But this “socialism” nonsense isn’t. It isn’t accurate either. “Marxism” and “socialism” aren’t just general terms, they have a real meaning, which you don’t seem to grasp.

• 22 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 11:06 am

  Paulie. It is not an abstract discussion. Barney Frank is talking about regulating compensation. Not just the compensation of companies who are getting federal assistance. He said that once the precedent is set that the government has the power to control executive compensation, we can move to regulate all wages. What do you call that? What is abstract about that? Stop the “rise above all” nonsense by talking about the two extremes. Nobody is talking about laissez faire or communism except you. With all the bailouts implemented and proposed we are looking at the government taking over 40% of our economy. What do you call that? What is abstract about that? And don’t lecture me about socialism. I grew up in a socialist country. As a matter of fact, my father was a communist. Nothing abstract for me about this discussion.

• 23 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 11:16 am

  The capitalism/socialism argument is easy to make politically. It’s emotional. It puts the other side on the defensive, even though nearly all the time it’s clearly wrong. So usually it’s either intellectually dishonest or not well informed. So we can dislike it enough on that basis. But that’s not enough. What happens when people start to believe propaganda as a matter of faith? Very likely, that’s part of what happened in this case: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/01/ignoring-the-oracles/

• 24 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 11:19 am

  “Barney Frank is talking about regulating compensation. Not just the compensation of companies who are getting federal assistance. He said that once the precedent is set that the government has the power to control executive compensation, we can move to regulate all wages. What do you call that?” Well, if you were talking about the wages of school teachers or indigent defense lawyers, for instance, or trial lawyers in general or air traffic controllers, I would call it right in line with Republican policies at least since the advent of the Reagan administration.

• 25 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 11:21 am

  JJW. We are looking at the prospect of government decising our compensation, deciding our healthcare, taking over 40% of the economy. If that isn’t socialism and don’t know what is. I love posters like you and Paulie. So refine. So above the fray. You don’t get you hands dirty over petty political fights. Guess what? Those who win the argument get to rule.

• 26 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 11:23 am

  “Those who win the argument get to rule.” Yes, your party got to rule for the last 8 years. Much of the time with all branches of government. How did that go for you?

• 27 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 11:30 am

  By the way, I don’t want “lemon socialism” any more than anyone else does:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/opinion/02krugman.html

• 28 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 11:40 am

  JJWF. I don’t want any form of socialism.

• 29 gerrysh // Feb 11, 2009 at 11:42 am

  Nope, you’re not going to get away with calling GLOBAL WARMING “climate change”. The hoax has been exposed. Don’t side with the enviro-nitwits who are trying to change the subject.

• 30 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 11:46 am

  Actually I don’t either. But I also don’t want a collapse of the financial system. You can’t afford to be ideological about that. The collapse of the US financial system would have worldwide implications.

• 31 mikedbike // Feb 11, 2009 at 11:57 am

  Regarding the comment that the three RINO’s now have bargaining power to affect the stimulus plan: The conference committees have NO on them. NONE. The turncoats gave full power to the Democrats to do as they wish with this idiotic bill.

  Such is the foolishness of bargaining with the devil.

• 32 mikedbike // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:00 pm

  Excuse me–NO Repiblicans.

• 33 mikedbike // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:12 pm

  I must move from mini computer–can’t type.
  The conference committees as reported, have no Republicans participating because none were invited.

  After reading through a number of posts on this and other articles, it appears this website should really cater to those considering themselves “moderate” instead of pretending to be conservative.

  This is similar to those claiming to be “a fiscal conservative” while being “socially liberal or moderate”–the two really aren’t compatible anymore than one can change the argument from global warming is now climate change. If you argue one thing, you don’t get to change your argument drastically and claim consistency.

  I guess the New Majority is really an attempt to achieve some sort of mishmash that really stands for nothing other than gaining power by beguiling the unsure to finally get political power to accomplish….who knows what. Still, it’s fun and interesting to watch.

• 34 Kaz // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:13 pm

  “If change is coming, Republicans need to be part of it.”

  This is where Frum just doesn’t get it. Being part “of it” means nibbling around the edges, NOT having any significant role in shaping legislation. The Democrats already learned an important lesson with the stimulus bill. They don’t need to include Republicans in the development of legislation, and they only need a small handful in the Senate to get their leftist legislation passed. Being part “of it” is nothing more than giving the democrats political cover for partisan legislation designed to buy more votes. The Republican strategy needs to include a) a persistent, creative communications strategy that tells voters the ultimate outcomes of Democratic legistlation terms individual voters can comprehend and b) the promotion of thoughtful, innovative legislative alternatives that highlight benefits, both long and short term.

• 35 Oneon1isto // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:16 pm

  Just throwing this out there–calling someone a Marxist, or Hitler, or nitwit, or the devil doesn’t really do wonders for reputation, such as any reputation is possible, on these forums. It also undercuts everything you say, so stop saying silly things like “Obama’s a Marxist.” Totally willing to listen and engage in conversation until I hear that crap come out. Look, he’s not a Marxist any more than a strict conservative is a fascist. It’s a stupid argument put forward by people who don’t see the world in shades of gray but rather between some sort of struggle between good and evil. As if % differences in progressive tax policy preferences make you Stalinist. Right.

• 36 Kaz // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:19 pm

  “I guess the New Majority is really an attempt to achieve some sort of mishmash that really stands for nothing other than gaining power by beguiling the unsure to finally get political power to accomplish….who knows what.” Kudos to mikedbike for saying what many of us have been thinking. Here’s my question for “The New Majority”. Should government be bigger, or smaller? If you agree with the later your strategy of “compromise” is seriously flawed. It doesn’t win votes and the historical evidence is clear: Political compromise leads to more government and larger debts.

• 37 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:20 pm

  “…anymore than one can change the argument from global warming is now climate change.” If you really knew the “argument,” the semantics would be irrelevant. Lawyering is a rhetorical exercise. Science isn’t.

• 38 buzzricksons // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:26 pm

  I don’t see how, in the face of Pelosi’s hauteur and the complete shut-out of the process by the Congressional Dems, the GOP could’ve done any better than to deny the Democrats the bipartisan cover they seek for what is and always would have been an egregiously partisan bill. They did well to block it; at this point, there is beginning to percolate in the press some discussion (finally) of, “If this stimulus is so terrific, why is Obama going on a campaign/sales ‘tour’ if he can pass this thing with Dems and take all the credit?” Wouldn’t have shone that light on it if both sides were gung-ho.

• 39 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:28 pm

  JJW. Nobody wants for the financial system to collapse. We really need to stop setting up these strawmen. You either agree with Obama’s bill or you don’t want to do anything. Nobody is saying to do nothing. But so far what has been proposed is not the solution. Until you figure out exactly how to fix price to these toxic assets, you won’t be able to implement what has been proposed.

• 40 Oneon1isto // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:28 pm

  Compromise, in this instance, seeks to ameliorate the effects of a “runaway” Pelosi-led house in conjunction with an Obama executive that is especially concerned with bipartisanship–it’s the bread and butter of one of his biggest constituencies, the youth vote. If we want to see any substantive conservative-bred strategy included in these upcoming issues, than it’s best to be involved. Even if you aren’t heard or even given a seat at the table, at least our representatives are exercising alternatives so that eventually, when they regain power, they have a history of alternatives to draw upon. It’s really not that hard to envision. Giving the American people an alternative, rather than screeching commie, is extremely important to rebuilding another Majority.

• 41 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  Chekote–I didn’t say you wanted the system to collapse. I said we can’t afford to be ideological. In that link below to the Wall Street Journal, the people in charge of minding the financial system were ideological. That’s the kind of thinking got us into the trouble in the first place. We have to do what works. Not what’s politically correct.

• 42 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:33 pm

  “This is similar to those claiming to be “a fiscal conservative” while being “socially liberal or moderate”–the two really aren’t compatible ….”. I diagree. There is no connection between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. Bush was a strong SoCon, was he a fiscal conservative? No. I am a fiscal conservative and social moderate, i.e. I believe in individual freedom.

• 43 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:36 pm

  And again–I don’t favor state ownership. But we also can’t afford the system to fail. And we don’t want the moral hazard of just pumping cash to the people who were incompetent in the first place, with no strings. What do we do? As a taxpayer, I say there needs to be strings. Maybe some time we can do without them. But that time isn’t now.

