Danny Finkelstein, one of the intellectual architects of the revival of conservatism in the UK, has a superb column in today’s Times on Sarah Palin and the Republican Party:
There is no more eloquent statement of modern Republicanism than resigning office with time still on the clock. Mrs. Palin has chosen to talk about power, rather than exercise it. She would rather write a book and give lectures about being a governor than actually be a governor. And her party has made the same choice…
One of Mrs. Palin’s constant refrains when asked about giving up her office is that she didn’t want to practise “politics as usual”. Well, she can certainly be acquitted of that. And there is nothing wrong with unusual in politics from time to time. But for a party that seeks to govern to speak so openly of its dislike of governing, of the people who govern and of the place from which they govern, isn’t entirely serious.
Mrs. Palin need not worry too much about this, because she has worked out that she can have an entire career, a public voice and a good income entirely by pleasing the Republican base. More broadly, her party has concluded that it can have a fine life just pleasing itself.
52 responses so far
1 Unicle // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:57 pm
What Finkelstein fails to realize is that McCain was the drag on the ticket, not Sarah Palin.
“If you want to win and you don’t have enough votes from people who agree with you, you have to win support from people who don’t by accommodating their views. ”
I agree. McCain ran as a moderate and turned off a lot of conservatives while not gaining independents. The moderates and independents still broke for Obama despite all of McCain’s pandering to the middle. If Palin, or a conservative similar to Palin, should run in 2012, she won’t duplicate McCain’s mistakes and run for the middle.
We now know it’s a losing strategy; not enough people, apparently, agreed with John McCain. There are enough people, however, who agree with conservatism. And whoever is brave enough to tap that market will indeed win.
2 dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Frum, if you’re going to keep up on the Palin angle, at least give us a writer that is somewhat objective in their analysis. The author is really going out on a limb with some of his statements. There is not much evidence to support his supposition that Palin and the base “did not like governing.” Also, if she is all about pleasing the base, why did she offer to campaign for conservative Democrats? At least Politico has an interesting follow up from that perspective.
3 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:16 pm
unicle // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:57 pm
” If Palin, or a conservative similar to Palin, should run in 2012, she won’t duplicate McCain’s mistakes and run for the middle. We now know it’s a losing strategy; not enough people, apparently, agreed with John McCain. There are enough people, however, who agree with conservatism. And whoever is brave enough to tap that market will indeed win”
………..Personally I can’t wait……it’s the catharsis the Republican party needs……..moderate Republicans are NEVER going to persuade movement conservative like yourself of the speciousness of your arguments…..the only place this can be done is at the ballot box……..David was, as I am, actually advocating it a week or so ago but he’s not very consistent (probably because he realized it’s also a death ride for the party’s representation in house and senate)……..So I hope you and Dragonlady get your wish and Palin is the nominee in 2012……Happy?
4 Unicle // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:24 pm
My ‘wish’ is for a conservative to run in 2012. You and I obviously disagree on what defines a conservative.
Regardless, I still believe that any candidate who is willing to campaign for small government, balanced budgets, freedom of choice, tax elimination, regulation elimination, tapping real sources of domestic energy, and a promise for no silly ‘reset’ buttons can easily win. Essentially, we need an anti-Obama in 2012, not a moderate Obama.
5 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:37 pm
unicle // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:24 pm
…………As I said there’s no hope whatever of persuading folks who think like you so I’m all for you getting your wish of Palin or a Palin lookalike ……but you seem awfully keen on her ……..I’ll also pass over the fact that most of the items you mention have either been ignored or tried with massively bad outcomes over the last eight years……….At some point the child has to discover for itself that fire burns.
6 Unicle // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:48 pm
“I’ll also pass over the fact that most of the items you mention have either been ignored or tried with massively bad outcomes over the last eight years”
Perhaps you can be so kind as to indulge me and enlighten me with a few examples because I don’t see your point.
7 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:12 pm
unicle // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:48 pm
“Perhaps you can be so kind as to indulge me and enlighten me with a few examples because I don’t see your point”
……….Maybe you don’t read newspapers? …..Why don’t you look at your list and ask yourself if government is smaller than it was in 2000, budgets have been balanced, and whether eliminating regulations has been a resounding success.
8 dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Unicle, ottovbvs is a troll. Do not try to have a rational argument with him.
9 sdspringy // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:58 pm
There was a time, a shining example, when Conservatives shutdown Washington to control out of control government spending. Those brave new members of Washington were then slowly turned into the big spending Democrat Lite, of the Bush admin. Clinton always receives the credit for balanced budgets but he only signed what was offered. If Bush had been a conservative he would have vetoed some spending. He wasn’t a conservative, and neither were members of the Republican majority in the House and Senate. We lost the elections in 06 &08.
The attempt by David and other to then point to those loses and state we need a different style, more inclusive, throw out family values and the principle of smaller government and spending control is ignorant and misrepresents the cause of the losses. It was because from 02-06 none of those principles existed in the party.
The media hypocrisy, high five to Otto, over Bush spending and the now genuflection over the massive spending of Obama is stunning.
The Davids of the party now want to continue the Dem lite approach and be a part of the stimulus, healthcare, cap & trade spending. Not to reduce or stop such legislation but to be a part of it. The only part allowed of course will be the pork included to buy their vote.
If the Davids of the party want the Republicans to win seats in 2012 they should be highlighting the massive spending, expansion of the shadow, czar, government, and the utterly complete failure of any of the current Dems to follow thru on any of their campaign promises.
10 KoolJeffrey // Jul 16, 2009 at 2:11 am
POLTICO on Sarah Palin’s offer to campaign for moderate and conservative Democrats:
“I don’t think so.”
— Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC)
“That’s a new one on me. I don’t think she wants to campaign for me.”
— Rep. John Barrow (D-GA)
“I usually don’t ask people to come campaign for me. I hadn’t really thought about that possibility…overall, I’m not sure how she’d do there.”
— Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR)
“Well, I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t look to do that. I’ve had a very limited number of people ever campaign for me, and I’ve never seen the need to expand it.”
— Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
BWAHAHAHA.
11 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 7:42 am
dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:07 pm
“Unicle, ottovbvs is a troll. Do not try to have a rational argument with him.”
……..This poster needs to look in a mirroe I think
12 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 7:47 am
sdspringy // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:58 pm
“The media hypocrisy, high five to Otto, over Bush spending and the now genuflection over the massive spending of Obama is stunning.”
………..Over the last eight years the Bush admin increased the public debt by $5trillion in round terms….they then bequeathed to the new president the most serious financial collapse and economic recession since the thirties……Most of the new spending is either residuary from the Bush admin or basically being used to clean up the mess he left by substituting govt spending for consumer spending and to fix a long standing problem namely healthcare…..It’s no use pretending none of this happened
13 sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:56 am
unicle: I plead with you to examine the changing demographics of the U.S. electorate.
