In one of his last interviews as president, George W. Bush called for a “compassionate” Republican Party and warned that the GOP must not become too ideologically inflexible: “It’s very important for our party not to narrow its focus, not to become so inward-looking that we drive people away…” the president told Fox News. “We shouldn’t have litmus tests as to whether or not you can be a Republican.”
That was good advice, even if Bush and Karl Rove arguably followed it more in the breach than the observance during their years in power. The Republican Party tends to be most successful when it attracts moderates as well as true-believing conservatives to the tent.
There is a long, often overlooked tradition of moderates in the GOP, and moderates have been an integral component of the party throughout the century and a half since its founding in 1854. Barack Obama, in his attempt to seize the political center, surely aims to claim the Republicans’ neglected moderate heritage as his own, as evidenced by his swearing-in on Lincoln’s bible and the conscious appropriation of moderate themes in his inaugural address.
Democrats remember and honor their past champions. Republicans too often forget them. Geoffrey Kabaservice, author of The Guardians: Kingman Brewster, His Circle, and the Rise of the Liberal Establishment, will help NewMajority to rediscover our neglected Republican past in a series of short profiles that reflect the varied angles of the GOP tradition. First up: Henry L. Stimson, the leading Republican foreign policy figure of the first half of the 20th century.
70 responses so far
1 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I disagree. It think we should have a litmus test when it comes to the size and scope of the federal government. Bush destroyed the Republican brand by creating new entitlements, reckless spending and increasing the scope of the federal government. Take this “stimulus” bill before Congress, if we as Republicans can’t unite in opposition of this bill, then might as well declare the GOP dead.
2 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Your base isn’t big enough. And you are doing nothing to grow it by allowing Rush L to be your leader.
3 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 3:10 pm
suey. You and other leftie posters here pay more attention to Rush than us on the Right.
4 TashaTchin // Jan 28, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Aside from the fact that they ran as Republicans, the Bush family (father and son) were NOT Republicans. They were neo-con globalists with no regard for either the “Rule of Law” or the US Constitution. Ronald Reagan’s biggest mistake ever was caving in to the demands of the liberal neo-con Rockefeller wing of the Party and putting a Bush on the ticket with him in 1980. His second biggest mistake ever was in keeping a Bush on the ticket when he ran again in 1984. Just imagine where the Party and this republic would be today if we hadn’t had any Bushes at the helm stearing the USS America into icebergs.
Ronald Reagan Republican (since 1966)
5 sinz54 // Jan 28, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Chekote: The problem with making smaller government into the big GOP litmus test, is that as a political platform it has NEVER won elections. Not even once. It has a worse track record than such other attempted litmus tests as anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, pro-war (or anti-war, depending on the war), etc., each of which has won actual elections from time to time. Neither Reagan nor Gingrich won their respective elections by promising to make government smaller. Reagan won by promising to fix the economy and restore America’s position in the world, and Gingrich won as a technocratic reformer of inefficient government. Smaller government should remain a general philosophy, our “guiding star,” if you will. But don’t expect it to be a winning message.
6 Rapunzel46 // Jan 28, 2009 at 3:53 pm
It seems what you are espousing is nothing more than democrat lite. we already have one party rule, I would like to see that change and a return to conservative principles in our party. We fell out of favor because of people like Snowe, Collins and Murkowski. We need more Inhofe, DeMint’s…
7 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:05 pm
sinz. So what should the GOP run on? We can run bigger government better? I disagree. All we need is a little spine to counter the parade of victims or rent-a-mob that the Left can muster in a matter of hours. We should have our own parade of big government victims. People who have been responsible all their life and see their paychecks getting smaller and smaller because big government is subsidizing people who have been irresponsible or businesses that have squandered money. The Dems have successfully portrayed themselves as the champions of the poor, oppressed minorities. The GOP needs to take up the mantle of the defender of the responsible people and businesses who are footing everybody elses bills.
8 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Rapunzel. Exactly. Once we lost the mantle of fiscal responsibility, the Reagan coalition blew apart. Social moderates like me have no reason I voted for Mac was foreign policy, war against radical islam.