• 44 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:44 pm

  Oeno. I suggest you listen to Obama’s interview regarding how the US Constitution is fatally flawed because it does not address economic distribution. When it was pointed out to him that capital gains tax cuts actually increased revenue, Obama replied it didn’t matter about the increased revenue. It is about fairness. His policy is guided by “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)”. This is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. That makes him a marxist. This is not good or bad. You either agree with this philosophy or not. I am not enganging in name calling.

• 45 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:49 pm

  “His policy is guided by “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)”.” This kind of red-baiting came up in the campaign and it was immediately discredited as unhinged:
  http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/25/biden-marx-mccain/

• 46 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:50 pm

  Reality check. The Dems have the numbers to do whatever they want. Politically the GOP has two choices. 1) Stand up for what they believe is right for the country; 2) Go along with 95% of the Dems agenda. I opt for number 1. I think everyone should read this speech by Reagan in 1975 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175020/posts. Within five years, by taking this approach Reagan was elected POTUS.

• 47 oenolicious // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:54 pm

  Actually I listened to that interview before the election and I found it amusing, because he was asking the Warren Court to find something in the Constitution that didn’t exist. I don’t think Obama is a Marxist and it’s sort of hard to agree with the assertion based on a single point made by Marx. Das Kapital is over 1,000 pages. The only Marx I even own was for a graduate course in historiography, “The German Ideology” and it’s almost 600 pages.

• 48 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  JJWF. Go listen to what Obama has to say about our Constitution being flawed because it does not address economic distribution. What do you think that means? It means taking the output and redistributing it according to the needs. You really need to pay attention to what he is saying. All this talk about fairness; equality of outcome. It is Marxism. Have you seen what they want to do about health care? Rationing based on age, life expetancy and cost. Baby, I have lived in a socialist country and recognize the traits when I see it. This is not red-baiting. Pay attention.

• 49 mpolito // Feb 11, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  The GOP might not have been rolled over if the three moderates -the types of whom are championed by lots of folks on this site- had actually had some guts and opposed this ridiculous spending bill. The Dems are going to go for it all while they have the seats; there is no guarentee that they will have these numbers for years. Trust me, just because some GOP congressmen are willing to go along with the Dems will not stop them from shooting for the stars. Why not stand on principle and oppose this rather than be no unprincipled that we will continue to lose?

• 50 oenolicious // Feb 11, 2009 at 1:34 pm

  mpolito. I actually live in Pennsylvania and if you didn’t read the blog about PA, it’s scary. Specter is up in 2010 and Obama won the state pretty handily. Snowe is up in 2012, but Collins just got reelected, so I don’t see where she was feeling any pressure.

• 51 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:31 pm

  For quite a while, I’ve been trying to figure out how the Neoconservatives operated (like David Frum). OK, so they’re a bunch of smart former communists who became anti-communists, were slow to condemn McCarthy and worked with Nixon. Then they got jobs at think tanks and shortly before for years doing… something. Something to do with an Elite New Class and the Cold War. So what’s their thing? I’m happy to say that Chekote helped me figure it out. Their niche is selling Fear. And people like Chekote is their perfect constituency. People like him buy their product. The New Class, or The Socialists, are kind of like the Blob from the 50’s:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhyRpvgm03g
  Neoconservatives sell fear, which is a compelling emotion especially for people who don’t know any better. So that’s what they do at their desks all day. Fear of the New Class. Fear of liberalism. Fear of Communism. Fear of Islamofascism. Fear of nonexistent WMD’s in Iraq. It’s not all that complicated. In some cases the threats are real, in some cases they’re packaged media products kind of like the Blob–probably in a lot of cases a combination of both. But they’re just smart people who know how to sell a product, especially to certain constituencies. Chekote is right in the sweet spot. So today, beware of Sarah Palin’s elitist opponents, yesterday the New Class, or, maybe The Blob: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCtcgI4BcIQ#t=1m10s

• 52 sinz54 // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:34 pm

  It is unconscionable for a political party, like the GOP, or a political movement, like the conservative movement, to make a political issue out of a clearly scientific question. When columnist Ann Coulter can write a column attacking Darwin’s theory of evolution, the college-educated public will be right in thinking that we conservatives are know-nothings. Likewise,whether anthropogenic global warming is taking place, is a scientific question. It is NOT appropriate for non-scientists to try to second-guess the climatologists, *especially* if they’re doing it for political reasons. (Example: “I don’t believe global warming is occurring, because if it were it would take too much government intervention to deal with it.”) The overwhelming majority of the world’s climatologists are convinced that anthropogenic global warming is real and represents a long-term threat to our species. That’s good enough for me. Let’s debate how we deal with it (mitigation vs. prevention, etc.).

• 53 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:36 pm

  Should be: “Then they got jobs at think tanks and shortly before the Reagan administration, working for years doing… something.”

• 54 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:36 pm

  Snowe suffers from “we need to work together” syndrome that afflicts Mr. Frum & Co. They have been “working together in DC” for decades now and the end result has been a bloated, over-reaching federal government and trillions in debt. I don’t want my representatives to work together if it means continuing on the path we are on.

• 55 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:40 pm

  Snowe suffers from “I need to get reelected in Maine” syndrome. Take a look at these polls:
  http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/02/09/-obama-beating-republicans-on-economic-stimulus-polls-show.html

• 56 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:44 pm

  JJF. Obama has been a bigger fear monger that Bush or any neo-con ever was. I came to this country because I believe in free enterprise. I don’t like Obama’s policies because I don’t believe in collectivism. So I will do what is in my power to do to fight this trend. BTW, I called Bush a socialist too when he threw market principles out the window.

• 57 sinz54 // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:45 pm

  Chekote: You don’t have to listen to Al Gore about global warming. (In fact, I wish Al Gore had not gotten into the subject at all. His presence has convinced conservatives that it’s a political issue, when it isn’t for anybody but Al Gore.) You can listen to the national academies of science of all the major industrialized countries, including this one, all of whom have concluded that anthropogenic global warming is real. You can also listen to the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Astronomical Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science–all of whom have concluded that anthropogenic global warming is real. When some 98% of the world’s scientists say something is happening, it’s prudent to listen to them. It’s also a mistake to keep cherry-picking the two percent of skeptics (many of whom may have science degrees but not in climatology), just because the other 98% told you something you didn’t want to hear. If 6 different doctors all told you that you had a life-threatening illness (cancer, perhaps), are you going to continue to go doctor-shopping until you manage to find some quack somewhere who tells you what you want to hear, that you have nothing to worry about? The GOP is taking a big risk by adopting the stance that global warming is nonexistent. If it turns out to be very real, it will be an embarrassment for the GOP that will permanently sink their chances with the college-educated. All those scientists I mentioned are going to conclude that the GOP is an enemy of science. Even worse, when some conservatives call global warming a “hoax” (implying that thousands of the world’s top climatologists are all engaged in some conspiracy to defraud the public), they make themselves look like paranoid nuts. The notion of a global warming “hoax” is as nuts as the “Truthers” claiming that Bush blew up the World Trade Center with explosives.

• 58 buzzricksons // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:46 pm

  What a strange comment, in light of the GOP’s offering of alternative plans (which were substantially more than “just tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts”, contrary to the Dem meme): “Even if you aren’t heard or even given a seat at the table, at least our representatives are exercising alternatives so that eventually, when they regain power, they have a history of alternatives to draw upon. It’s really not that hard to envision. Giving the American people an alternative, rather than screeching commie, is extremely important to rebuilding another Majority.”

• 59 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:47 pm

  Snowe needs to leave the GOP. If she can’t stand with us on preserving capitalism, fiscal discipline and limited government she needs to go. She can be an independent like Lieberman. Same for Collins. Same for Specter. They are independents. They should call themselves that instead of claiming to be Republicans. All they are doing is giving a phoney “bipartisan cover” to the Democratic agenda.

• 60 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:50 pm

  sinz. I have posted several times that I want to get politics out of science. Decisions about environmental policy, medical research should be based on science, not politics. I think we agree on this point. I am just trying to figure out what this site is about. Along what principles does Frum & Co. want to build a New Conservative Majority?

• 61 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:54 pm

  “Snowe needs to leave the GOP.” Hey, the GOP completely leaving New England and completely entrenching in the south? Bring it on.

