Why I Am Anti-Republican

200 responses so far

• 1 sinz54 // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:09 am

  Bartlett sez: “The party’s adults formed the Democratic Leadership Council to push the party back to the center and it was very successful”

  Yes, they did. One year after Mondale’s 49 state shellacking by Reagan, proving that after four years of Reagan, the public really did prefer Reagan to the Dems’ doctrinaire liberalism.

  It was that kind of a wipeout that enabled the Democratic Leadership Council to say “We have to make MAJOR changes if we don’t want another shellacking like that again.” If Reagan had just eked out a less impressive win, the DLC would have probably failed to make their case to the rest of the Dems.

  A comparable scenario would have Sarah Palin (the favorite of the GOP base) clinch the GOP nomination in 2012, and then go on to lose 49 states to Obama. Unless that kind of shock occurs, the GOP base will go on believing that the reason McCain lost was that he wasn’t conservative enough.

  So I say: Let the GOP base have it their way for a change. Let them get their favorite candidate nominated (who in all probability is Palin). And let them lose overwhelmingly. Only then will they be so discredited that the GOP leadership can safely give some other folks a chance.

• 2 balconesfault // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:26 am

  What passes for principle in the party these days is “what can we do to screw the Democrats today.”

  And as much as this site encourages dialogue much closer to the center than anything else associated with the Republican Party, we still see way too many headline posts here that are much more just red meat shots at Obama or other Democratic leaders than actual attempts to advance an ideological position.

• 3 oldgal // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:49 am

  This country has serious problems. When I evaluate a candidate today, I look at the expertise of the people around them, their managerial abilities, and their ability to come up with practical solutions to real problems. I have no expectation to agree with all of their ideas, but will go with the candidate who I believe has the best probability of resolving the big issues, whether the resolution be to my liking or not. Currently the Republican Party seems bent on destruction in the most juvenile manner. I find this blog one of the more constructive ones, as it at least shows the courage to occasionally stray from what has become an ideology and tends not to pander to people’s fears. However, if one counts the number of posts that speak to solutions versus the number of posts that speak to “what’s horrible about what the other side is doing”, it still falls woefully short. The Democratic Party is showing full potential to hand things over to the ideologues of the extreme left which would be equally disastrous. It is time for the parties to start fighting for the best solutions rather than against the other guys solution. This country needs at least 2 viable parties and at the current rate will soon have none. Both parties need to start putting the country ahead of the party.

• 4 Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:57 am

  Sinz

  The problem with your suggestion is that the Palinistas will never blame her for the loss. The SoCons will find other excuses for the loss. I think it is better to take on their agenda and expose it as inconsistent with the philosophy of limited government. And Beck, Rush and others need to be treated for what they are: Political Entertainers. The next time Rush gets all offended because someone refers to him as entertainer, a couple of GOP officials should tell him that if he wants to be a leader of the party then he needs to get off his behind and run for office or a party leadership position.

• 5 MFarmer // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:58 am

  Perhaps it’s time for a legitimate Independent Party which will be able to take the place of the Republican Party as opposition to the Democrats.

• 6 Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:02 am

  we still see way too many headline posts here that are much more just red meat shots at Obama or other Democratic leaders than actual attempts to advance an ideological position.

  The same is true for Kos, Huffington, etc. It think this site is trying to promote policies more than other conservative site. The only problem I have is too much talk about Reagan. That was almost 30 years ago. You are not going to appeal to a new generation of voters by constantly referring to Reagan who was around before they were born.

• 7 Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:03 am

  MFarmer // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:58 am

  I like that idea very much. The problem is that the two parties have made it extremely difficult for a viable third party to emerge.

• 8 sinz54 // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:17 am

  Chekote: Social conservatives don’t care about limited government, and everybody knew that for the 30 years that they’ve been part of the GOP. I’m surprised that you’re surprised by that fact.

  Social conservatives opposed modern liberalism NOT because liberalism requires Big Government, but because they perceived modern liberalism as atheistic and immoral.

  And the modern conservative movement has always made room for BOTH arguments. As I replied to you in another discussion thread, William F. Buckley first became famous for his book “God and Man at Yale,” in which he argued that modern liberal ideas in Ivy League universities were destroying their students’ religious faith.