9 sinz54 // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Rapunzel46: What “conservative principles”??? New Majority, RedState, and National Review Online would have very little to do, if we could all agree on what those “conservative principles” should be. To us economic conservatives, “true conservatism” means free trade and boosting the private sector at the expense of the public sector. To Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, “true conservatism” means opposing the Iraq War. But Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schafly oppose free trade (and Mike Huckabee has problems with it too), whereas economic conservatives support it. Is the notion that life begins at conception a conservative principle? Is the notion that marriage is only between one man and one woman a conservative principle? We’re way past glib calls to “return to conservative principles.” We fall apart and start arguing with each other, the moment we try to ENUMERATE those principles. We conservatives just don’t agree any longer. My own principles are to boost the private sector, reform the public sector, and support free trade. But I got banned from RedState because I did not support the social conservative principles of opposition to abortion andy marriage–and because I don’t regard the Iraq War as an unmixed blessing. Thank goodness for New Majority. Unorthodox views seem to actually be tolerated here.
10 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:12 pm
OT. Google CEO just said that the economy will recover once people start spending again. Where are all those people who criticized Bush for telling people to go shopping after 9/11?
11 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Social issues need to take a back seat. Actually, we should take a federalist approach as envisioned in our founding documents. What is culturally acceptable in NYC is not in rural Texas. Also, I am tired of the constant threats we get from the Dobson, Lamb and Perkins.
12 Oneon1isto // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I think a cogent platform would include small-government minded rhetoric coupled with some sort of responsible spending towards effective social and middle-class focused programs. It’s an extremely inconvenient fact that all those hard working Americans that are “losing their hard-earned money” to evil government programs and taxes have nevertheless been seeing a stagnation of their wages even in the face of decreased taxes for the upper class and corporations. Which is supposed to help their wages, right? The reduction of the middle class is palpable, as is the increase in the gulf between the wealthy and the poor. To add insult to injurty, the middle class is being disproportionately hit by the current economic debacle as well. All of these factors, whether rightly or no, have a Republican tinge to them, and if you/us/we/them are to win any sort of victory in the future, middle class issues must be tackled. And that means tax cuts and social programs benefiting the middle class, which will probably be paid for by increased taxes on the rich. This might even mean healthcare…
13 MSheridan // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Past Republican champions, huh? If the Republican Party really wants to be known as the party of low taxes and small government and hopes to be believed, it’s going to have to do more than disown G.W. Bush. It’s also going to have to disown his father, G.H.W. Bush, and also Reagan. It’s not even a matter of opinion but of solid indisputable historical fact that all three expanded government and ran up massive deficits (although I’ll grant that Reagan and Bush Jr. DID cut taxes, on the rich anyway). Party of low taxes and small government? Fine–first disavow the last 28 years and break up the Reagan cult. Then people might start to think you were actually serious again.
14 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Oneo. We have been using the tax code to fund social programs and redistribute wealth for decades now. Yet, people are still complaining about the middle class suffering. I am so tired of people whining that they don’t have money for their kids healthcare only to go into their homes and find a $2,000 flat screen TV, XBox 360, wii, etc. Phil Gramm is right. We have become a nation of whiners. Of course, saying that won’t win any elections. But it is the truth.
15 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:53 pm
MSheridan. Reagan was limited by the fact that the Dems controlled Congress. So to get the military spending he wanted, he had to agree to the domestic spending the Dems wanted. Bush II has no excuse for his expansion of the federal government. It is amazing how little was accomplished (in terms of reducing the federal government) while the GOP controlled both end of PA Avenue. Heartbreaking, really.
16 HollywoodBill // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Chekote, you hit the nail on the head. Social issues MUST be relegated to the back seat if the GOP is ever going to win nationally again. In California, despite the overwhelming Democratic majority, the GOP manages to put Republican Governors in IF they are social moderates. None of this nonsense about abortion, hating embryonic stem cell research, hating gays, or pushing creationism as a science is acceptable on a statewide basis. Social conservatism has been totally rejected by voters except in the South and the Bible Belt. The New Majority is going to have to work on promoting candidates who believe that no political party has any business regulating anyone’s happiness. The moralizing busybody wing of the GOP cannot be given a national platform.
17 dsmawley // Jan 28, 2009 at 5:02 pm
George Bush is a good man, kept the country safe after 9/11 and history will judge him much better than he is being judged today. That being said, after the last 8 years, he is not someone I care to listen to regarding growing the Republican Party, please!
18 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 5:22 pm
dsmawley Yep pity 9/11 actually happened on Bushes watch, and he was specifically warned about the impending attack.
19 larryo // Jan 28, 2009 at 5:23 pm
dsmawley, he didn’t do so well before 911, though, did he? And the administration had been around for awhile by then – why limit your analysis to afterward? Is it because history before 911 reveals what a nincompoop he was and that conflicts with your assessment of him as a “good man?”