• 62 sinz54 // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:55 pm

  Chekote: Even some conservatives on RedState aren’t sure that Obama’s stimulus package is going to lead to hyperinflation. The reason is that the enormous contraction of credit caused by the collapse of the financial sector, and the 50% decline in the stock market, have wiped out trillions of dollars of paper wealth and leveraging that could have been used to purchase both consumer goods and real estate. Not to mention the worldwide economic contraction, which reduces markets for American goods overseas. The amount of money that America has lost in the last year dwarfs the $800 billion in Obama’s stimulus package–the total losses to the world economy may be incalculable. What’s *really* wrong with Obama’s stimulus package is that it may not work, not that it’s going to be hyperinflationary. In which case, Americans will be suffering needlessly for a few more years while we’re all waiting patiently for an economic recovery that may never come–unless Obama changes his policies at some point. Alternatively, the economic recovery may come about from Geithner’s attempts to rebuild the financial sector–in which case the stimulus package is a superfluous exercise in New Deal liberalism.

• 63 mikedbike // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm

  sinz54,
  It WOULD be unconscionable if a political party or movement DIDN’T make a political issue of a scientific question that threatens to destroy economies and lives. There is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming to any significant or even mearsurable degree short of the fact that humans are warm blooded and tend to fart. Given the scientifically accepted FACT that the Earth has experienced 17 distinct ice ages of varying degrees in the past 1.8 million years–none of which can be attributed in any way to the internal combustion engine, it’s fairly safe to say we don’t have nearly enough recorded evidence to indicate that anything out of the ordinary climatic cycle is occurring. How did the Earth manage to have such major temperature shifts without we evil humans participating? Now, it would still be great to have better energy alternatives and that is a fine goal, but not in the form of the extortions imposed by imaginary carbon credits and the like. Global Warming, real or imagined, is utterly unimportant in these times and regardless, the Earth will come out just fine.
  Finally, what is the difference between fact and theories?
  One is proven, one is not. Global Warming is a theory. The Big Bang is a theory coming under increasing skepticism. And guess what? As comical as it sounds to you, it is called “The Theory of Evolution” and that’s a fact. If you’d like to look into the matter, see Ben Stein’s excellent film, Expelled.

• 64 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:11 pm

  “There is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming to any significant or even mearsurable degree short of the fact that humans are warm blooded and tend to fart.” That is if you don’t believe every scientific organization on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change And if you put your hands over your ears and go la la la when you hear about all sorts of studies like these: http://www.tinyurl.com/heatisonline
  Although, maybe all these scientists are members of the New Class and have been secretly infiltrated by The Blob: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCtcgI4BcIQ#t=1m10s

• 65 mikedbike // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:16 pm

  I hope Mr. Frum, assuming his sincerity, will make an effort to better define this web site. It’s possible this is all there is to it, but after the throrough beating the Republicans received after being removed from any legislative process those in power please, the idea of trying to appease the Left at this point will likely empower them further. The fact is, when faced with civil and open debate, the Left loses every time. The tactic of the Left is to talk louder and longer than the opposing view and rely on the constant thrum of media and academics to carry the tune. Appeasement and assimilation are not good stratagies for regrowing a Conservative movement.

• 66 mikedbike // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:18 pm

  JJWF–no one has gotten to me. You don’t know what I believe, do you? If that is your best argument, I’ve already won.

• 67 sinz54 // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm

  Chekote: It is political suicide for the GOP to throw anyone out. Even if Snowe, Collins and Specter don’t vote with the GOP on some bills, as long as they are in the GOP, it takes 47 more Republican senators to reach a Senate majority. Without them it will take 50 more, a harder hurdle to overcome. And with a majority, even just 51, comes all the committee chairmanships and the majorities on the key committees, which determine what legislation is allowed to come to the floor for a vote. Tell me: Were you pleased when Jeffords defected from the GOP and gave the Democrats a majority in the Senate?
  If there’s one thing that David Frum seems to want (implicit in the title of the blog), it’s to stop this suicidal business of expelling people from the GOP because they have not passed some litmus test. For a political party in a two party system, the prime consideration is to reach a majority, not to reach ideological purity. The latter must always be subordinated to the former.

• 68 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:23 pm

  I’ve got two links in reply. Whether they mean anything to you, is up to you (I think we’re getting off topic):
  http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/TMW11-30-05colorlowres%20copy.jpg

• 69 mikedbike // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:31 pm

  JJWF–thankyou. Paul Krugman and the Huffington Post are clearly the finest scientific resources any Republican would look to after first going to Wikipedia for the hard evidence. I won’t belabor this more other than to say you are clearly a hardcore Leftist posing as who knows what, and I’ll refer you to that iffy resource Merriam Webster and you can look into the meanings of “fact” and “theory” so you can get a generally accepted definitive picture of why wikipedia, krugman and ms. huffington are not necessarily the best scientific resources. If that doesn’t work for you, try talking louder and longer while saying nothing. Good night.

• 70 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:33 pm

  Maybe some day we can discuss their contents.

• 71 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:38 pm

  sinz. You seem to miss the point that this bill goes into areas that absolutely have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Many provisions have been inserted which should be subject to hearings, debate. They are circumventing the legislative process and in the name of “stimulating” the economy. It is a corrupt, undemocratic process and no Republican should go along with it. I didn’t like it when some Republicans voted to expand S-Chip. But I would not say they should leave the party. This bill is different. It has provisions to undue the welfare reform we implemented in the 90s. Should we debate this before it is approved? I could go on and on. Bottom line, I believe there should be a litmus test: fiscal discipline, limited government. If you can’t pass that you shouldn’t be a Republican. Look what Bush did to the GOP brand? With his compassionate conservatism and fiscal resklessness, he has made it difficult for us to make the case for fiscal discipline and limited government. What do you suggest the GOP stand for? What should be our uniting principles?

• 72 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:41 pm

  BTW, Rasmussen Reports found that the parties now are neck-and-neck on generic congressional ballot. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot . If the GOP wants to energize its natural base it needs to stand strong on fiscal discipline and limited government.

• 73 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:44 pm

  “It is political suicide for the GOP to throw anyone out.” No. They are independents. All they are doing is misleading the public by giving a “bipartisan” to clearly Democratic legislation. So if it fails, we get to share the blame. And if it succeeds, the Dems won’t share the credit. Those 3 are independents. They could still organize with the GOP like Lieberman organizes with the Dems.

• 74 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  “the prime consideration is to reach a majority, not to reach ideological purity.” I am not asking for ideological purity. I am asking that we agree on two basic principles: 1) fiscal discipline; and 2) limited government. And yes, I was happy when Jeffords left. I didn’t hurt us at all since we were able to expand our majority the next election.

• 75 sinz54 // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:08 pm

  Chekote: I don’t care if they act like mavericks. As long as they wear the GOP label, and they warm the Senate benches, they make it that much easier for the GOP to reach a majority of 51 in the Senate. I’ll say it again: A nominal majority, even if it includes some mavericks, gives the GOP committee chairmanships, committee majorities, and hence control over the legislative agenda. In a two-party system, it comes down to numbers every time. Throw the three mavericks out and the GOP will be down to 38 Senate seats. Then the GOP might as well not bother to show up anymore. You can’t count on winning a big majority in 2010. In fact, the numbers are still against the GOP; more Republican seats are up for grabs that year than Democrat seats.

• 76 sinz54 // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:10 pm

  Chekote: At the time Jeffords left, what crystal ball did you use to foresee that the GOP would win a majority in the next election? You should have loaned your crystal ball to the GOP leadership, because they were furious that Jeffords’ defection cost them the majority.

• 77 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:11 pm

  “BTW, I called Bush a socialist too when he threw market principles out the window.” There’s part of your problem with political analysis, chekote – Bush was a fascist, not a socialist. There are despots on the right as well as on the left, in fact more of them, and socialism does not necessarily discard all “market principles.” Let me hasten to say that I have agreed with much of what you have said in the past and expect to do so again in the future. I just wanted to call this blind spot to your attention.