The fastest growing voting blocs in America today are single women (including single moms) and Hispanics. Can your conservative platform appeal to them? How? Especially after all the demonization these groups have gotten from social conservatives?
Young voters are, as always, the wave of the future. And they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, because he addressed issues they care about, like protecting the environment. What part of your conservative platform can win them back?
Your platform sounds like the same conservative platform from 1980. But back then, married white Protestants were a fairly large majority in America, and your platform appealed to them.
Today, the Pew Survey found that married white Protestants now make up only 51% of the electorate, and that percentage continues to decline. By 2012, married white Protestants, the bread and butter of the GOP, may be a minority in their own country. America is becoming more diverse. Conservatives must find ways to appeal to other voting blocs, especially Hispanics and single women, or else be doomed to permanent minority status.
14 mlindroo // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:59 am
A very common perception among the “conservative base” is that McCain lost because millions of committed conservatives who voted for Bush in 2004 did not show up four years later because they could not stand “the Maverick”.
While it is difficult to test this “hypothesis”, I think the available data suggests conservatives *did* show up on election day but everybody else deserted the GOP and voted for Obama this time around. An additional ten million people favored Obama, but McCain nonetheless only received two million fewer votes than Bush. GOP pollster Kirsten Soltis commented that the Republican base doesn’t appear to have stayed home in large numbers – in fact, they may have come out better than anticipated. Particularly in the GOP-leaning poor counties in the South.
McCain actually improved upon Bush in the rural and small town areas in West Virginia and the South Central states, and he did as well in South Carolina where turnout actually was higher than in 2004. He also won the same share of the Georgia vote as Bush did. McCain did better than Bush among wealthier whites in Louisiana and Arkansas, and about the same in Oklahoma.
Overall, McCain was typically able to match Bush’s share of the white vote in the South Central states – and he was apparently able to tick up a few points among some subgroups: white Democrats, white Independents, and poorer whites in particular. These are key Joe the Plumber/Sarah Barracuda/El Rushbo dittoheads and they were as immune to “Change” as before.
The big shift in the makeup of the electorate came in the decreased percentage of the electorate identifying as Republican, and also the growth of urban/minority voters. Particularly in the Mountain West states where McCain essentially repeated the Bush vote (winning 99.14% of Bush’s total) yet still lost by huge margins in several states. E.g. in Nevada, he only lost ~2% of the white vote but got absolutely trounced because Hispanics deserted the GOP in droves.
Overall, if you look at states across the nation, you’ll notice the same trend. McCain lost Virginia and North Carolina despite a good GOTV effort since the GOP no longer is competitive in large urban areas. Educated urban whites also favored Obama by a huge margin in Indiana and Colorado whereas poorer, less educated rural whites (again) voted for the GOP candidate in about equal numbers as in 2004. The same trend is apparent in Florida and Texas, where Obama also made huge gains thanks to Hispanics abandoning the GOP.
The bottom line is that nationally, at the presidential level, the Republican conservative base is too small and generates too few electoral votes. Republican lockup of the Plains, Deep South and Appalachia just isn’t enough anymore and there is fairly strong evidence that “the Southern Strategy” actually is scaring away voters elsewhere. E.g. while the McCain/Palin ticket actually received more votes than Bush in a handful of states (AZ, AK, SC, NC, MS, AL, GA, TN, LA), these were more than offset by heavy losses in former swing states such as Pennsylvania (-137,962 votes), Ohio (-180,907), Wisconsin (-215,727), Michigan (-265,107)… The McCain of eight years ago may well have seemed like an appealing alternative to independents and conservative Democrats in these states, but his problem is that the current Republican party as constructed by Karl Rove & co. holds little appeal. And McCain had to pander to “The GOP Base” by e.g. choosing Palin.
MARCU$
15 barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 11:57 am
Re: Mlindroo // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:59 am –
Thoughtful and informative post, Marc. (*NOD*)
“…the available data suggests conservatives *did* show up on election day…”
The “available data” is woefully inadequate to the task of reaching a provable conclusion; but you basically stipulate this within your post.
Here. Let me throw this out. Would you folks consider me a “conservative?” Assuming “yes” then take me as an example. *I* showed up. *I* voted for Bob Barr.
(*SHRUG*)
Any other self-described “conservatives” vote for ANYONE other than McCain?
Any self-described “conservatives” here not vote at all (or skip the presidential ballot) do to a disgust with the choices presented? And if so, is this something you’ve done often – or even at all in past presidential elections?
Hey… I’m not claiming that my personal action last November or the answers (if any) I get to my question “prove” my thesis that McCain lost “conservatives,” but add it to the two million votes McCain “lost” and I believe my case is a fairly strong one.
We talk of “independents,” but ultimately we have to narrow down our definitions to whether we’re talking “liberal leaning” or “conservative leaning” “independents” and “moderates” choosing to desert McCain and vote for another candidate – be it Obama or someone else.
“Kirsten Soltis commented that the Republican base doesn’t appear to have stayed home in large numbers…”
(*LAUGHING*) Yes… she… er… “commented.” She… er… “commented” on what she refers to as an “appearance.” (*SHRUG*)
“…GOTV…”
“…the GOP…”
But, Marc… this is the ESTABLISHMENT you’re pointing to as having failed. It was the McCains and the Frums and the largely “anti-Rushites,” “anti-Palinites” who were running the show. (*SHRUG*)
You don’t see this…??? You don’t see a connection…???
You don’t see the backlash against the GOP in ‘06 as coming in large part out of their UNCONSERVATIVE actions in office, their overspending, their corruption, their HYPOCRISY…???
(*SHRUG*) That’s what I see.
“The bottom line is that nationally, at the presidential level, the Republican conservative base is too small and generates too few electoral votes.”
Well… if that’s true then we’ll never see another Republican president.
Time will tell.
BILL
16 dacookson // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I think this is a bit unfair actually. The Republicans are fresh out of power and having an internal debate about direction. It’s a natural process but can’t go on for too long obviously. In the UK the conservatives took years to realise the political landscape had changed. In the end they were so busy wrangling and recriminating William Hague had to resign after losing the next election, something that didn’t need to happen and delayed the development of the party even further. I don’t know exactly how the two countries compare politically but the lesson from the UK is that ultimately you have to change your policies and find a convincing salesman to convince the electorate to get onboard.
17 midcon // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:14 pm
The election was definitely a referendum on the Bush years. When you converse with a wide range of people (co-workers, neighbors, relatives, profressional acquaintances) you get a sense about what was happening and did happen. My conversations with all those people indicated to me that they most voted the way they did because they were sick and tired of the Bush years and felt like voting for the GOP ticket was voting for more of the same. Palin was of little consideration except as it related to McCain’s age. The GOP ran a lackluster campaign and generated little excitement beyond Palin. The GOP had to run against Bush but had trouble throwing him completely to the wolves. This was pretty much a no win situation for the GOP because they had no credibility and the so-called GOP policies of the last 8 years were a dismal failure. Now I know Bill and others will jump in say those weren’t real GOP policies but it doesn’t matter. It was a GOP administration and a GOP president made decisions. That’s what people saw and perception is reality. People were ready/crying for change and they got it. That’s pretty much what I gleaned from talking to people.