20 larryo // Jan 28, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Hollywood Bill, you and Chekote hit the nail right on the head on the social issues. The GOP is so far out of the mainstream on that stuff it’s appalling, and still leading the charge away from the mainstream is Sarah Palin. Chekote, we agree on something at last: Dobson et al should be tarred and feathered.
21 rjs46 // Jan 28, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I agree that social issues should not be the focus of the party. But with that said I very rarely heard the line candidates need to memorize to get my support ” I think that is an issue best left to the states.”
22 Robert Graves // Jan 28, 2009 at 6:52 pm
When “moderate” Republicans — the so-called “Rockefeller” or “Country Club” Republicans — last controlled the Party, it ceased to be a significant presence in American politics. But the conservative and liberal Democrats learned how to live with each other. Not easily, but they did. They forged a coalition that assured Democratic power for nearly 50 years.
Let’s not forget the GOP’s “moderate history” so that we don’t repeat it.
23 Realist // Jan 28, 2009 at 6:58 pm
John McCain was never fully embraced by the base of the party. Sarah Palin was never fully embraced by anyone except the hard right. Looking at the GOP presidential candidates, does anyone really see a unifying figure among them? They were all tarred as either “too liberal” or “too conservative”. Until we find a moderate alternative, Rush Limbaugh will be the de facto head of the GOP.
24 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Ever since November 5th, the DC intelligentsia has been telling us that for the GOP to regain power it must be more compassionate and use government to address various constituencies problems (Brooks). The writers act as if this is a novel approach even through that is exactly what Bush did. Have they forgotten about Roves strategy for building a permanent Republican majority? Medicare Part D was supposed to secure the senior vote. No Child Left Behind was supposed to secure the women/suburban vote. Faith-Based Initiatives was supposed to get the black preachers on board. Well, where is that permanent majority? The next thing we have been told over and over is that we need to embrace illegal immigration/amnesty/whatever you wan to call it. Never mind, that McCain fought for exactly that and got about a third of the Latino vote. Of course, the excuse is that Mac didnt do better simply because he was a Republican. Dont buy it. If amnesty was such as an important issue to the Latinos, they would have been versed well enough to know Macs record. The reason Latino voted for Obama was because he promised free everything: housing, healthcare, etc. My suggestion? 1) Stop trying to outdo the Dem on identity politics. They invented it. They are the masters at it. It is playing on their home court. 2) Enough with developing new federal programs. This again is playing on the Dems home court. Besides, there is a federal program for just about everything. 3) We need to reach out to voters based on certain principles: fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, strong defense and individual freedom.
25 Oneon1isto // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I’m not here to argue about what how many xboxes the middle class is spending its money on, I’m arguing about wage stagnation, and you’ve been screwed if you’ve been in the low to mid end range of the middle class for the past 20 some-odd years. If you want to rebuild your majority, you need start with the middle class. Given a recent history of tax cuts aimed primarily at the wealthy, part of the restructuring needs to involve a realignment along Middle-American standards, and not always towing the line for corporate interests. Fighting tooth and nail to save a few percent on dividends does not send a strong message to ze middle of America. (I look forward to the profiles, btw.)
26 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I sense a pattern here. “Rush Limbaugh is the new leader”; “Don’t listen to Rush LImbaugh” “Rush here or there”. Started with Powell. Picked up by Obama. Followed by the MSM. Could it be that now that Bush is off stage that the Dems need a new whipping boy? A new boogie man to hide behind. Hmmmm……Alinsky #13.
27 Robert Graves // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Tell us, Realist. What’s a “moderate alternative”? How will we know one if we see one? Who, specifically, are the moderate alternatives you have in mind?
28 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Oneo. Define middle class.
29 Realist // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Chekote, Latinos rejected the GOP ticket because they were sick of being blamed for all of America’s immigration problems. Face it: the anti-immigrant rallying cry ginned up by some on the far right (Tancredo, Hunter, etc.) looked like an attack on “brown” people. Did Bush “promise free everything: housing, healthcare, etc.” like you said Obama did? No. And Bush pulled over 40% of the Latino vote. Don’t blame McCain for only getting 31%. Once again, a knee-jerk reaction by the extreme right of our party costs us another constituency.