• 78 HollywoodBill // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:16 pm

  Sinz is right on the money. The COP doesn’t have some central steering committee who determines party purity nor have an office for burning heretics. It is up to the voters in the areas to determine who is going to be in power and not some party bureaucrat. No one knows how this is going to play out. But what was happening under Bush clearly wasn’t working. And some half baked warnings from the White House aren’t exactly what leadership is all about. The goal is to get a majority. Otherwise one is impotent and only able to spew policy with through the anonymity of computer keyboards.

• 79 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:21 pm

  mikedbike wrote: “Paul Krugman and the Huffington Post are clearly the finest scientific resources any Republican would look to after first going to Wikipedia for the hard evidence. I won’t belabor this more other than to say you are clearly a hardcore Leftist posing as who knows what, . . .” You know, maybe if you would respond to arguments or sources with other arguments or sources, as opposed to denigrating someone personally or rejecting their sources out of hand without examination, you would sound a little less ignorant. Marx was correct in much of his criticism of the excesses of the industrial revolution – that does not make his economic theories any more viable, but the point is that even a blind hog can find an acorn in the woods once in awhile. I see a great deal of Republican soul searching on this blog, and it appears to me to be sincere. That’s good. But that’s not what you are about – you are about putting anyone with which you disagree superficially in an “enemies” category and then dismissing their views out of hand. Pity!

• 80 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:29 pm

  sinz. Why can’t the GOP work to pick off some conservative democrats? Do what the Dems do to us. Those three can still organize with us but they should not wear the Republican label. Do you know what’s in the bill? It is more that stimulous. They didn’t have to go along. They should have banded together and insisted that all non-stimulus provisions be taken out. Sununu is looking good in NH. Dodd is wounded. Maybe we can get Shays to run. We will win again as sure as the sun coming up tomorrow. I thought the goal of this site was to build a conservative majority. What Specter, Collins and Snowe did not help build a conservative majority. All they cared about was their own political future. They don’t care about the party. Why should the party care about them. Again, along what principles would you organize a New Majority? Why should people join the GOP?

• 81 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:29 pm

  “In a two-party system, it comes down to numbers every time. Throw the three mavericks out and the GOP will be down to 38 Senate seats. Then the GOP might as well not bother to show up anymore. You can’t count on winning a big majority in 2010. In fact, the numbers are still against the GOP; more Republican seats are up for grabs that year than Democrat seats.” This is true, sinz, this is very true. And it is the reason I cannot understand why Harry Reid does not require the Lindsey Grahams and the Mitch McConnell’s, pompous horses asses that they are, to actually filibuster – to stand up there and talk – so that the voters of America can clearly identify the real problem with the US government.

• 82 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:38 pm

  Mr. Frum wrote: “If change is coming, Republicans need to be part of it. Health care change can be shaped in ways that are better or worse from a Republican point of view. We have red lines: no direct government delivery of health services. But we also have compromises we can live with: the amount of subsidy to the currently uninsured, for example.” This is very sensible from the point of view that finds any government run program abhorrent. Of course, it fails to take Medicare’s 1%-3% administration cost – making it one of the most inexpensively managed programs in history and much less expensive than our private health care delivery system – into account. Notwithstanding that, however, the traditional Republican aversion for government run programs in general has a real basis in historical fact, and there is no denying it. That’s what makes it necessary for the left and the right to find common ground – there is validity in both. However, with the policies of the neocons – not so much.

• 83 sinz54 // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:40 pm

  larryo, mikedbike, JJWfromME: I think we should all stop citing sources who are not authorities on areas outside their own particular field of discipline. I don’t want to hear what Krugman, an economist, thinks about biology or climatology. (Conversely, I don’t want to hear what some climatologist thinks we should do to fix the financial sector of our economy. And I don’t want to hear what some Hollywood starlet has to say about any of these topics!) In the case of anthropogenic global warming, the conclusions of the American Meteorological Society and American Geophysical Union count far more heavily than those of Krugman or Al Gore. All Wikipedia is doing is citing those scientific bodies second-hand. But we should always go to the original sources for verification. Here’s the statement from the American Meteorological Society: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html.

• 84 HollywoodBill // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:51 pm

  2010 looks fairly bleak for the GOP at the moment. There are six open seats where the atmosphere is still poisonous for the Republicans: NH, OH, IL, MO, FL and KY. And in the immortal paraphrased words of Tip O’Neill, “All politics is local.” Politicians have to do what they have to do to get elected. And global warming is an issue with younger voters. After all, polar bears falling off of ice floes is effective for getting messages out. And with the GOP’s Old Testament views on abortion, homosexuality and stem cell research, and that museum in the South that has dioramas of men walking with dinorsaurs, their findings on global warming are easily ignored.

• 85 Oneon1isto // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:59 pm

  I can’t believe I’m hearing that Specter isn’t a Republican. What, now that Chaffee and Hagel aren’t around to complain about you go after the next furthest from your views? These men and women are not turncoats, they party liners who–after viewing a boatload of information, listening to a boatload of economists, and listening to a boatload of their constituents–decided it was better to act in favor of a stimulus bill that is basically a massive omnibus of short term tax cuts, incentives and spending measures. They chose to err on the side of caution. A) How does this circumvent the Constitution and B) after you’re done with Specter et al, who’s next?

• 86 dragonlady // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:12 pm

  So this is the strategy? Compromise with Nancy Pelosi? She’ll kick the GOP in the teeth every time. I seem to recall the Dems during the Bush admin were quite obstructionist when they were in the minority. Did it matter during the election? Nope; it was a throw the bums out mentality. If there is room for compromise fine, but let’s not confuse process with purpose. We need to put forth a compelling alternative conservative vision to issues like the economy and health care, not go along with horrible bills that will create more pain and erode our own interests anyway.

• 87 HollywoodBill // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:12 pm

  Grover Norquist, hardly a flame thrower, had the best words about Lincoln Chaffee: “A Republican from Rhode Island is a gift from the gods and should be treated as such.”

• 88 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:15 pm

  sinz – I agree, generally, with what you say about experts and authorities, but I would not be so doctrinaire. The positions people take should be judged on their merits, not the employment of the people. Original authorities can be of great assistance with that, but I would not automatically discount anyone’s opinion on the grounds that it is the opinion of a Hollywood starlet, or a plumber or a dockworker for that matter. Consider Eric Hoffer.

• 89 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:18 pm

  “We need to put forth a compelling alternative conservative vision to issues like the economy and health care, . . .” Dragonlady, you are absolutely correct.

• 90 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:19 pm

  Oops – pushed the add comment button before I was done. Add the sentence: We are waiting . . . (sound of crickets).

• 91 ireign // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:23 pm

  As fod David’s point that it is better to be a part of marginally less crappy legislation than to sit on the sidelines, I disagree. The Democrats who voted for some of President Bush’s legislation under that rationale found themselves less popular than ones who did (otherwise it would be President Clinton rather than Obama). If its a bad bill, oppose it. Republicans lost out because they didn’t stand their ground. Three votes split. Once Obama had those three votes, which he pretty much knew he would have because those three Senators come from solid blue states, he didn’t need to compromise further. While I am sure he would have liked a bill supported by more Republicans, neither him nor Pelosi would have compromised with Republicans to get a split the difference type of bill. As he noted, quite correctly, “he won”. Elections have consequences. Instead of focusing on Palin, David and other Republicans angry about her selection would have been better off waiting until after the election was over. As for David’s other comments, none of that legislation with the possible exception of the cap and trade bill will be passed in the next two years. Obama isn’t going to propose national healthcare until the economy recovers at which point there will probably be a new Congress. The best Republicans can do is come up with a strategy for recruiting good candidates and raising a lot of money for the next election cycle. And meanwhile helping Obama pass good legislation and pass bad legislation.

  larryo-talked about refraining from making ad hominem attacks calls someone a despicable name and obviously has no historical perspective on fascism. Which is perhaps as I mention in my other post, why he most likely is “working” from home.

  Hollywoodbill: Chafee was pretty much a liberal Democrat, who was to the left of most Democrats in the Senate. Unlike Spector who supports the Republican position on most issues, Chafee pretty much voted the same way Jim Jeffords did on major legislation. Other than free trade and on Roberts, Chafee always voted against Republican interests. The Democrats have Senators from heavily red states like Nelson who while being more moderate are still Democrats. Chafee, was a guy who was a Republican because of his family blue-blood history and was much more of a Howard Dean Democrat.