  So the notion that modern conservatism is “inconsistent” with the Religious Right is false. What has happened, however, is that the Religious Right faction was allowed to become dominant, and that has upset the balance. The modern GOP platform now can’t include anything on domestic issues they won’t like–even an acknowledgment that there are other Republicans who sincerely have other views. That’s a problem.

  But there is no way to fix that as long as the Religious Right is seen as the electoral key to Republican victory. It has been, since the 1980s. You can’t alienate those whom you depend on to win.

  The Religious Right has to lose, and lose badly, before we can make the argument that it’s no longer the key to victory and we should devise a different strategy that doesn’t depend on them as much.

• 9 sinz54 // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:23 am

  Chekote sez: “The problem is that the two parties have made it extremely difficult for a viable third party to emerge.”

  Actually, third party candidates have won local and state elections. You’ve got Greens, Libertarians and even a Socialist (Bernie Sanders) holding elective office.

  The main obstacle to winning the White House is the archaic Electoral College, and the fact that most states have winner-take-all rules for winning electoral votes. If a candidate receives just a plurality (not even a majority) of the popular vote in a state, he receives all of that states’ electoral votes. (There are just a few exceptions like Nebraska.) That means that a third party can’t even achieve influence unless it wins true majorities in states on its first attempt, a herculean task.

  Case in point: In 1992, Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote. Not bad for a fledgling third party with a flake as its leader and a stumbling campaign. But Perot received ZERO electoral votes–and that was the end of Perot and his Reform Party.

  Those who say they favor third parties are NEVER willing to do the long, hard work of getting candidates elected to city councils, mayors, state legislators, and other lesser figures, and wait patiently for a party to achieve national status, a process which could take a decade or longer. They always yearn to have someone come out of nowhere (like Perot) and win the White House on his first try. Even Bill Gates, with his $50 billion fortune to finance a Presidential run, couldn’t do that. The Electoral College makes it virtually impossible.

• 10 Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:37 am

  Social conservatives don’t care about limited government, and everybody knew that for the 30 years that they’ve been part of the GOP. I’m surprised that you’re surprised by that fact.

  What can I tell ya! I am younger than you. My recollection of Reagan was that his main issue was fighting the USSR, restoring the economy, rebuilding the military. He gave lip service to the SoCons but never moved on their agenda. I will check out your reply on the other thread. However, talking about a private cultural institution pushing secularism is not the same as the SoCons push to make their religious agenda law.

• 11 barker13 // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:42 am

  “I think the party got seriously on the wrong track during the George W. Bush years…”

  (*SMIRK*) Well JOIN THE FRIGG’N CLUB, Bruce!

  (*ROLLING MY EYES*)

  “In my opinion, it no longer bears any resemblance to the party of Ronald Reagan.”

  (*AGAIN… ROLLING MY EYES*)

  Bruce. You’re preaching to the choir! Still… as bad as elements of the GOP establishment are… they’ve got NOTHING on the Dems.

  News Flash: Whether we like it or not we live in a two Party political system. (*SHRUG*)

  Anyway, Bruce… (*SHRUG*)

  BILL

• 12 Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:49 am

  Sinz

  The SoCons are not going to take a back seat. They regard themselves as the “heart and soul” of conservatism. Your approach will not work. Humpy Dumpy can’t be put back together. I wish more people here at NM would recognize that and develop a strategy to develop a new agenda that will attract new voters and form a new coalition.

• 13 Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:50 am

  Hey Bill!

  How are you doing?

• 14 nwahs // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:00 pm

  Barker, I don’t know if you’re commenting or having a seizure.
  Seriously, are all those eye rolls and shrugs necessary?

• 15 liv&win // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:06 pm

  nwahs, live and let live.

• 16 JimBob // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:10 pm

  Bartlett gets some of it right, but misses the bigger picture. The GOP went over the big government cliff with Bush domestically and foreign policy wise. The Wilsonian muscular foreign policy that the founder of this site subscribes too. Until Bartlett starts talking about that then he’s just another policy wonk that got thrown under the bus by the Bushies.