30 Realist // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Robert, right now, Michael Steele is the closest thing to a moderate leader we have. He is willing to compromise on abortion rights, stem cell research and affirmative action. But what chance does he have with the Sarah Palin wing of the party? Not much. That’s the sad thing about it.
31 buzzricksons // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“Social issues need to take a back seat. Actually, we should take a federalist approach as envisioned in our founding documents. What is culturally acceptable in NYC is not in rural Texas.”
This is true and well said. Frankly, I think the last sentence is a good position to take on guns as well, in response to the gun regulators on the left. After all, they do have something of a point when it comes to big, crowded urban areas; it’s in the rural spaces where law enforcement is spread thin that the idea of personal gun restrictions makes no sense at all.
32 larryo // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“3) We need to reach out to voters based on certain principles: fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, strong defense and individual freedom.” Too true, too true, Chekote. The problem will be, at least for the next few years or so, that everyone knows that the candidates put forward and supported by the advocates of Fiscal Responsibilty, Free Enterprise, Strong Defense and Individual Freedom, when they attain power (which they do in questionable ways), erode and/or ignore the Constitution where individual freedom is concerned, waste our armed forces on wars of opportunity and fail to properly equip them or care for them when they come home, monopolize with abandon and loot the treasury. How will you overcome that?
33 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Realist. 9% points in a year when Republicans were blamed for every ill on planet earth? I hardly call that enough to abandon a core conservative principle: Rule of Law. And nobody blamed the Latinos for all of America’s immigration problems. As a legal immigrant to this country, I always thought that it was important to respect the laws of the country that was kind enough to let me in. I am sick of this new wave of immigrants who come to this country with a laundry list of demands. A sense of entitlement. Many demand things they would never ask their own birth country. I will grant you that the immigration issue was badly framed. It should have been framed in terms of security (Is it unreasonable to expect that we know who comes in and goes out of our country) and rule of law (if you are not going to enforce a law, then get it off the books). By trying the comprehensive approach, the GOP ended up losing ground in the Latino community (you can’t beat the Dems in idenity politics) and enraging many elements of the base. Brilliant! Simply brilliant.
34 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:58 pm
It strikes me as an outsider seeing these posts and trying to understand the situation that the GOP finds itself in is that your tent is wide and narrow at the same time. You seem to start somewhere right of center, then there is a big gap, then somewhere over there is the fundamentalist wing. Problem is the country has definitely moved left despite the protestations immediately after the election that this is a center right country and so always will be. See the results of the new Gallop poll which now gives just 5 solid red states, a shift since November. I don’t see any strong dynamic leadership anywhere in Congress or the Senate at the moment. No one for your party to get around. The chairmanship elections seem to be turning into a farce and circular firing squad so no leadership there.
35 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Realist. If Steele does not win, it will mean that the GOP will NOT regain control of Congress. Let’s stop focusing on the presidential election. Any one cycle we can find a candidate that can get enough swing states to win the White House. The top priority is to regain congressional power. We can’t do that until we win again the suburbs in the NE and West.
36 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:08 pm
larryo. Give Obama four years and Bush will look like a genius. He announced with much fanfare that he was instituting a no-lobbyists policy. He has already asked for two exceptions to his own policy in a week. He announced no pork. Have you seen the list of pork in the stimulus bill. He has referred to Iran sponsoring terrorism in the Middle East as being “unhelpful”. We now have that two bit dictator Ahmadinejad demanding an apology from the US. And he ran into a window. Of course, when Bush tried to open a locked door, it was evidence of stupidy. Obama running into a door, is a rookie mistake.
37 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:09 pm
It’s tough to present yourselves to the country as the “rule of law” party when you have had a criminal gang in the white house for 8 years. your governing must match your principles. Rove gets yet another call to testify before congress, now all the memos are coming out so the public will finally be able to see what actually went on. The freedom of information act is in force again so things will now be open for investigation. So there will be for the next year at least an air of “lets find the truth” abroad in the country.
38 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:19 pm
suey. I cannot wait until all the memos come out. I wish the Dems would proceed with war crimes prosecution. Let it all air out. Bush did what was necessary to keep this country safe for 7 years. If the Dems continue with this nonsense, there will be a backlash.