• 92 sinz54 // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm

  Chekote: The GOP has always stood for emphasizing the private sector over the public sector, and for fiscal discipline in government. In principle, anyway. All Repubs can agree on that. Even Susan Collins. Did you know she got a 78% rating by the Chamber of Commerce? And a 67% rating on free trade issues by the Cato Institute? That doesn’t sound like an economic liberal to me. The corresponding figures for Specter were 87% and 75%. Anybody who gets a 75% rating on free trade by the Cato Institute belongs in the GOP. As for the stimulus bill, let’s be honest, OK? As real fiscal conservatives, there are no changes to the bill that would have made it palatable to us, short of throwing it out. The heart of the Obama/Dem approach is infrastructure spending, which you and I don’t believe is going to stimulate the economy. And we don’t like the massive expansion of government spending either. So even if Collins/Snowe/Specter had hung in there a while longer and gotten a few more concessions from the Dems and put a bit more lipstick on that pig, the final result would be pretty much the same: The package would pass with nearly all the votes coming from the Dems, with nearly all the Repubs voting no. As for Collins and Snowe’s actions, they are ultimately responsible to the voters of Maine whom they represent, not to the GOP leadership.

• 93 dragonlady // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:38 pm

  larryo, can’t believe I agree with you but I do. That’s what I’d like to see more from the New Majority…how are we supposed to strategize if we don’t get into the meat and potatoes of the issues? The stimulus posts were pretty good, I thought, because lot of folks chimed in with ideas on the proposals. Being a moderate Republican is one thing, but I can’t tell if Frum wants us to become Dem-lite for political expediency, or psychoanalyze Sarah Palin with this website.

• 94 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:42 pm

  Dragonlady. You are absolutely correct! I am all for true compromise but to just nibble at the margins is pointless. Let’s see. The GOP lost its edge on foreign policy because of the war in Iraq. Lost its limited government argument because of the expansion that took place under Bush. Lost the fiscal discipline argument, again because of all the spending under Bush. So what was left to differentiate us from the Dems: social issues. That is why Palin was put on the ticket. It didn’t work. The only way we can come back is if we regain credibility on fiscal discipline and limited government.

• 95 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:50 pm

  sinz. You just made my argument that they should declare themselves independents and organize with the GOP. This bill reverses welfare reform, creates a board to oversee medical decisions, gives money to ACORN who actively work against Republicans. So it is not a question of whether I agree with Obama’s approach on the economy. It is about circumventing the legislative process. It is corrupt, undemocratic. Those three are independents. They need to declare themselves as such.

• 96 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:52 pm

  I just hope that Frum spells out how he intends to build a new conservative majority. IMO, the GOP needs to regain its street creds on limited government and fiscal discipline. If they don’t, the social issues will continue to dominate the agenda and Palin will be a player despite all of Frum’s protestations.

• 97 JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 6:14 pm

  ACORN! My God!!! It’s teaming up with THE BLOB!
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCtcgI4BcIQ#t=1m10s

• 98 Chekote // Feb 11, 2009 at 6:46 pm

  Looks like we are going to get about $13 a week in tax cuts. Wow! I am so glad that Specter, Collins and Snowe “worked together” to get such a fine compromise. That’s how we are going to win again. Telling people we worked with the Dems so you can get $13/week in a trillion dollar bill.

• 99 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 7:22 pm

  Chekote – “gives money to ACORN who actively work against Republicans.” LOL! Sorry, but Bush gave much more money to the religious fundamentalists, and they are using it dilgently to work against the Democrats until this very day! I know, I know – and I agree with you in principle: Taxpayer money should not support partisan efforts of any kind. But it’s hard not to discount Republican outrage about this now that the shoe is on the other foot.

• 100 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 7:25 pm

  “I just hope that Frum spells out how he intends to build a new conservative majority.” I think he started this blog in the hopes that we would work that out. I just dropped by to help, as much as I can . . .

• 101 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 7:32 pm

  Ireign said: “Republicans lost out because they didn’t stand their ground.” Chekote said: “The GOP lost its edge on foreign policy because of the war in Iraq. Lost its limited government argument because of the expansion that took place under Bush. Lost the fiscal discipline argument, again because of all the spending under Bush.”I would only add “lost its security edge because, again, of the war in Iraq,” and only observe that Chekote nailed it and that, Ireign’s view, as usual, is disconnected from reality.

• 102 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 7:39 pm

  dragonlady, we probably agree on a lot more than you think we do – I have had this very same conversation with Vecchione. He was astounded that we could agree, and did agree, on several points. You wrote “how are we supposed to strategize if we don’t get into the meat and potatoes of the issues?” Well, of course, you cannot. And you cannot do so without the benefit of competing points of view, either. That is what is so dysfunctional about the wing of the party represented by ireign and mikedbike – the minute they sense apostasy, they are ready to light the torches, take up pitchforks and expel the apostates. Why, ireign went so far as to accuse me of being a “retired hippie.” I don’t know what makes her think that hippies retire.

• 103 larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 7:43 pm

  PS. I assume that ireign is female because the handle seems feminine to me. No disrespect is intended by this. I also apologize for any political incorrectness, which should, and I hope does, amuse at least some of those who frequent these pages.

• 104 ireign // Feb 11, 2009 at 8:59 pm

  larryo, I really hope you were not a prosecutor because you seem to have trouble with logic. I am guessing that you went to a sub-par law school. Your post at 7:43 which is intended to be funny is just stupid.

  I am a moderate Republican who is pro-choice and believes in some restrictions on guns. You are a left-wing loon who called the former President a fascist and compared him to Musolini. Talk about lowering the level of discourse.

  Republicans did lose because they didn’t stand their ground. There is 41 Republicans in the Senate to be able to exert any power they need 40 of them. That is self-evident to anyone with a brain. 3 of the Republicans because they are from blue states sided with the Democrats. I didn’t criticize them but pointed out the obvious. Thus your comment, “That is what is so dysfunctional about the wing of the party represented by ireign and mikedbike – the minute they sense apostasy, they are ready to light the torches, take up pitchforks and expel the apostates” is absurd on its face.

  I didn’t accuse you of being a retired hippie (once again, your reading comprehension stinks) but merely suggested that you might fall into that category amongst a number of other possibilities.

  “I think he started this blog in the hopes that we would work that out. I just dropped by to help, as much as I can ” You are not here to help rebuild the party. Stop pretending that you are.

• 105 ireign // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:01 pm

  http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2009/2/11/republicans-trail-obama-dems-by-one-point-in-poll–anti-stimulus-push-is-working.html

  The Republican arguments against the stimulus are currently helping the Republican party build back support.

• 106 Bulldoglover100 // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:15 pm

  Did not pay a big price????David have you even bothered to check the latest polls regarding out party? I’d say we have paid dearly.

• 107 buzzricksons // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:18 pm

  The quantity (and alas, lacklustre quality) of the bomb-thrower posts on this site is really lame. I used to get a kick out of reading and participating here, at Althouse, and elsewhere because comment threads were lively and interesting. Increasingly, since the inauguration particularly, comment threads on even the most diverse and lively sites are being polluted by triumphalist morons who appear to think that their bons-mots are just the funniest things ever said, while failing to recognize the depressing banality of their utterances. Good luck with this idea, Frummy; I’m beginning to think that this whole “sheeple” meme, which I always rejected b/c of my faith in the American people, is somewhat (uncomfortably) closer to the truth than I’d ever cared to admit. Thus begins our nation’s lost decade.

• 108 jeffburk // Feb 11, 2009 at 10:40 pm

  Read Moira Bagley’s latest post on stimulus oversight. Mr. Frum tells us that the Republicans could’ve helped shape the legislation had they simply been willing to cooperate. That seems like wishful thinking given the way congressional Democrats believe they’ve got the GOP on the ropes.

• 109 JJWFromME // Feb 12, 2009 at 7:32 am

  Here’s a bomb-throwing post from the American Conservative:
  http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/02/12/paranoid-style/

• 110 sinz54 // Feb 12, 2009 at 7:37 am

  Chekote: As I understand it, committee chairmanships are determined by which party has the most seats. Even if Independents “organize” with the GOP (whatever that means), it doesn’t give the GOP control of the key committees unless they have more seats than the Democrats. The issue is CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL. Whatever it takes for the GOP to take back CONTROL from the Democrats. And CONTROL means raw numbers.