• 17 MFarmer // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:15 pm

  I guess I was thinking about the influence a third party could have on bringing the statist extremes of both parties back to a more limited government arrangement — acting as brokers for the non-partisans to reach a meeting of the minds between independent support and what either party would gaurantee once elected. This would put pressure on both parties to reign in the excesses of statism — if the winning party went back on these promises, in two years the Independent Party could influence the make-up in congress as punishment. If independents become the decisive influence in each election, they will have political clout, perhaps enough to demand electoral college changes which would allow them to be competitive in presidential elections. Is this politically naive?

• 18 liv&win // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:20 pm

  So Bruce, are you just waiting for some adults too? How about some help for the plebs? Despite my efforts in writing my congess regularly, participating in blog vacuums like NM and writing letters to the editor, the DC establishment just keeps doing what they do, jockeying for more power and more control. Are we just left to complain, praying that we will be delivered from this evil?

• 19 mthen // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:26 pm

  Heres an easy way for pro-choice Republicans to find common ground with the pro-life faction: Oppose Roe v. Wade. Do it in quiet ways if you must. Call yourself a strict constructionist if you dont want to come straight out against Roe. The support, both tacit and outright, of Roe by moderates and libertarians is as counterproductive as hard core so-cons belief in an existing constitutional prohibition against abortion. For me, someone who doesnt think much about abortion, supports legalized drugs and gay marriage (through legislation) it comes down to this question: If I cant trust you to see the obvious truth that abortion is not protected by the constitution then how can I trust you on Kelo?

• 20 liv&win // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:28 pm

  Mfarmer, the only reason I participate here is that it is purportedly about reforming the Republican Party to which there is no alternative (independent/third party) and because the deck is so stacked that a third party will never emerge in American politics.

  I am very uniformed on this issue, so pardon the possibly naive suggestion, but the constitution says that congress will create all laws regulating itself and its operation. So everytime there is a power shift, the new majority re-writes the rules. The only rules they agree to never re-write are those that may allow a third party to have power or influence. It seems to me, that this should be an area of intense public scrutiny. Perhaps changing these rules would have unintended consequences, as I said, I have no basis, just an idea.

• 21 Cforchange // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  Oldgal is hitting on the point that should result in the majority of American’s uniting, compromising and accomplishing. Yes indeed we have very serious problems. Me being a “jonser” I just can’t see how we will barely scrape by at the start of processing the baby boomers to their graves let alone the entire demographic.
  The constant political fingerpointing is a serious bore. Bruce Bartlett, if no one is reaching out maybe it is time that you do as Mfarmer suggests. If Obama proves that constructive change is not possible maybe a new Independent party is the ticket. I know of many a unhappy GOPer ready to jump ship. “Entertaining” whims of the base for another 4 years isn’t a good option. The game plan will jive with David Brook’s inital reaction to 2008 – “in the wilderness for 10 years”. A decade is a very long time so why not become complacent with the Dems then…
  No doubt Georgie was the end – 1980 was the first time ever I didn’t vote for my party’s candidate. I think it time to move on instead of beating the horse, Cheney chiming in here makes me all the more ready to switch to Independent. Afterall wasn’t he a “team” member to the end. If he had issues – he should have pulled an O’neill who has 100% of my respect.
  Everthing about the GOP has become the party of mean and that’s not a very appealing to members let along a draw in regards to recruiting.

• 22 rbottoms // Aug 30, 2009 at 1:48 pm

  Pass the popcorn please.

  Obama is going to hand the GOP its head in 2012 to go along with the behind he handed them in 2008.

• 23 barker13 // Aug 30, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  Re: Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:50 am (#13) –

  Doing fine!

  Hey… Chekote… just a GENERAL.. er… kinda apology in hindsight as well as in advance to you:

  I know that I can come off as a real… umm… condescending, arrogant hardass (and perhaps just plain ass) at times with some of the comments I’ve directed your way and will no doubt every once in awhile still throw your way in the future.

  It’s just my temperament. It’s just my “blog style” and to be truthful, my “shooting the bull in a social setting style.”

  You and I don’t always agree. We’re at complete loggerheads when it comes to Palin. Still… we agree frequently enough.