18 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:26 pm
midcon // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:14 pm
“Palin was of little consideration except as it related to McCain’s age.”
………..Everyone’s experience is different of course and while there’s no doubt it was a referendum on Bush and the Republicans…..Palin’s drag can’t be dismissed……most of the people I hang out with are current or lapsed Republicans……to a man, and even more so woman, Palin was amongst the top three reasons these folks broke the habits of a lifetime in some cases and voted for Obama.
19 barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Re: Dacookson // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:12 pm –
“I think this is a bit unfair actually.”
Hey… that’s Frum for you! (*GIGGLE*)
(Yeah, yeah… I know the words were Finkelstein’s, but Frum is simply using Finkelstein as a proxy.)
Re: Midcon // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:14 pm –
“The election was definitely a referendum on the Bush years.”
Yes. No doubt. But “the Bush years” were also “the Lott years… the DeLay years… the Stevens years… the Frist years… et al.” In other words, Mid, if Bush had had a “Gingrich/Armey/Kasich” Congress to not only back him up by to keep him in line… (*SHRUG*)
Think about what turned YOU off… what turned ME off… what turned ALL of us off. It wasn’t just Bush. Indeed, depending upon the issues, no doubt all of us can point to Bush actions we’d praise. (And, hey… the American People re-elected him in ‘04.)
Speaking for me, myself, and I… it was the betrayal of conservative fiscal and constitutional values (letting Bush do anything he wanted on foreign, defense, and security policy in return for free rein on pork spending) that turned me away from the “Republican” Congress – it was the sense of betrayal on everything from policy to the hypocrisy on personal behavior.
“My conversations with all those people indicated to me that they most voted the way they did because they were sick and tired of the Bush years and felt like voting for the GOP ticket was voting for more of the same.”
RIGHT! But again… we can’t decouple “the Bush years” from the betrayals and hypocrisy of the GOP Congress. In other words, Republican Bush pushed us (“Barker conservatives”) away from support of the Republican Executive Branch and Republican RINOs pushed us away from support of the Republican Legislative Branch. It was a double whammy.
“…a no win situation for the GOP because they had no credibility…”
EXACTLY! (*HIGH FIVE*)
BILL
20 dragonlady // Jul 16, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Sinz, we absolutely need to appeal to other demographic groups–the numbers are what they are, especially regarding Hispanics. But what in unicle’s platform do you think they would disagree with? I don’t think Hispanics or single woman are somehow disinclined to believe in limited gov’t or balanced budgets. The desired for immigration enforcement cut across a wide swath of Americans, across political parties. It is unfortunate that a small minority made it a racial issue or said something ridiculous like Tancredo did in calling Miami “a third world country.” We should have talked more about sensible reform than beat up on a group of people. Republicans have always decried the Dems for playing identity politics—we should not do the same. Anyway, I think we should try to convince the socons that supporting federalism is in their favor. States should be able to pass laws that reflect the values of the local community. At the federal level, we should focus on not incentivizing poor behavior (i.e., the welfare model of the 60s and 70s) and appointing fair judges who are not activist. Much of the socon backlash, I think, comes from what they perceive as an assault on their values by the Left through the courts. When the Boys Scouts are demonized for not allowing homosexual scout masters and banned from public places for gathering simply because they are a Christian organization, I would venture to say most fair-minded people (religious or not), think this is going too far.
21 dragonlady // Jul 16, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Barker13, I think mlidroo has a good point of us losing Hispanics in drove–Bush increased his share of Hispanic votes in 2004 from 2000 to over 40%. McCain barely eked out 30% which is ironic given that he was more pro-amnesty than any other GOP candidate in the primary, and wanted to pass Bush’s immigration bill in the Senate. Clearly, the section that was vehemently anti-illegal immigrant cost us some votes. I’m not saying we should compete with the Dems on pandering, but like it or not, we have an image problem of the being the party of old white guys. Nothing is wrong with old white guys, but if you’re a minority and see all the other minorities in the other party, well, who would you be inclined to vote for?
22 dragonlady // Jul 16, 2009 at 2:54 pm
The split in the GOP on Palin is between elites and the base, and it’s an interesting dynamic to watch. It seems that a candidate acceptable to both sections of the GOP is required. When the base is lukewarm towards a candidate the elites are behind, you get what happened to Bush the elder who lost re-election, and to Romney who lost the primary. Since the GOP systems seems to award candidates by primogeniture, the lukewarm candidates like Romney get a second look, and are more readily accepted as recent polls indicate he has much higher favorability ratings now among both the GOP and independents.
Anyway, I Michael Steele is taking the right approach by trying to include Palin in the GOP because she clearly inspires a large section of it, as well as some independents. If the elites want to convince Palin fans that she would be a problematic candidate, make a rational case based on her knowledge of the issues, or the fact that she is a polarizing figure. But when you write pieces dripping with disdain for the woman (Brooks, Noonan, and company), and pass off Armitage-style gossip as fact, you really are showing disdain for her supporters. And they sense that–which ensures they just dig in more. Why would they trust anyone who is basically calling them stupid for supporting Palin? How is Noonan helping rebuild the party when she tells folks that they are “kooks” for disagreeing with her, yet sings accolades of praises for Obama? The end result is she advances the left wing narrative and caricature of the GOP, and further antagonizes the split between elites and the base. My advice to Frum is to stop antagonizing the base over Palin since 2012 is a long way off. Try to include her constructively. Focus on rebuilding the GOP at local levels, and applying conservative principles to more pressing issues. Or if you’d rather dump the base (not a smart strategy IMO), come clean about it.
23 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 3:12 pm
dacookson // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:59 pm
………Republican approval rates amongst hispanics are currently around 8%……about where they are with scientists apparently…….the loss of the hispanic vote is largely the consequence of the GOP’s anti immigration stance rolled in with numerous pin pricks like Limbaugh anti hispanic rants, demonizing Sotomayor etc etc. In the short term I see no chance Republicans are going to substantially increase their share of the hispanic vote particularly since Obama is planning on introducing a new immigration reform bill next year which will put all the old controversies on the front burner…….Even in Florida where hard line Cubans kept the hispanic vote Republican this advantage is eroding with demographics and a recognition that the Cuban isolation policy has been a total failure.
24 Robert Graves // Jul 16, 2009 at 4:24 pm
dragonlady –
Like Peggy Noonan, Frum attacks Sarah Palin because he knows that what he says will provoke strong responses from lots of readers. It’s all about market share and his visibility. It’s best to ignore him.