• 111 sinz54 // Feb 12, 2009 at 7:41 am

  larryo: I absolutely agree with you on your point about the Iraq War. The GOP’s reputation for being the “grownups” on national security has been shaken, if not shattered. Unfortunately, unlike the economic issue, most in the GOP base simply don’t understand what a disaster Bush was. They recognize that Bush’s actions on the economic crisis wrecked the GOP’s reputation for fiscal responsibility. But they still think what Bush did in Iraq was cool. Nobody else in America does.

• 112 sinz54 // Feb 12, 2009 at 7:52 am

  ireign: There really is a group of Republicans who go after mavericks with pitchforks. Does the term “RINO” mean anything to you? Haven’t you read the posts from “chekote” calling for Collins, Snowe and Specter to be expelled from the GOP? Do you agree with him? And he’s not alone. The GOP base has been on a “RINO” hunt for years now, trying to kick anyone out of the party that doesn’t pass all their litmus tests. They have this idea that it’s only GOP conservatives that win elections. That’s true–in conservative districts and Red States. “RINOs” are the only hope the GOP has for winning in the Northeast Blue States or Oregon or Washington State. But they don’t care about that. They’re happy to dominate a GOP that exists only in the South and Sun Belt. David Brooks summed them up perfectly in a column in the NY Times last year: “They would rather keep control of a party that loses, than lose control of a party that wins.”

• 113 sinz54 // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:10 am

  JeffBurk: The GOP could never “shape” the Obama stimulus package to change its basic orientation away from pie-in-the-sky infrastructure projects, to tax cuts that would immediately stimulate the economy within months. Because that’s just not how liberals see things. And right now, liberals are running the show. So all the GOP could do would be to tinker with the package around the edges, removing that odious health care language and so on. But it would still end up a package that no true economic conservatives would or should approve of.

• 114 Chekote // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:23 am

  sinz. When Jeffords turned indie and organized with the Dems, he gave them the numbers they needed to get control. Specter, Snowe and Collins can do the same. I don’t expect 100% purity. But I do expect that when the party as a whole decides to make a stand, members should toe the line. Specter, Snowe and Collins should have insisted that the GOP leadership be involved in negotiation. Instead, they chose to do their own thing. They are indies. Should call themselves that and get it over with.

• 115 Chekote // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:27 am

  sinz. I frequent several conserative blogs. I am called a RINO. So I am not hunting for RINOs. All I am saying is that unless we regain street creds on fiscal discipline and limited governement, the party is doomed. Please explain to me how Snowe, Collins and Specter advanced the GOP cause by signing on to this list of wasteful spending.

• 116 Chekote // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:35 am

  sinz. Brooks is out there basically saying that individualism has died in America and that people look to government to solve their problems. According to him, the GOP needs to accept this reality and just tinker at the margins. Tinkering at the margins is not a political philosophy, It is not a principle. It is a tactic. Whether you like it or not, ideology drives political movements, Not tactics. Not process, Ideology. The suggestions made by Brooks and Frum will not be enough to energize people to vote, contribute and volunteer. A belief system (ideology) does that.

• 117 JJWFromME // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:39 am

  “But I do expect that when the party as a whole decides to make a stand, members should toe the line.” And if said politician decides to think for themselves and disagrees with the stand?

• 118 HollywoodBill // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:40 am

  Since the religious zealots are basically running the GOP, it would seem appropriate that they institute their very own “Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith” to administer the purity tests for admittance to the Republican Party.

• 119 JJWFromME // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:41 am

  “Whether you like it or not, ideology drives political movements, Not tactics.” And obviously, it can be their demise as well.

• 120 Chekote // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:45 am

  HBill. I am not a religious zealot. Unless we reclaim credibility on fiscal discipline and limited government, the social issues will dominate because they are to only thing that distinguishes the GOP from the Dem. So I would expect that you are on board with me. We are not going to rebuild the party along by saying: “We are for wasteful spending too. Just not as much”.

• 121 Chekote // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:48 am

  JJF. I don’t expect for every Republican to agree on everything. However, if the vast majority of the party decides to make a stand on an important issue like a trillion dollar spending bill, members need to stand together. If their conscience does not allow them to do so, they need to leave the party and become indies.

• 122 ireign // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:52 am

  Sinz-I make a distinction between moderate, liberal, and conservative Republicans and Republicans who are basically Democrats. I would put Lincoln Chafee in the latter category as there was not a single major issue besides free trade and John Roberts confirmation (who he supported reluctantly) which he supported the GOP on. I don’t think there is any comparison between liberal Republicans like Specter and Chafee. Specter is a liberal Republican while Chafee was a liberal Democrat. I don’t like the term RINO. I find it pejorative and I think it is used way too frequently, which dilutes its meaning.

  Like the Democrats in 2006, I think Republicans in Congress will have to come together on an economic and foreign policy platform and give individuals in different regions latitude on social issues. That said, I don’t believe the Republican brand is significantly damaged and that we have to worry about being wiped out. Politics is cyclical. I am not sure what policies of the current Republican Party that you embrace. If you disagree with Republicans on Iraq but support the party on economics or social issues that is one thing but it seems that you have accepted the narrative that Bush is a disaster, that Iraq is a disaster, tax cuts are disaster (except when Democrats do them). At a certain point, if you don’t accept any policy positions of the party, than you are not really a member of the party.

  Chekote made a great point when he noted that Frum has not in anyway given a blueprint of how Republicans will be a majority. Bush (whatever his faults), had a blueprint. Unfortunately, because of immigration we were not able to make Latinos into a swing-group and we never did as well with African-Americans as we would have liked but the blueprint was there. Who knows, if we found wmd in Iraq or if Iraq had been relatively quick, we might not be having a conversation. Basically, if you don’t want social conservatives to have as much of say in the party, than you have to get other groups to replace their votes and organizing ability. So far, I have not seen of this. The problem with writers like David Brooks is they mainly want to complain. Previously, Brooks made a big deal that all the candidates in 2004 went to prestigious colleges and that we needed more people in politics that were closer to the everyday person. So McCain in 2008 went out and got Sarah Palin. Pretty much a blue-collar, middle-class person and than Brooks took the opposite tact and said he basically wanted someone with the best pedigree. You have to be consistent.

• 123 HollywoodBill // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:58 am

  ComradeC–I know that you are not from the snake handling brigade of the GOP. However, purity tests for being Republicans? Come on now. Throwing people out of the GOP? Local elections are going to cover this. Things will start from the ground up and not top down. Let’s look at Collins. She just won reelection in 2008 with 61.5% of the vote. Olympia Snowe won in 2006 with an astonishing 74% of the vote. Spectere won reelection in 2004 with a 9 point victory over his opponent and 53% of the vote. The electorate decides who is going to Washington and not the Torquemadas.

• 124 Chekote // Feb 12, 2009 at 9:03 am

  ireign. Excellent post. If you are going to de-emphasize social issues (I wholeheartedly agree with this), then other issues need to be emphasized. My choice is fiscal discipline and limited government. Let people to differ on social issues and even foreign policy approaches. But the idea that you can mobilize a New Majority by tinkering at the margins is….. well, we all the elite education that Messrs. Frum and Brooks have received, I would expect better. Much better.

• 125 Chekote // Feb 12, 2009 at 9:08 am

  Hbill. What is wrong with Specter, Snowe and Collins calling themselves what they are: Independents? This vote is once in a lifetime, turning point vote. Some people were out there calling to kick out the people who voted for the expansion of the S-Chip programs. I disagreed. That’s a run of the mill vote. The three amigos can still organize with the GOP. Be part of our caucus. But they should not receive financial support from the party unless they are with us when we decide to make a stand.

• 126 HollywoodBill // Feb 12, 2009 at 9:55 am

  Snowe, Collins and Specter are a reminder that the GOP wasn’t always dominated by the Southern religious zealots. All the spokespersons didn’t speak with a drawl. Since all are incumbents, it is highly unlikely that the national RNC contributes any funds for their reelection. The Torquemadas of the GOP were furious with Bush43 for supporting Specter in 2004 over their chosen candidate, Pat Toomey in the primary. Yet on this matter B43 was right. Specter is the elected Republican Senator from PA and agree with him or not, the voters make the decision. As has been pointed out, the important factor in who’s a Republican and who isn’t occurs on the first day of any new Congress when one party reaches 51 members in the caucus. Our system is not really geared for Independents running and then choosing with whom to caucus. Even Joe Lieberman couldn’t get away with that. And without a real figurehead at top the GOP, there are going to be many events like what just happened.