  I guess what I’m saying is that on those occasions where I really get under your skin… (*SMILE*)… try to concentrate on all the times where I respond to something you’ve written by adding, “Yeah, Chekote is right,” or words to that effect.

  Anyway… just my way of saying “sorry” for the times I’ve… er… come across as being nasty rather than simply reflecting the… er… impatience I actually intend to convey.

  Cool…?

  Re: Nwahs // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:00 pm (#14) –

  “Seriously, are all those eye rolls and shrugs necessary?”

  Of course they’re not. (*SHRUG*) What’s your point though…???

  Many things… most things… are “unnecessary.” Hell… do you want me to come up with a list?

  (*SNORT*)

  Listen. You have your style; I have mine. Live with it. (*WINK*) Hell… EMBRACE IT!

  BILL

• 24 barker13 // Aug 30, 2009 at 3:24 pm

  Re: JimBob // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:10 pm (#16) –

  Allow me to add:

  The “Wall Street Wing” of the GOP went hog wild also. The “banker” wing. The “brokers” wing. The “hedgefund” wing. The “corporate” wing.

  Many of the folks at the tippy top of the pyramid put the UNRESTRAINED chase for the almighty (scratch that – replace with ONCE almighty) dollar ahead of the societal interests of the American middle class and the aspirations of all those hoping to enter the American middle class and hopefully go beyond it.

  The “uber” capitalists (folks like Kudlow) who thought only in terms of theory buttressed by self-interest hurt the GOP with both “Reagan Republicans” and perhaps more importantly “Reagan Democrats.”

  The Gordon Gekko school of “Greed Is Good” is something that has it’s place… but also something that has it’s boundaries.

  One can be “anti-Union” in the sense of rejecting corrupt unionism and out of control selfish, shortsighted unionism without necessarily being on the side of those who believe in transnationalism and “screw the American worker.”

  No. It’s NOT “every man for himself.” Not to the extreme sense that many on the “Wall Street Right” take it.

  The “free trade fanatics…” They’re as dangerous – perhaps even more dangerous – than environmental fanatics! Those who would exploit illegal labor and move factories abroad so as to make a few percentage points extra profit… those are not MY heroes and I doubt they’re yours.

  Anyway… just a few points to ponder.

  BILL

• 25 barker13 // Aug 30, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  Re: Mthen // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:26 pm (#19) –

  (*THUMBS UP*)

  BILL

• 26 balconesfault // Aug 30, 2009 at 5:12 pm

  oldgal: “It is time for the parties to start fighting for the best solutions rather than against the other guys solution.”

  And healthcare is a good example – the Republicans have spent the summer raising the bar over and over, to where everyone has to realize at this point that there is no bill they’ll support that might do anything except reinforce the status quo but with more money going to insurance companies. As such, they may well be keeping on the shelf some very good, very needed conservative improvements to any legislation. Not to mention outright publicly demonizing the concept of cost control for Medicare, linking the concept to genocide, which seems like legislative malpractice for any economic conservative.

• 27 sinz54 // Aug 30, 2009 at 5:56 pm

  barker13: Reagan was a staunch free-trader.

  “Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets. I recognize … the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations.”
  — President Reagan, 1986

  Reagan created the World Trade Organization (WTO), which ushered in the modern era of globalization.

  The reason why trade didn’t hurt Reagan politically in the 1980s, was that the U.S. economy was expanding sharply and unemployment was declining. When times are tough, it’s easy to scapegoat foreign competition, regardless of which party controls the White House.

  Ted Kennedy attacked Carter’s free trade policies during the stagflation of the 1970s.
  Bill Clinton attacked Bush 41’s trade policies during the recession of 1991-92. (So did Pat Buchanan, btw.)

  American workers have never lost their jobs due to foreign competition. They’ve lost their jobs due to the incompetence of American CEOs and bosses–and a Federal Government whose economic policies have caused one speculative bubble after another, each of which burst and caused lots of economic hardship.

  The real problem with GM wasn’t competition from Honda and Toyota. The real problem is that they were a badly run company, betting on an endless future of vast demand for GM vehicles that just wasn’t going to materialize.

  Boeing competes against Airbus quite well. But Boeing builds great planes, while GM builds lousy cars and fails to anticipate how swings in gasoline prices can render the cars they produce unsellable.