25 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Robert Graves // Jul 16, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“It’s all about market share and his visibility.”
……..Some truth in this like those silly Politico headlines…..Doesn’t alter the fact he was actually the first to blow the whistle on Palin…….it probably cost him some gigs……. and he’s been totally consistent ever since…….Noonan talked out of both sides of her mouth…….again because she has an expensive apartment in NYC to maintain…….She only jumped when the wind shifted against Palin…..as it has…..you just haven’t checked the sock lately.
26 mlindroo // Jul 16, 2009 at 5:37 pm
> We talk of “independents,” but ultimately we have to narrow down our definitions
> to whether we’re talking “liberal leaning” or “conservative leaning”
> “independents” and “moderates” choosing to desert McCain and vote for another
> candidate – be it Obama or someone else.
The evidence does suggest a significant number of GOP defections into the “independent” column. In the end, Obama won the independent vote (52% vs. 49% for Kerry) and he also received another 3% boost for self-described Republicans (9% vs. 6% for Kerry).
> I’m not claiming that my personal action last November or the answers (if any)
> I get to my question “prove” my thesis that McCain lost “conservatives,”
> but add it to the two million votes McCain “lost” and I believe my case is a
> fairly strong one.
I disagree. If conservative turnout for Mccain/Palin were as bad as you suggest, it ought to show up primarily in GOP strongholds. But if you measure the difference between the McCain’08 and Bush’04 state totals, “Maverick’s” few bright spots were almost exclusively in the Deep South…places such as South Carolina. There is a clear pattern of elderly, working-class white guys living in rural areas. Quite often deeply religious, and without a college degree. They were not enthusiastic McCain supporters, but they still voted for him in the end (or HER). And the conservative “protest vote” totals for Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin seem to have been no higher than in the 2000 or 2004 elections.
—
Now, GOP turnout in Ohio and a few other economically depressed places was comparatively
poor. But most of the big differences were in deep Blue states such as NJ and NY, where Bush actually performed surprisingly well in 2004 thanks to the “security mom” vote. Being somewhat more moderate than your average conservative politician, McCain ought to have fared even better but his unwillingness to challenge GOP/Rovian orthodoxy probably doomed him (see next paragraph).
> this is the ESTABLISHMENT you’re pointing to as having failed.
> It was the McCains and the Frums and the largely “anti-Rushites,”
> “anti-Palinites” who were running the show. (*SHRUG*)
> You don’t see this…??? You don’t see a connection…???
Do you at least agree with me that the Bush Administration (Karl Rove, Dick Cheney et al.) was making the strategic decisions on behalf of the Republican Party in 2001-06? In what meaningful way did the McCain campaign deviate from the previous Administration’s (deeply unpopular) policies?!?!?!?! As far as I can see, they made some muted noises about being more open to environmental legislation — and the conservative pundits on the NRO Corner and elsewhere did not like it. In all other respects, the former “Maverick” was trotting out the usual GOP talking points with varying degrees of enthusiasm. I got the sense he did not particularly enjoy the B.S. about his religious faith (and Dobson & co.
most certainly did not like HIM!) or the nonsense about Ayers et al.. But he mostly campaigned as a mainstream conservative Republican. A handful of those positions regarding immigration and domestic spending may be unpopular with grassroots conservatives. But it seems truly absurd to dismiss Rove, G.W. Bush, Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Denny Hastert et al as “RINOs”. These folks did not try to pander to urban elites, secular voters or minorities (OK, hispanics excluded) for the most part…
> You don’t see the backlash against the GOP in ‘06 as coming in large part out of
> their UNCONSERVATIVE actions in office, their overspending, their corruption,
> their HYPOCRISY…???
I agree with all you say, except for the “unconservative” bit (grin…).
I hate to break it to you, but “conservative commitment to small government” is basically fiction as far as the national Republican Party is concerned. It’s the equivalence of “pure communism” in the former USSR, i.e. the true believers claim they believe in it and are pursuing the noble goal. But the cold truth is U.S. government spending increased under Reagan as well as Bush, as did deficit spending.
As Jerry Pournelle points out, conservative politicians remain statists at heart ( http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm ). They may claim they want to abolish the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare but they remain enthusiastic supporters of expensive military programs and restrictions of civil liberties in the name of national security. Even their opposition to porkbarrel earmarks and Bridges to Nowhere is mostly fake.
MARCU$
27 KoolJeffrey // Jul 16, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I can’t believe I am still hearing, “We would have won, if only we had been MORE conservative.” If Republican politicians continue down this delusional rat-hole, there won’t be any of them left. I wish the GOP the best of luck when Bailin’ Palin comes to bail them out once more.
28 sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 8:36 pm
mlindroo sez: “I think the available data suggests conservatives *did* show up on election day but everybody else deserted the GOP and voted for Obama this time around. An additional ten million people favored Obama, but McCain nonetheless only received two million fewer votes than Bush.”
The 2008 exit polls confirm this.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/
89% of self-described liberals voted for Obama.
78% of self-described conservatives voted for McCain.
BUT: 60% of self-described moderates voted for Obama too.
Beyond that, Obama got a lot of first-time voters to the polls, particularly young voters who had never voted in a Presidential election before.
69% of first-time voters voted for Obama.
Only 30% of first-time voters voted for McCain.
McCain held on to the usual GOP base. Perhaps Sarah Palin had a lot to do with that. But McCain lost the Independent vote, he lost the moderate vote badly, and he lost the first-time voters overwhelmingly.
29 sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 8:45 pm
mlindroo sez: “They may claim they want to abolish the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare but they remain enthusiastic supporters of expensive military programs and restrictions of civil liberties in the name of national security. Even their opposition to porkbarrel earmarks and Bridges to Nowhere is mostly fake.”
Even libertarians accept that national defense is a legitimate, Constitutional purpose for government spending and taxation. It’s only liberals who are often allergic to this one type of goverment spending.
However, it was NOT the “RINO” parts of Bush’s program (No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D programs) that alienated the public. Not even conservatives. Conservatives stuck loyally with Bush in 2004, despite those programs.
What alienated the public was simply this: Bush invaded Iraq to find WMD that weren’t there. And the U.S. remained mired in Iraq, fighting a counterinsurgency war, years after we knew there were no modern WMD to be found there. The public slowly decided it wasn’t worth it. Bill Schneider, political analyst for CNN, agrees with me about that.
These approval ratings, which I’ve cited before, clearly show that it’s the War on Terror more than any other factor (even the economy or Hurricane Katrina) that determined the popularity, or unpopularity, of the Bush presidency at any point in time.
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
30 TonyMas // Jul 16, 2009 at 8:48 pm
@barker13
In response to a post indicating that the Republican conservative base is simply too small, you write
“Well… if that’s true then we’ll never see another Republican president. ”
Isn’t that Frum’s whole point, and the whole point of his NewMajority website?
mlindroo’s thoughtful breakdown of the 2008 election numbers seems to add credence to Frum’s basic premise about today’s republican party: winning 100% of the conservative vote will never be enough to win elections.