39 larryo // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Chekote, I agree about the lobbyists, I haven’t seen the pork but I don’t doubt it – as a good friend of mine, a libertarian, said: “Hell, he’s a Chicago machine pol.” I saw it coming when he bailed on FISA. He should have put the DEA out of the medical marijuana business by his third day in office – as a believer in strong state’s rights, you should agree with that – and he should have immediately stopped the foreclosures, which he has the popularity – the political capital – to do right now. My skepticism about Obama increases daily. However, I think George W Bush will go down as, hands down, the worst all-around president in history in all categories. In fact, it is by no means established to my satisfaction that the Republic will survive his administration without changing in ways that neither of us will favor. I am not poking at you now, please believe me. I am dead serious about that.
40 larryo // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:28 pm
PS. About the Iranians: You are wrong about Ahmadinejad – he has no power. Iran’s policy is dictated by the Ayatollahs. Ahmadinejad says what he is told to say. The Middle East has been a powderkeg since before WWI. Bush made the situation infinitely worse by letting those PNAC maniacs run things – their express purpose was destabilization. And, of course, there was the oil. I have thought about it a lot, and I freely admit I don’t have the solution, but it’s certainly not more war.
41 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Chekote. Ah I see you are for the rule of law except when it applies to…………… YOU.
42 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:39 pm
larryo. The jury is still out about Bush. It depends on what happens with Iraq. If it succeeds as a democratic country (their own style of democracy), it has the potential to put the entire Middle East on a new track towards stabilty. The financial meltdown was in the making for decades, Bush did nothing to help the situation but he was not the cause of it. Bush did destroy the GOP brand and left a deeply divided party.
43 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I see because he managed to keep us safe for 7 years we are supposed to forget that he ignored actionable intelligence, told the person who informed him that Al Qaeda was going to attack the mainland USA, Quote “great so you have covered your A$$ now go away” He allowed the twin towers to fall. Epic fail.
44 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:50 pm
suey. Bush is gone. Obama – the smarted man alive – is in the White House writing a letter to Ahmadinejad. You should be happy.
45 InTheMiddle12 // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Until the GOP reconciles the three current wings of the party it seems doomed. Social conservatives, fiscal free marketers and libertarrians are at each others throats for control. If they don’t find a way to accept each other and talk to each and build consensus, a viable, though losing, third party will emerge. This perhaps is Bush’s greatest short term legacy. Taking a strong brand, in the GOP, and splitting it.
46 Bulldoglover100 // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:59 pm
As one of those moderates of the Obama area I agree with you 100% and we should not be ignored nor given someone as frightening as Sarah Palin as a candidate. Those of us who are capable of educated english will not vote for her or any ticket that includes her.
I have no issues with the far right of my party but I do have a problem with stupidity and the Republican Party needs to understand that the base alone will not win an election when there is a moderate left candidate running and our choice is a far right wingnut,
47 Bulldoglover100 // Jan 28, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Suey…safe? and an economy that is falling apart and in crisis along with 2 wars.
Saying he kept us safe for 7 years like that eradicates everything else? LOL Kinda like saying I hit myself in the head with a hammer becauses it feels good when I stop!
48 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Bull. Yes. Safe. I will never forget the fear I felt on 9/11. We have been through tough economic times before. I remember the 70s very well. It was much worse than now.
49 Chekote // Jan 28, 2009 at 9:28 pm
InTheMiddle. The three wings will reconciled when we will eliminate the veto the social conservatives have on our leadership. This idea that only pro-lifers can hold leadership posts has to stop. No wing should have veto power.
50 Realist // Jan 28, 2009 at 9:45 pm
as long as issues likey marriage, abortion rights, and stem cell research continue to be used as litmus tests, it is going to be difficult to attract a more diverse electorate. you cant just look back to the old days of reagan and try to replicate that era. many new voters werent even alive when reagan was in office.
51 MSheridan // Jan 28, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Re: the safety thing…I very seldom say this because it leaves me open to charges of disloyalty I really don’t think I merit, but even before 9/11, I never felt completely safe. I was surprised at how many people WERE surprised by 9/11. I always expected (and a small number of my friends could confirm this) that we’d lose a city someday. Not the Katrina way, but to a suitcase nuke or, when I heard about them later, to a dirty bomb. One of the very first things that attracted me to Obama was his nonproliferation work with Lugar (who to his great credit had been working on it with Sam Nunn for years before). I never understood the all too common American attitude that we could afford to ignore the rest of the world forever or that international goodwill was meaningless. I wish I could say that our gargantuan efforts in Iraq had made me feel substantially safer.