• 28 anniemargret // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:23 pm

  balconesfault: your #26 post describes the situation well. All one has to do is read over Demint:
  “”If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

  That pretty much sums up the Republicans’ plan for healthcare reform. Oh…wait…and scaring seniors with outrageous distortions and blatant lies in order to ‘break him’ (Obama).

  oldgal: yes, it will take “adults” in both parties to stop this insane partisan one upmanship and get working to solve America’s serious problems. Will that happen in our lifetime? Only if the ‘adults’ in both parties out-talk the loud ‘noisy negativists’ who value power over the betterment of our nation.

  The ‘United” States of America? Long gone. I fear the future for my children’s generation.

• 29 folderol // Aug 30, 2009 at 8:57 pm

  sinz54: “So I say: Let the GOP base have it their way for a change. Let them get their favorite candidate nominated (who in all probability is Palin). And let them lose overwhelmingly. Only then will they be so discredited that the GOP leadership can safely give some other folks a chance.”

  I say let those enlightened moderates give us their dream ticket in 2012. Maybe Romney/Pawlenty? It will be amusing to see them try to win without that despised “base”. It worked so well in 1996 and 2008, didn’t it?

• 30 JM Hanes // Aug 30, 2009 at 9:21 pm

  Wow. Now there’s a formula for change: If leadership would just reach out to Republicans who are afraid to express their opinions in public, we could show the world we’re not Glenn Beck.

• 31 SFTor1 // Aug 30, 2009 at 9:36 pm

  folderol: try a headliner who isn’t a Mormon, and your chances with the “despised base” goes up I think.

  You say the Republican base holds no such petty cultural biases?

  Of course not.

• 32 epluribusunam // Aug 30, 2009 at 9:40 pm

  Bruce,

  Birther != Republican
  Glen Beck listener != Republican

  Nice try at a smear.

  “Both CBO and OMB are predicting better than 4% real growth in 2011 and 2012. If those numbers are even remotely correct Obama will have it in the bag.”

  4% growth? That’s laughable, even for someone like you. BTW, I love the way you worked in “remotely correct,” as if to say “anywhere from 0.1 to 4% growth validated my prediction.”

  “That’s why I wrote my Wrong on Race book, which no one read.”
  Maybe the book sucked. Free minds, free markets… No one reading it means it was boring, or unreadable, or wrong, or silly, or all of the above. Let the market decide. It did. You lose. Focus on something else.

  BTW, I came to this site by way of a link…mocking your post. They got it right.

• 33 barker13 // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:16 pm

  Re: Sinz54 // Aug 30, 2009 at 5:56 pm (#27) –

  “barker13: Reagan was a staunch free-trader.”

  So…??? (*SHRUG*) Your point in relation to mine?

  Sinz. I certainly have no objection to you babbling away, but for God’s sake, if you’re going to address one of my posts at least do so coherently in either agreeing or disagreeing with me.

  “American workers have never lost their jobs due to foreign competition.”

  You just keep on telling yourself that, Sinz.

  In any case, Sinz, as is always the case when you and I disagree (*GRIN*) (Wait for it…) I’m right and you’re wrong. Doctrinaire support for supposed “free trade” to the exclusion of a commitment to “fair trade,” American worker’s interests, and America’s interests comes across as elitist greed and self-interest.

  Politically speaking… the only thing that works to lessen the damage this does to the GOP is that most educated people are well aware that most Democratic politicians and “businessmen” would ALSO sell America down the river to make a quick few bucks off the Chinese.

  (*SHRUG*)

  Re: Ireign // Aug 30, 2009 at 7:31 pm (#29) –

  “Bartlett, you have no idea what you are talking about. You mainly want to get attention bashing Republicans and it has worked. You claim to be a libertarian, yet promote the anithesis of a libertarian, Colin Powell for President.”

  Yep. That pretty much covers it. (*SHRUG*)

  It’s too bad though; I used to enjoy Bartlett’s WSJ columns.

  Re: Folderol // Aug 30, 2009 at 8:57 pm (#3o) –

  “It worked so well in 1996 and 2008, didn’t it?”

  (*SIGH*)

  Sorry to say, Folderol… reality has no chance up against Sinz when his mind is made up.