I agree that 8 years of Bush’s free spending ways probably turned a lot of fiscal conservatives away from the republican ticket. But the problem is that many of these fiscal conservatives are socially liberal and well educated. I just don’t see how a polarizing figure like Palin speaks to these voters that the GOP critically needs in order to win elections.
There is no reason why a fiscally conservative, business friendly, deficit busting, pro-growth republican candidate couldn’t win elections. But to do so, this candidate would have to jettison some of the hard line social conservative issues. I can tell you assuredly that almost everybody I know would vote for a socially liberal and fiscal conservative candidate. Big deal, you may say, but keep in mind I like in northern California! And, before you write me off as a heathen, I married my high school girlfriend and have a wonderful son. Family is everything to me, but when social values are mixed with politics, the result is disastrous. I would have to agree with Frum that Sarah Palin just doesn’t do much to fill this void in the type of leadership I (and many others) would enthusiastically support.
31 KoolJeffrey // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:05 pm
sinz54 said:
“Even libertarians accept that national defense is a legitimate, Constitutional purpose for government spending and taxation. It’s only liberals who are OFTEN allergic to this one type of goverment spending.”
What a preposterous overgeneralization.
32 dragonlady // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Tonymas,
“I can tell you assuredly that almost everybody I know would vote for a socially liberal and fiscal conservative candidate.” While that might be true in urban areas, that’s not true in rural areas. We have to remember the GOP has to represent the entire nation, not just a section of it. Last time I looked at the electoral map, rural states had quite a few electoral votes. If we left it to the cities everytime to decide our Presidency, we may as well have mob rule. So has the GOP shrunk too much in that only the south consistently votes GOP? Probably. But I think we can still stand by family values by making the case for federalism and proper role of the judiciary. This is in line with conservative principles of returning gov’t to its proper role in social policy–keep it local. While the judiciary has their place, they are not supposed to be an oligarchy dictating policy. What’s paramount is we need to regain the public’s confidence back in economic and foreign policy matters. The middle votes much more on these issues than on social ones.
33 sdspringy // Jul 17, 2009 at 9:32 am
Otto is a talking points machine. When Bush was elected in 2000, how did this happen? The economy was good but sliding, no national security issues, county at peace and everyone making money. How did Bush beat Gore??????
Got an answer TP machine Otto or David.
Now the partisan will state the deficit is Bush’s fault. That is a rewrite of an amazing delusional mind.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/13/national/w110042D26.DTL&type=politics
The deficit of $1.09 trillion so far this year compares to an imbalance of $285.85 billion through the same period a year ago. The deficit for the 2008 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, was $454.8 billion, the current record in dollar terms.
When Bush was faced with a recession he responded by cutting taxes, Obama spending money. How do we respond to personal financial issues. When faced with loss of income is it best to assume you can spend your way to prosperity. The deficit is created, maintained and enlarged by Obama’s policies.
34 mlindroo // Jul 17, 2009 at 2:14 pm
> When Bush was elected in 2000, how did this happen? The economy was good but sliding,
> no national security issues, county at peace and everyone making money.
> How did Bush beat Gore??????
I think the single biggest issue was the Monicagate fallout: Gore was furious at Clinton and did not ask for much help during the campaign. And Donna Brazile clearly did a worse job with what she had than (shudder…) Karl Rove. The #43 Bushies were always better at campaigning on GOP friendly territory than governing.
MARCU$
35 mlindroo // Jul 17, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Dragonlady wrote:
> … making the case for federalism and proper role of the judiciary. This is in line with conservative
> principles of returning gov’t to its proper role in social policy–keep it local.
Well, I like the idea of local democracy…I am surprised neither major party really seems to be an enthusiastic defender of the concept anymore.
Liberal bloggers such as Matthew Yglesias frequently cite Scandinavian countries such as Denmark or Sweden as a “role model”. While these social-democratic countries undoubtedly fare very well in international comparisons, they also tend to be fairly small. So regardless of whether you prefer the Rhode Island or Alabama model, I think both sides would be better off if the rights of states were increased.
MARCU$e
36 barker13 // Jul 17, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Re: Dragonlady // Jul 16, 2009 at 2:09 pm –
“…losing Hispanics in drove…”
For the record… (*CLEARING MY THROAT*)… I’m AGAINST losing Hispanics in droves.
(*SMILE*)
The question is… how does the GOP attract Hispanics? By pandering? By relaxing standards? By turning aside from principle? No.
The good news… none of that should be necessary! Hispanics must know that “conservatism” is the true pathway for maintaining and strengthening our common values.
“McCain barely eked out 30% which is ironic given that he was more pro-amnesty…”
Yep.
“Clearly, the section that was vehemently anti-illegal immigrant cost us some votes.”
I’m vehemently anti-illegal immigrant. (*SHRUG*) I’m vehemently anti-Irish-illegal immigrant. I’m vehemently anti-Hispanic-illegal immigrant. (*SHRUG*)
“…we have an image problem of the being the party of old white guys.”
Question: Is it largely white Republicans who detest Clarence Thomas or does that better describe black Democrats?
Hey… I’m color blind. I judge a man or woman on the content of his or her character, not on his or her skin color, religion or ethnic background.
“…if you’re a minority and see all the other minorities in the other party, well, who would you be inclined to vote for?”
The best candidate. (*SHRUG*)
BILL
37 barker13 // Jul 17, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Re: Robert Graves // Jul 16, 2009 at 4:24 pm –
(*SHRUG*) (*NOD*)
Yep.
BILL
38 Oneon1isto // Jul 17, 2009 at 3:15 pm
A message to ourselves:
“Given there are about 20 commenters who regularly frequent and interact on these boards, we can all technically be considered trolls. Trolling can be presently defined as commenting on a thread, and waiting on that thread for responses to your posts so that a user may continue his or her conversation.
It is our belief that, due to the overwhelming number of posts by the limited number of active users on New Majority, that at this moment in time no account shall be deemed as a ‘troll’ or ‘trolling’ until such time that NewMajority exceeds the number of active users beyond what any user may count on his or her fingers and toes.”
39 mlindroo // Jul 17, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Barker13 wrote:
>> Well… if that’s true then we’ll never see another Republican president
That’s not what I meant. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger all managed to win elections in deep Blue territory after all. What the GOP needs now is a “Republican Bill Clinton” (minus the cigars and scandals, obviously), somebody who can advocate the popular, workable policies of his party to parts of the U.S. that usually vote for the opposition. That is why Romney’s and Giuliani’s desperate pandering to conservative ortodoxy in 2008 was so disappointing: the country wants “Change” and these guys respond by promising to “double the Gitmo!” Insane….