52 Oneon1isto // Jan 28, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Wow, this thread’s totally changed gears. I’d jump back in but ummm, I’m lost. What were we talking about again? Chekote: at 9:28 that’s my favorite thing you’ve said since this site started. Not that that should matter, but if we can find common ground we can definitely find it there.
53 24AheadDotCom // Jan 28, 2009 at 11:53 pm
I agree with most of what Chekote said, and it might be helpful if this site could first define “moderate”. Nowadays, when it comes to immigration, “moderate” is defined by the MSM and by corrupt politicians as “supporting and rewarding massive illegal immigration.” Considering that 14% of Mexico’s working age population lives in the U.S., anyone who supports schemes that would lead to an increase in that percentage is a radical and not a “moderate”.
54 Oneon1isto // Jan 29, 2009 at 12:07 am
It’s a late night and I’m almost out of wine. But I really have to take issue with your “moderate” stance on immigration, unless it was hyperbole. The evil MSM has never intimated “supporting and rewarding massive illegal immigration”. They hardly shut up about our “broken borders”. Rather, the moderate view, rarely heard, would be to advocate extremely (and I mean extreme) strong border security in exchange for relaxed immigration guidelines and civilian status for illegals. The conservative argument (security) makes way for a more progressive (liberal) border control regime.
55 ericna // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:24 am
To quote another moderate republican: “We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your (Americans) makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?” Sounds a bit leftist doesn’t it? Still, it was stated by one of the great republicans of the previous century. Anyone remember who?
56 InTheMiddle12 // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:44 am
I don’t know Ericana, but it sounds almost like Goldwater, who, in many ways, appeared Liberal in comparison to the crazy greedy folks and religious zealots that now own the GOP.
57 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 5:31 am
Chekote said ” Bush is gone. Obama – the smarted man alive – is in the White House writing a letter to Ahmadinejad. You should be happy.’ Yes I am happy. No one ever died from reading a letter. Better a letter than a bomb.
58 MarkG555 // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:41 am
Moderate history? Lincoln was great, and fought for the right things, but he was hardly “moderate” in his day. Are you thinking of Benj. Harrison, Taft, Coolidge? Their central policy was keeping the federal government very small, and favoring big business. Is repealing social security Frum’s idea of moderate? Best I can tell, Frum wants to return to the Eisenhower/Nixon/Ford brand of Republicanism. Of course, those guys mostly governed as a minority party and got to be president only when the D’s fouled up or there was a foreign crisis.
59 MarkG555 // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:47 am
And what does “moderate” mean anyway. I’ll bet the folks we agree the party needs to be more moderate would disagree sharply about the content of that moderation.
Rather than throwing around vague terms, the “New Majority” should define itself by the policies it espouses and opposes. Best I can tell so far, though, NM is a Republican version of Clintonite “small ball,” a stew of nifty little ideas with no big underlying principles.
60 MarkG555 // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:48 am
that’s “folks who agree”
61 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 7:18 am
Mark i agree with you. Where are the big ideas? The overarching strategy and striving for a new identity. If the Conservatives do not redefine themselves soon they are leaving a void that a third party could fill. As only 5 states now are considered red that is a definite possibility.
62 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 7:41 am
I waiting to see what happens with the RNC election. If Steele wins. The GOP has chance. If not, I am opting for a third party.
63 larryo // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:07 am
Good morning, everyone. On the subject if immigration, the answer is obvious and inexpensive, and always has been: Congress should provide for a mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year in a federal penitentiary for anyone who hires an undocumented alien for domestic work and two years for anyone who does so for profit. The jobs would disappear and so, quickly, would the undocumented aliens. Waivers could be provided for the very few businesses that really need them. The documentation process should be streamlined for seasonal workers. Problem solved.
64 cdt // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:21 am
While I would consider myself a “moderate” (whatever that means), I think the problem is not that the GOP is unwaveringly committed to being un-moderate. It is responding to a confusion (ok, a usurping) of Federal power over the states.
The 14th Amendment has been (wrongly) interpreted to (essentially) blot out any authority in the states to establish laws, rules, and policies that are contrary to what someone in New York or San Francisco thinks they should be, as they define “compassionate”… the “tyranny of the majority” the Founders were so keen of warning us of (and trying to protect us from) has occurred and THAT is what gives the impression of conservative inflexibility. Yes, we ARE inflexible about that. If you want to alter what the Feds may do to empower them to do more, then we have a process to create Amendments to do that. Other than that, stop imposing immorality and libertinism as the ideology of the land. When the ACLU stands down on selective litigation of sections of the Bill of Rights it supports, then the conservative side of the aisle will stop pushing back against that kind of judicial activism.