• 127 JJWFromME // Feb 12, 2009 at 10:06 am

  Over the long haul, Margaret Chase Smith lost. Joe McCarthy won.

• 128 Chekote // Feb 12, 2009 at 10:09 am

  HBill. How are you going to replace the SoCons votes that are going to be lost once social issues are no longer front and center?

• 129 JJWFromME // Feb 12, 2009 at 10:26 am

  Bingo! That’s the heart of the GOP internecine food fight, Chekote. Southern strategy chickens, meet roost.

• 130 HollywoodBill // Feb 12, 2009 at 10:37 am

  ComradeC–The loss hopefully will come from Independent voters who wouldn’t vote for the GOP’s moralizing busybody policies. In CA50, the old Duke Cunningham seat which is in a very conservative district Brian Bilbray won the nomination in a closed primary against some real fire breathing social conservatives. Close but he still won. So hopefully the slack will be picked up by fiscal conservatives and social moderates. There are so many “Decline to States” or Independents in CA, that some studies have indicated that when running as socons, they lose roughly 65/35. However, when socially moderate or liberal, the break goes to about 50/50. CA50 tends to prove that. .

• 131 Chekote // Feb 12, 2009 at 10:53 am

  Exactly my point, HBill. That is why it is critical that we stand up for fiscal discipline and limited government. That is the only way we are going to gain back the people who got turned off by the moralizing. The GOP is using the stimulus bill to regain its credibility on economic issues. This is no time for people to wonder off the reservation for an oppotunity to nibble at the margins.

• 132 buzzricksons // Feb 12, 2009 at 11:51 am

  The problem with the SoCons is that beyond social issues, they are pretty much on board with increasing the size and scope of government. Witness the last 8 years, for example. Just like everyone else, it seems, to them big government is great so long as it’s spending money in their direction and regulating in favor of their pet social engineering projects. For that reason, many incumbent GOP’ers are highly reluctant to declare themselves on the fiscal front because that would be a declaration to their fervent SoCon supporters that “the gravytrain is over”. If anything, the GOP should let the Dems spend this pile, then use the resulting huge(r) deficit to make that declaration and shove off from the reliance on social-based divisiveness to win elections into something more substantively universal, i.e. fiscally/economically responsible governance. I’d like to see what they come up with, if they’re smart enough to put it together and who’s going to run with the ideas.

• 133 ireign // Feb 12, 2009 at 12:02 pm

  Buzz, not sure what data you have to support your argument. Most of the fiscally conservative Senators and Congressman are relatively socially conservative. Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Paul Ryan, and Jeff Flake are the biggest fighters against government spending and all are socially conservative. The socially conservative Republican study group are mainly composed of fiscal conservatives. Most of the biggest spenders in the Senate and Congress are moderate Republicans (as much as it pains me to say it). Specter, former Congressman Tom Davis, Jerry Lewis, and former Senator Ted Stevens were some of the biggest pork barrel spenders. To be fair, some social conservatives such as Tom DeLay were also big spenders but by and large, more of the social liberals and moderates, are amongst the bigger spenders.

  Which makes sense. It goes back to coalition building. If you don’t have social conservatives in your coalition than you have to reach out to groups like trial lawyers and unions and other non-traditional Republican groups and usually you have to reward these groups for their support, i.e. see Governor Pataki and Dennis Rivera.

• 134 dragonlady // Feb 12, 2009 at 12:17 pm

  Chekote, I really don’t like the fact that Collins, Specter, and Snowe has signed onto this bill; these 3 Senators continually exasperate me. But I disagree with you that we should expel them from the party. Every vote counts, even if we don’t get theirs some of the time. Plus, they’re the last few Republican Senators in the NE, a region we desperately need to regain influence in.

• 135 Chekote // Feb 12, 2009 at 12:25 pm

  If they declare themselves Indies, it does not prevent them from voting with us or caucusing with us. But they should not get our campaign funds and then turn around, vote with the Dems on critical issues.

• 136 dragonlady // Feb 12, 2009 at 12:35 pm

  Hollywood Bill, it’s not realistic just to dump the socons overboard. Regarding social issues, the GOP needs a non-theological approach to convince non-religious folks our stands are in their interests. Culture provides context for decision-making, especially if you have young children. Americans don’t like being viewed as judgemental, but I believe they’re tired of continually fighting nihlistic messages from pop culture and reject extreme viewpoints. The folks on the other side of the life/choice debate, marriage, etc. have extremists on their fringe, as well. Why can’t you recognize they are also trying to shove their values down our throats despite the facts most Americans reject extremism on either side of the political spectrum? The polls continually show people don’t want unfettered abortion on demand or marriage being completely redefined. Are you telling me all the voters in CA that voted for tradl marriage are a bunch of religious fanatics? Over 60% of married people and 70% of African Americans voted against Prop 8.

• 137 dragonlady // Feb 12, 2009 at 12:45 pm

  Chekote, if there are opportunities for more conservative GOPers to win elections in these states and replace Collins, Maine, Snowe, that may be a time to remove campaign funding and party affliation. But if we withdraw our support without an eye on local politics and they lose re-elections to Dems, now what?

• 138 HollywoodBill // Feb 12, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  Same sex marriage lost at the ballot box in CA in 2000 by 13 points and 4 in 2008. Eventually there may be enough generational replacement for it to pass. As for abortion, the religious zealots have put an initiative on the ballot three times in the last four years that would have required parental notification of a minor’s abortion. It failed all three times. Californians approved stem cell research funds by a huge majority. Creationism in schools? Yeah right. Let’s not forget that the Reagan coalition was composed of the Western based libertarian Republicans too. And the Western states are reverting back to their beliefs. CA, OR and WA are now Democratic as are NV, CO and NM. AZ and MT are looking to be Dem by no later than 2010 or 2012. But the moralizing busybody ways of the GOP are not acceptable to any regions of the country these days except the South and the Bible Belt.

• 139 Chekote // Feb 12, 2009 at 1:04 pm

  “Culture provides context for decision-making, especially if you have young children.” And what exactly do you want the federal government to do? Shouldn’t families handle this?

• 140 sinz54 // Feb 12, 2009 at 6:29 pm

  ireign: I guess you didn’t read my other posts on policy. I consider myself to be an economic conservative and a foreign-policy hawk. I believe that Obama’s stimulus package, consisting largely of pie-in-the-sky infrastructure projects, will not stimulate the economy, whereas an immediate sharp cut in the payroll tax would stimulate the economy immediately. We can have health care reform which brings many more Americans into the plan, yet is based on substantial private sector involvement. But it will require more government mandates and subsidies than free-market purists would like. In Massachusetts, Governor Romney passed just such a plan. And so far, it seems to be working. (Yes, costs are rising; but the cost of health care is rising all across the nation, so that’s not necessarily bad for Romney’s plan.) I am not an economic reactionary, however. I do not believe that any Federal government worth its salt could look at the current economic crisis and just do nothing, hoping that the “free market” can fix it. Because it won’t. I support building U.S. military defenses and intelligence-gathering capabilities to their highest possible peak. I support ballistic missile defenses capable of intercepting a missile attack even from China. I supported the PATRIOT Act. I believe that al-Qaeda terrorists should be treated like civilian partisans (not like soldiers or as common criminals)–Bush was absolutely right about that. I do *NOT* support launching pre-emptive wars based solely on intelligence data. We’ve now seen what can go wrong with that policy. I am also a social libertarian. I am pro-choice (up thru the first trimester, at least). Is that any help?

• 141 sinz54 // Feb 12, 2009 at 6:42 pm

  ireign: “Who knows, if we found wmd in Iraq or if Iraq had been relatively quick, we might not be having a conversation.” But there’s the problem. Bush launched a pre-emptive war in Iraq, based on intelligence data plus some political-science analyses of Saddam’s intentions and of the nature of Iraqi society. All of which turned out to be wrong. That’s the problem with pre-emptive war; since the enemy has not attacked us yet, we don’t really know his true intentions nor his exact capabilities. We are therefore forced to rely on intelligence data, which can be woefully incomplete or faulty. Why did this happen? After 9-11, we panic-stricken Americans seemed to demand a zero tolerance policy for any more terrorist attacks. And yes, that leads you naturally into conducting pre-emptive wars against any nations who might, just might, be presenting terrorist threats against you, even indirectly. Benjamin Netanyahu said it best once: In a war against terrorism, the homeland is a battlefield and the citizens are on the front lines. And just like any other soldiers, those citizens have to learn how to take some casualties without going to pieces or lashing out blindly. Bush’s failure of leadership was that he never explained that truth to the American people.