Tonymas wrote:
> …. winning 100% of the conservative vote will never be enough to win elections.
I’d think so, yes — *UNLESS* the incumbent is a total screw-up (see Bush, George W. 2000-08). My original post basically recycled lots of post-2008 election tidbits from GOP analysts such as Jay Cost and Kirsten Soltis so you cannot dismiss this as mere Dem propaganda. To me the key finding is that if one pits Karl Rove’s coalition (even at the height of GOP power) against a similarily competent Democratic opponent, the latter will win. In 1972, 1980 or even 1988, the result would certainly have been a GOP landslide. Thanks to demographic shifts during the past 20 years, this is no longer the case. Bush v43 was a bad president but a good campaigner: he choose to pursue a “rally the base at all costs” strategy against fairly unappealing opponents in 2000 and 2004, and the result was one draw and a narrow win.
I think the GOP will have to assemble a bigger coalition if it wants to win again in 2012 and beyond.
MARCU$
40 barker13 // Jul 17, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Re: Mlindroo // Jul 16, 2009 at 5:37 pm –
“Do you at least agree with me that the Bush Administration (Karl Rove, Dick Cheney et al.) was making the strategic decisions on behalf of the Republican Party in 2001-06?”
No. Once again… (*SIGH*)… you had RINO Congressional Leadership… then you had “Rovian” Executive branch Leadership – and within the first few years of the Bush administration you had an internal administration split between Powell and Rumsfeld and Cheney. Unfortunately, Bush tended to “split the difference” and did things like allow Powell to “take over” post-combat Iraq from DoD and turn “occupation” policy over to Powell’s boy Bremer.
Ahh… but I digress. Point is, no, there was no unified “conservative” (re: policies and principles) “control” of Republican policies.
(*SHRUG*)
“In what meaningful way did the McCain campaign deviate from the previous Administration’s (deeply unpopular) policies?!?!?!?!”
None. (Or at least none that comes to mind.) But what’s your point…??? Where Bush and McCain SHARED views it was as often as not views NOT shared by the conservative base.
Listen. I’m not going to rehash the thousands of critics I’ve made over the years concerning McCain (and Bush), but let’s be clear… “Barker conservatives” look upon BOTH McCain and Bush as often being on the wrong side of the issues. If you’re asking me if after 2006 or so McCain became “Bush lite” as opposed to the “Bush opponent” of the 2000 primary my answer is “yes.” If you’re asking me if I (and other “Barker conservatives”) respected EITHER the McCain of 2000 or the McCain of 2008… my answer is “no.”
“…it seems truly absurd to dismiss Rove, G.W. Bush, Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Denny Hastert et al as “RINOs.”
I admit, I use the term RINO in a broad sense. Would you prefer “UnBarker?” (*GRIN*)
Seriously… different negatives attach to each figure you mention… for simplicity’s sake I just group them all together as RINOs.
Hastert? He’s probably the least RINO-like. In fact, he was pretty conservative. The problem was… he either wouldn’t or couldn’t control (shut down) the corruption and other ethical lapses within the GOP House caucus. Nor as Speaker did he (regardless of whether he could have or not – he should have tried) use his position as Gingrich did to “nationalize” the conservative message and try to push the Senate and the Party further Rightward – the path I favor.
Frist? Similar. I remember being thrilled when Frist first took over, but Frist never fulfilled what I saw as his potential. Where he did directly enter the fray it was the Terri Schiavo case; Frist’s actions were counterproductive to the good of the Party to say the least. Frist did an even worse job than Hastart of keeping the big spenders of his caucus under control. (*SHRUG*) I suppose what it comes down to is that both Hastart and Frist failed to live up my high standards; the “buck” of their respective caucus’ actions stopped (theoretically) at their desks and so whether and to what extent they were “responsible” for the reckless spending and other actions I disapproved of, they got the “leaders” share of the blame from me – being the “leaders” and all. (*SMILE*)
Bush? My SPECIFIC critiques of his RINO policies, beliefs, and instincts are all over the archives of this site. (*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)
Rove? His only concern was helping Bush succeed with anything he wanted to do. (*SHRUG*)
DeLay? The K -Street Project…??? Pork…??? Spending….??? (Same with Lott. Big Spender = RINO to me.) Both me far more interested in personal power than principle… in my not so humble opinion. (Oh… don’t forget DeLay’s role in the anti-Gingrich coup.)
“I hate to break it to you, but “conservative commitment to small government” is basically fiction…”
Because of the RINOs! (*GRIN*) (We’ve now come full circle!) (*LAUGHING MY ASS OFF*)
“As Jerry Pournelle…”
I LOVE Jerry Pournelle! One of my favorite Sci-Fi authors! (Sinz… how’bout you?)
“…conservative politicians remain statists at heart…”
Not “Barker conservatives.” (*WINK*)
Hey… ALWAYS a pleasure going back and forth with you, Marcus!
BILL
41 Oranje // Jul 17, 2009 at 4:40 pm
David, I am not one of those who want to dump all over Sarah. I have a lot of admiration for her.
42 barker13 // Jul 17, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 8:36 pm –
“BUT: 60% of self-described moderates voted for Obama too.”
See: barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 11:57 am
Sinz, this “self-described moderate” category is no doubt highly skewed to the (relative) left.
“Beyond that, Obama got a lot of first-time voters to the polls, particularly young voters who had never voted in a Presidential election before.”
Sure. The “cool” factor. Your point?
“McCain held on to the usual GOP base. Perhaps Sarah Palin had a lot to do with that.”
Correct on the latter… wrong on the former. In fact, your second observation clearly infers that absent Palin (or another “movement type” conservative) McCain would have done even worse with conservatives! It wasn’t so much McCain “hanging on” to conservatives as it was Palin bringing conservative voters to the polls to vote for McCain as a way of supporting Palin and Palin’s brand of conservatism.
(*SHRUG*) In any case, your exit data link isn’t working for me.
(And I’ve gotta say… just as a general aside… getting straight answers – stats reinforced “answers” to these type questions from authoritative sources AIN’T nearly as easy as it should be; in fact, it’s damned difficult.)
Last point. You write: “[McCain] lost the moderate vote badly, and he lost the first-time voters overwhelmingly.”
Agreed! But I also note in support of my analysis that – according to YOUR figures which YOU provide – “78% of self-described conservatives voted for McCain.”
Hmm… doesn’t that translate to: “22% of self-described conservatives DIDN’T vote for McCain”?
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
43 barker13 // Jul 17, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Re: Tonymas // Jul 16, 2009 at 8:48 pm –
“In response to a post indicating that the Republican conservative base is simply too small, you write, “Well… if that’s true then we’ll never see another Republican president.” Isn’t that Frum’s whole point, and the whole point of his NewMajority website?
The difference is that I want to address this by increasing the size of the conservative base while Frum (apparently) wants to decrease it.