Regardless of someone’s views on something like abortion, the reality is that many can agree that Roe v Wade (and other things like it) are bad law, as it takes the power that SHOULD be with the states, and elevates them to edicts imposed on the states.
All of the social issues that seem to be causing the great divide shouldn’t be national issues, and it really comes down to deciding how you define “compassionate.” Is it how we should behave and treat others, or do we respect (compassionately) the rights of citizens to define it differently, and be inflexible in the eyes of another? These should be local issues, decided by the states (or lower).
It is the expansion of (and complete disregard) of the limited powers of the Congress (to Article I, Section
taking “general welfare” to places it was never intended to go, as well as the idea that the POTUS is some sort of national overlord.
There can’t help but be a backlash against that (and it will be conservative or liberal, depending on the day/issue), with one side arguing against the other on what “national” policy must be, but the reality is that it should not be “national” at all.
Until (and if) we restore the power of the states through The People in their respective states to legislate as they see fit (within the very limited restrictions of the Bill of Rights and Article I Section 8), we’ll continue to have battles of “ideological inflexibility” as both sides of the aisle are way playing a tug-o-war of one ideological extreme over the other.
The only REAL compassion is in respecting the Will of the Majority in each state and locale to establish the laws, standards and policies as they see fit, and to establish as many or as few laws and regulations as they see want, respecting the rights of people in other states to do the same.
65 larryo // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:00 am
cdt – you are just plain wrong about almost all of this: The Fourteenth Amendment only prevents states from discriminating – depriving any citizens of the rights of all the citizens, and many of its protections have been eviscerated by Republican judges over the years; the founders enacted the Bill of Rights to protect us from the tyranny of the majority, and “conservatives” have been derogating the Bill of Rights in policy ever since; you are inflexible because you cannot face the truth about the ethical, intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your ideology; the ACLU acts to protect those on both sides of the political spectrum; Roe v. Wade was good law – Bush v. Gore was bad law, and we saw the implications of unfettered state power during the civil rights battles of the early 1960’s, beginning with the police, who (representing their local majorities) were among the worst of the worst perpetrators. You deplore the tyranny of the majority when it acts to protect people from policies based on hate, xenophobia and racism, but I would wager it was fine with you when Bush was elected. What you say in this post is completely disconnected from reality and historical fact.
66 realconservativ // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:30 am
As usual, you’re right David. The perfect person to take advice from is the man who started out with the Presidency and both houses of Congress and by the time he left office, the GOP had nothing. Of course, we need to give credit where it’s due. You NEOClOwNs helped destroy the GOP.
67 cdt // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:12 am
“ACLU acts to protect those on both sides of the political spectrum;” Cool. Then you’ll have no problem providing links to their recent cases protecting a gun owner’s Second Amendment rights or the rights of a private business owner to hire/fire as they see fit or to decide if they want smoking in their establishments, and exercise their rights of freedom of assembly and association? “What you say in this post is completely disconnected from reality and historical fact.” Right. Because it was Republicans who championed Jim Crow Laws and it was a Democrat administration who sent U.S. troops to protect students in Little Rock, Arkansas. It is Republicans who are using judicial activism rather than the voting booth to bring about radical social changes, such asy marriage… and because the “right to privacy” is written in clear language in the Constitution, and the authority to limit medical procedures is clearly detailed in Article I, Section. Thomas Jefferson never said: “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449 OR… “The construction applied… to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, and ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,’ goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution… Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385. Right. It’s me who is is “just plain wrong about all of this.”
68 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 12:51 pm
cdt– Get your facts straight. It was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower who sent US Troops into Little Rock Arkansas to protect the black students who were integrating the public schools. It was Democratic Governor Orval Faubus who initially blocked the integrating of the Little Rock Schools. It was Earl Warren the ex Republican Governor of California who presided over the famed Brown v Education that started the whole LittleRock 9 integration suit anyway. As for championing Jim Crow laws, it was the Southern Dems who fought for the Separate but Equal laws initially. That changed — but the Dems were the contributing force of the Jim Crow laws. There is a reason why Martin Luther King Senior was a Republican his entire life.
69 cdt // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I know, Hollywood Bill.
I was sarcism, badly executived, obviously.
70 cdt // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“It” was, rather.
You must log in to post a comment.