• 142 sinz54 // Feb 12, 2009 at 6:58 pm

  HollywoodBill: A major reason why those Southwest states are tipping Blue, is due to the huge influx of Hispanics. Karl Rove and Bush had recognized that the GOP had to start appealing to Hispanics, and Bush had courted Hispanics when he was governor of Texas. Thus they tried to craft an immigration reform bill that was tough, yet fair enough to give illegal Hispanic immigrants a path to citizenship. I supported it. (Hear that, “ireign”? I *SUPPORTED* Bush’s immigration reform bill.) But it ran right into a buzz saw of opposition from the hard-right nativist segment of the GOP who regard illegal aliens as invaders, and demands that they all be deported. Mixed in with this were some frankly bigoted attacks on Hispanic culture (oh, they drink too much, they have too many babies, etc.). Michelle Malkin actually encouraged such swill on her blog. And she was one of the leaders of the nativists who sank the immigration bill, and drove Hispanics out of the GOP. I don’t believe in expelling anyone from the GOP, unless they themselves have made blatantly racist statements (and Ms. Malkin is too clever to fall into that trap). But I do think that someone high up in the GOP has to take her on. Someone has to challenge her views of Hispanics, gays, etc. If Michelle Malkin’s views hold sway, the GOP will end up a White Heterosexual Protestant Party of the South and Southwest. And never win another national election again.

• 143 sinz54 // Feb 12, 2009 at 7:21 pm

  dragonlady: “Why can’t you recognize they [social liberals] are also trying to shove their values down our throats despite the facts most Americans reject extremism on either side of the political spectrum?” I certainly recognize it. I do support embryonic stem-cell research. I do support early-term abortion, before the fetus has a functioning human brain. I do not support “unfettered abortion on demand.” But you gotta admit that the GOP has not taken a middle ground like that in recent years. They haven’t even been leaning right-of-center. The platform’s call for a Human Life Amendment that would extend the protections of the 14th Amendment to the unborn is an extreme hard-right position if there ever was one. There you would be using the United States Constitution to beat up on women who have abortions. Likewise, a Constitutional Amendment to make marriage between one man and one woman would remove the political impetus toward civil unions. Let’s face it, civil unions are an attempt at compromise between nothing at all for g-a-y-s and actual civil marriage, which is what g-a-y-s really want. Once civil marriage became banned, there would no longer be any incentive for compromise, and g-a-y-s could go back to living as second-class citizens.

• 144 Chekote // Feb 12, 2009 at 7:25 pm

  sinz. I hold the same views as you do. The mistake that Bush made on immigration was to push for a comprehensive approach. Lots of people – like me – opposed this approach because we wanted to make sure that we got control of the borders first before we addressed the people already here. As a legal immigrant, it burns me to think that someone broke the law and gets rewarded. But at the same time, I don’t see any point in deporting people who are contributing to society and have not broken any laws other than entering illegally. My fear was that we would adjust the status and never secure the border. Just like what happened in 1986.

• 145 dragonlady // Feb 12, 2009 at 7:53 pm

  Chekote, I don’t think its asking much for the federal govt to pass laws preventing extreme positions being taken by activist judges if they have popular support. Do you think Defense of Marriage Act was extreme? Or outlawing Partial Birth Abortion? What about endorsing that the Pledge of Allegiance as constituional? Of course families should handle their own problems but what about the kids that don’t have good parents or families? I’m not suggesting the state become their nanny but should we say too bad, so sad for them because that’s the price of democracy?

• 146 dragonlady // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:38 pm

  sinz54, I recognize the influence and perception problem of right wing extremists but I don’t think the majority of GOPers feel that way. The MSM has succeeded in painting anyone who has a conservative view of social issues as a religious wacko. When was the last time you saw a real effort on the GOP’s part to pass a constitutional amendment against g-a-y marriage or HLA? I don’t support either of those positions but I consider myself socially conservative. On the other hand, Obama has specifically stated he supports FOCA which the vast majority of Americans do not support. Yet posters are sitting here in a circular firing squad trying to run each other out of the party be it an economic, foreign policy, or social ideology limitus test. It’s disheartening; how does it build a NewMajority? I pretty much know from visiting this website where you, Hollywood Bill, Chekote, JJ, larryo, and a few others stand. So I suppose we’ll agree to disagree but I really wonder how productive this back and forth is. As a social conservative, I’m being told my views are extreme and therefore, irrelevant when I believe my views are in line with the majority of Americans. Because I simply have an opinion on these issues I’m de facto trying to force my view down someone’s throat when the joke is so many posters want to have it both ways. Have you noticed when this website first launched we had many more social conservative posters? Where have they all gone do you suppose? If this is what the NewMajority is to become, the Libertarian party, then I must say good-bye. I support individual rights but I do not support the extreme atomization of individuals in a society that is no more than the sum of its parts, where moral relativism and balkanization runs amok.

• 147 ireign // Feb 12, 2009 at 10:14 pm

  Sinz, thanks for the clarification on your views.

• 148 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:13 am

  Dragonlady. May I respectfully suggest you are not a social conservative; but rather a traditionalist. So am I for the most part. You basically want to preserve our cultural institutions, our way of life. SoCons have an activist agenda designed to impose a certain set of religious beliefs on society. Very different.

• 149 HollywoodBill // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:26 am

  Sinz, one of the more surpising facts about Hispanic voters is how they do not vote in proportion to their numbers. The Southwestern states have always been more libertarian than social conservative and the dominance of the socons is what is fraying the GOP. And like it or not dragonlady, the voters are having the final word on the direction of the GOP. The social conservative candidates are failing in most regions of the country with the exception of the South and the bible belt. The goal of the GOP is to win elections and not promote a theocratic agenda which is as bad as the liberal agenda.

• 150 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:39 am

  HBill. I don’t believe that dragonlady is a SoCon. She is a traditionalist. Very different as I pointed out in my post below.

• 151 dragonlady // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:48 am

  So Chekote, HBill et all, is there room in the NewMajority for traditionalists? I would never try to impose any religious belief on anybody. At the same time, I’m tired of not being able to say Merry Christmas or having war memorials removed because a cross may be on it.

• 152 dragonlady // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:54 am

  Hbill, I don’t want CA’s economy or culture exported to the rest of the 50 states. The western states can elect the more socially moderate candidates and we can all be included as part of the Big Tent philosophy. The GOP shouldn’t expect the whole country to follow the south’s lead but it shouldn’t ignore it either.

• 153 HollywoodBill // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:08 am

  dragonlady–do not expect the Western libertarian based states to suppor a totally unacceptable candidate, like Sarah Palin or a Bobby Jindal. We have had enough of the socons in power with GWBush. But the socons are turning the big tent into a revival tent which is incapable of carrying any regions but the South and that’s not enough to win national elections.

• 154 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 11:06 am

  Dragonlady, of course, there is room for traditionalists in the New Majority. Traditionalism is an essential part of the conservative movement. Among other things, conservatism is about prudent change. Russell Kirk said it best: “Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.” Here is a link I think you will enjoy:
  http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

• 155 oodoodanoo // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:23 pm

  I have to disagree (respectfully) with Mr. Frum and some of the posters here. Bill Clinton thought that he could avoid defeat by tacking to the center while ignoring his base. Well, it may have barely worked for him, but his party was drubbed in 1994. In other words, Americans weren’t fooled. When they wanted Republicans, they voted for them, and when they want Democrats, they’ll vote for them instead.

  The point is not to play to the here and now by playing catch-up with the Democrats. We need to look ahead to 2010 and 2012. When Americans see that this president is planning a radical attack on their values, they will wake up and get their priorities straight.

  Until then, playing ball with Obama will just serve to alienate those future faithful. They will not forget if the GOP turns to accommodation now.

You must log in to post a comment.