I want the GOP to be more “conservative” in the sense of supporting the message of the Limbaughs and the Palins. Frum would like the Limbaughs and Palins to disappear. (*SHRUG*) Or so I infer.
I believe that it was the corrupting of conservatism (the hypocrisy, the double dealing, the corruption of Republican politicians) that hurt the GOP, the move away from “Barker conservatism” (libertarian leaning nationalistic conservative) that hurt the GOP; Frum believes that “rigid” adherence to principle as applied to governing is a problem rather than a solution. (*SHRUG*)
“…today’s republican party…”
Neither Frum nor myself are thrilled with “today’s Republican Party.” However, we seem to have far different ideas about which direction today’s Party should be headed in, should go towards. (*SHRUG*)
Here… maybe this will help, Tonymas:
*MY* voting record:
Reagan (loved Ronnie!)
Reagan (loved Ronnie!)
Bush (never thrilled with Bush; ending up largely hating Bush)
Perot (Bush had betrayed Reagan conservatism)
Dole (lesser of two evils; I was a Forbes supporter during the primaries)
Bush (never thrilled with Bush; again, a Forbes supporter during the primaries)
Bush (lesser of two evils)
Barr (protest vote; couldn’t stomach McCain; feared Obama would become… er… what’s he’s become)
How does Frum’s record compare to mine? I don’t know… ask him… perhaps he’ll respond.
How’bout you… you care to get specific about who you’ve supported and opposed – who you like and don’t like?
“…many of these fiscal conservatives are socially liberal…”
They are…??? Like who…??? Would you mind fleshing out this claim and providing some citation? I’m sincerely not following you here. (*SHRUG*)
(Hey… if you provide the names and context you’re referring to I’ll gladly share my reaction individual by individual.) (*WINK*)
“…well educated…”
Hmm… (*SMILE*) I’m certainly well educated. Frum is certainly well educated. (*SMILE*) You might have to flesh out what you’re trying to get at with that one too. (*WINK*) (*CHUCKLE*)
“I just don’t see how a polarizing figure like Palin…”
(*SMILE*) “Polarizing.” I like that!
How old are you? (I’m 47.) Was Nixon a “polarizing” figure? How’bout Reagan? Gingrich? How’bout Andy Jackson? Abe Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? FDR? Know much about Truman? (*CHUCKLE*)
Listen, Tonymas… you say what you believe and you believe what you say; the chips will fall where they may. I believe that properly – AND SINCERELY – articulated conservative principles and policies can win elections.
“There is no reason why a fiscally conservative, business friendly, deficit busting, pro-growth republican candidate couldn’t win elections. But to do so, this candidate would have to jettison some of the hard line social conservative issues.”
Not to be “difficult” or argumentative, but there’re lots of undefined general “descriptives” thrown in those two sentences. When you give me specifics – policy specifics – I’ll gladly address them. Who knows… perhaps we’ll be simpatico far more often than not. Let’s hope so! (*WINK*)
“I would have to agree with Frum that Sarah Palin just doesn’t do much to fill this void in the type of leadership I (and many others) would enthusiastically support.”
OK. Perhaps your mind will be changed over the next couple years. Perhaps not. (*SHRUG*) Hey… where we agree we agree, where we disagree we disagree. Let’s keep the dialog going.
BILL
* PS – Where in Northern California?
44 barker13 // Jul 17, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Re: Oneon1isto // Jul 17, 2009 at 3:15 pm –
Fair enough.
(*NOD*)
So… Sdspringy has referred to Otto as a “Talking Points Machine.”
I propose from now on instead of using the term “troll” to describe Otto, we simply refer to him as “TPM.”
All in favor….
(*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)
BILL
45 mlindroo // Jul 17, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Sinz54 wrote:
>>“Beyond that, Obama got a lot of first-time voters to the polls, particularly young voters who had
>> never voted in a Presidential election before.”
Barker13 responded:
> Sure. The “cool” factor.
The point here is that young voters tend to keep supporting their political party, e.g. Reagan was popular with young voters in the 1980s and this particular demographic remains an important source of GOP votes. So if Obama is even moderately successful, the vast hordes of young urban, latino and black voters enrolled by the Obama’08 campaign will most likely continue to favor Democrats.
> absent Palin (or another “movement type” conservative) McCain would have done even worse with
> conservatives!
It is difficult to measure Palin’s impact. If you check the state polls, it seems she helped a bit in deep red states but she made no difference at all in key swing states. McCain’s poll numbers improved a bit after the GOP convention but the battleground state numbers did not move in his direction. I think this is because “the Base” certainly loved her, but she did not win over many women or independents.
McCain’s critics on the right claim “the Maverick” should have been able to win the independent vote anyway, but I disagree. He would have needed to campaign as a radically different Republican for this to happen, e.g. by choosing somebody like Mike Bloomberg as his running mate while stressing checkbook issues at every opportunity rather than Iraq, small government and low taxes. If the public face of your campaign is a controversial nephyte cultural warrior from Alaska who is adored by GOP evangelicals, it’s rather difficult to promote yourself as a radical departure from the G.W. Bush years. ..
> But I also note in support of my analysis that – according to YOUR figures which YOU provide -
> “78% of self-described conservatives voted for McCain.” Hmm… doesn’t that translate to: “22% of
> self-described conservatives DIDN’T vote for McCain”?
Keep in mind that Bush “only” won 83% of the conservative vote in 2004, though … you apparently assume there is a vast reservoir of untapped conservative potential out there and McCain/Palin did a poor job persuading these people to vote for them. I just don’t see any evidence for it: the G.W. Bush get-out-the-vote effort was very good in 2004, yet it was only enough for a 285-255 victory against a rather unappealing opponent.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1023/exit-poll-analysis-2008
MARCU$
46 barker13 // Jul 17, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Re: Mlindroo // Jul 17, 2009 at 3:18 pm –
“Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger all managed to win elections in deep Blue territory after all.”
True. And of those three the only one whom I would unreservedly point to as being a successful conservative (in *my* definition of libertarian leaning conservatism) executive whose actions left his city/state better off and on a trajectory to stay better off than before he took office is Giuliani.
“Aaarrrnnnooold…???” (*SNORT*)
Romney? I admit, I don’t know enough about his nuts and bolts Massachusetts governing record to make a set in stone judgment, but I tend to fear that his signature “RomneyCare” creation will end up a disaster for the state. (*SHRUG*)
BILL
47 ottovbvs // Jul 18, 2009 at 9:20 am
mlindroo // Jul 17, 2009 at 5:35 pm
……….The argument, of course, which I agree with, is that this is much more deep seated than a personality like Palin. The Palinophiles are never going to be convinced but it was obvious she was a major drag on the ticket, her unfavorables were in fifties and when was the last time a VP was a campaign issue (Henry Wallace?). The notion that Palin is going to morph into a Judge Judy conservative media personality seems entirely credible so it’s looks like both the Republican right and the Democrats are going to be disappointed in 2012. But all this focus on personalities is masking huge demographic/cultural shifts that are not working in the Republican’s favor…. these have been extensively catalogued. Despite Bush’s victories and Republicans holding onto both houses until 06 it’s plausible the drift against them started in the 90’s. Bush actually lost the popular vote in 2000 as everyone knows so the election was essentially a draw….in 2004 despite incumbency, patriotic ardor which was working for him(why else the ludicrous reporting for duty shtick from Kerry), and a huge and very succesful GOV campaign focussed on evangelical conservatives, he only eeked out the narrowest re-election victory since Wilson in ‘16…………In house and senate the trend has basically been against Republicans ever since the mid 90’s and their senate losses over the past two elections (14 or 15 if you include Specter) have been awful. In a way I think the house is actually worse because all these seats, democrat and republican are gerrymandered to death, and they STILL lost what were basically Republican citadels which (whatever all these exit polls say) show that a hell of a lot of Republicans and Republican leaners actually switched sides. Whether some switch back depends on how well Obama governs but the mold has been broken. If Obama’s support holds up, and I see no reason why it shouldn’t even with all the excitement about relatively small drops from the polling stratosphere, the GOP is really close to a precipice and seems fairly oblivious of it.
48 sinz54 // Jul 19, 2009 at 2:51 pm
barker13 sez: “I want the GOP to be more ‘conservative’ in the sense of supporting the message of the Limbaughs and the Palins.”
Which states that McCain-Palin did not win would be receptive to such a more conservative, Limbaugh/Palin-type message?
Would that message play in New York? Washington State? Ohio?
What I find baffling is that the only states that voted for McCain-Palin were the most conservative states in the Union, like the Deep South, Idaho and so on. Yet you think that a more conservative message would appeal to states that voted for Obama??? Why???
49 mlindroo // Jul 19, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Sinz54 wrote:
> What I find baffling is that the only states that voted for McCain-Palin were the most
> conservative states in the Union, like the Deep South, Idaho and so on. Yet you think
> that a more conservative message would appeal to states that voted for Obama??? Why???
Yeah, Barker13…I am baffled too!
Over at TheNextRight.com, some Hispanic guy just lamented that Tom Tancredo quite likely was responsible for the McCain collapse in the Gary metropolitan area which cost him Indiana in the end.
What on Earth makes you think that an even less compromising, more exclusive message will return Republicans to power again…?
MARCU$
50 mlindroo // Jul 19, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Barker13 laments:
> Hastert? He’s probably the least RINO-like. In fact, he was pretty conservative.
> The problem was… he either wouldn’t or couldn’t control (shut down)
> the corruption and other ethical lapses within the GOP House caucus.
[…}
> Frist did an even worse job than Hastart of keeping the big
> spenders of his caucus under control.
So is there any conservative leader in 1995-2006 that meets the “BarkerConservative” test then? Dick Armey perhaps?
MARCU$
51 barker13 // Jul 20, 2009 at 10:20 am
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 19, 2009 at 2:51 pm –
“Which states that McCain-Palin did not win would be receptive to such a more conservative, Limbaugh/Palin-type message?”
All of ‘em. (*SHRUG*)
“Would that message play in New York?”
Giuliani…??? (*SNORT*) You do remember him… right? And though Pataki is and was a corrupt piece of… (well, we’ll leave my full review of the Pataki administrations for another day)… recall that when the race was Cuomo vs. Pataki – Pataki running as a red meat conservative on the issues of the death penalty and taxes – Pataki won and indeed served three terms… each re-election campaign “sounding” like a conservative.
D’Amato…??? (*SMILE*) Again… while certainly I could write reams contrasting D’Amato’s talk to D’Amato’s walk, certainly old Alfonse was seen by most as a conservative and often appeared on conservative talk radio.
“What I find baffling is that the only states that voted for McCain-Palin were the most conservative states in the Union, like the Deep South, Idaho and so on.”
McCain was NOT a conservative. Bush was NOT a conservative. The RINO Congresses were NOT conservative Congresses in the sense of fiscal conservatism. Obama caught the imagination of the nation. The media basically held Palin’s head underwater as far as the perception of the “average only vaguely aware” voter was concerned. I’ll never get what’s so “baffling” to you, Sinz.
(*SHRUG*)
“Yet you think that a more conservative message would appeal to states that voted for Obama??? Why???”
SInz. (*SIGH*) (*SMILE*) (*EXHALE*) Your nonsense is all over the site and the archives – as is my brilliant and insightful commentary.
(*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*) (*GIVING SINZ A FRIENDLY PUNCH TO THE SHOULDER*)
Seriously… asked and answered… probably several hundred times! (*WINK*)
BILL
52 barker13 // Jul 20, 2009 at 10:34 am
Re: Mlindroo // Jul 19, 2009 at 3:13 pm –
“Yeah, Barker13…I am baffled too!”
And how are YOUR kidneys?
KIDDING! KIDDING! Just being a wiseass – not being mean spirited! (*CHUCKLE*)
Yes, Marcus… (*STICKING TO THE WISEASS THEME*)… I’ve noticed that you baffle easily.
(*SMILE*)
“Over at TheNextRight.com…”
See… (*SERIOUS TONE*)… maybe that’s the problem! While I’m reading the WSJ and Financial Times and sourcing the Think Tanks, you’re hanging at TheNextRight.com
(*SHRUG*)
“…some Hispanic guy just lamented that Tom Tancredo…”
“Some Hispanic guy…???” “…Tom Tancredo…???”
Yep. This might be the source of your bafflement my cyberfriend! (*SMILE*)
“What on Earth makes you think that an even less compromising, more exclusive message…”
“Less compromising?” DEFINITELY! Say what you mean, mean what you say… follow through… talk the talk but also walk the walk! Yep… “less compromising” sounds like sound advice to me.
As to “…more exclusive message…” I’m not sure where you’re going there. *MY* message is inclusive in the sense that it’s nationalistic, it’s color blind, it’s based upon what I defend as basic fairness and it strives for effectiveness. (*SHRUG*)
Re: Mlindroo // Jul 19, 2009 at 5:10 pm –
“So is there any conservative leader in 1995-2006 that meets the “BarkerConservative” test then? Dick Armey perhaps?”
I’ve mentioned Armey. I’ve mentioned Gingrich. I’ve named names all over the site and the archives back me up. (*SHRUG*)
All human beings (and particularly politicians I’d guess) are flawed. As I noted to Brutus recently, anyone who agrees with *ME* 100% of the time is obviously nuts. (97.4% of the time… that person is BRILLIANT!)
(*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
Perhaps you and Sinz are just so used to folks who WON’T provide details and who AREN’T intellectually consistent that my honesty and forthright statements just throw you both off.
(*SMILE*)
BILL
You must log in to post a comment.