  (*SHRUG*)

  BILL

• 34 ltoro1 // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:19 pm

  I hate to say this, but this column does not give much direction for Republicans or conservatives. Frankly, I have been dissapointed with Bruce Bartlett’s columns in Forbes as well. Aside from instituting a VAT or getting the federal government more involved in every area of an individual’s life (except for abortion and marriage) he has really not offered any new ideas. Also, as far as principle goes, does he read he read anything from National Review, Forbes, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal? You can argue whether the viewpoints from these publications are right or wrong, but they go much deeper than “what can we do to screw the Democrats today.” They also go deeper than much of Bartlett’s recent writing.

• 35 Rosetta // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:28 pm

  With all the imperfections of the right which most conservatives, libertarians and independents, including Beck, acknowledge, do you not see more concerning imperfections worthy of your criticism on the left?

  You sneer at the firemen trying to put out the fire, imperfect though they may be.

  It’s shameful but it should get you a few minutes on CNN or MSNBC. Congratulations.

• 36 redfish // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:00 pm

  I’m moderate and young voter and supported Perot’s candidacies in the 90s, largely because I saw the partisans in both parties take extreme positions on issues.

  That includes social issues, and on that front I see the hard-left liberals just as extreme as the hard-right conservatives. On the right there are people who want abortion banned from the moment of conception, but on the left you have people who want all abortion legal until the day the baby exits the womb. The Democratic party platform also still stands against common sense initiatives such as requirements for parental notification.

  As a moderate I don’t support the extremes on either side, but I see all of the progress towards the middle ground on this issue coming from conservatives–its conservatives who pushed bans on partial birth abortions, which Americans support, and conservatives who are now pushing for parental notification laws, which most Americans support also. I think, in fact, what most Americans would support is a ban on 3rd trimester abortions with exceptions for the life of the mother—which would bring us up to the standards of abortion laws in Europe, where they’re much more strict than laws in the US.

  As a moderate I also have major problem with the Supreme Court reading things in the Constitution that aren’t there, because it erodes the rule of law and subjects decisions to politics. I don’t think abortion or same sex marriage are guaranteed in the Constitution. Its just not there. I see the left as dividing the country in these issues by not letting them be decided by democratic debates, and instead trying to go over everyone’s heads in courts. California, which is a pretty socially liberal state, just voted against gay marriage because they didn’t agree with the courts deciding the issue for them.

  My problem with the Bush administration was never that it was controlled by the religious right—in fact I never saw that at all. I found Bush’s policies relatively moderate on social issues. Stem cell research is a controversial issue, and Bush decided it didn’t do any good to fund projects that were controversial. But I also pay attention to the news, and understand that stem cell research was never banned. Some other people don’t, they think Bush banned research. Some other people also think Bush banned gay marriage, while he just wanted to prevent states from being forced to recognize marriages in other states. So they think Bush was extreme on gay rights, while he was moderate. The problem I see here is that the left succeeded with their spin to make Bush look like he was a extreme fanatic while he wasn’t. The same spin has made Obama seem like a moderate, while most of the public doesn’t support his positions.

  I remember the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority from the 90s. From what I can tell, they’re now pretty much defunct—Ralph Reed is a nobody, reduced to the title of ‘political analyist’ on talk shows. It seems the radical right in the party has pretty much disappeared.

  As a moderate, my biggest problem with Bush was his policies on free trade and immigration. I neither support building huge walls and enacting huge tariffs, or completely free, no restrictions trade. I see free trade as an extreme position, not a moderate position. It argues: no trade restrictions, ever, period. I’d want immigration reform, but I think Bush’s approach to reform was broken. I also know that before Bush’s presidency there were two wings of the Republican Party–the neo-conservatives who supported free trade and interventionist foreign policy, and the paleo-conservatives who opposed it. During Bush’s presidency, the whole Republican Party stood silently behind Bush and it became known as the ‘free trade party’.

  As a young person, I think I can judge that other younger voters think similarly to me as far as policies go. The problem on social issues is that a lot of young people have become convinced that the right is a gang of extremists and the left is a moderate. That’s far from true. And knowing some younger people who went into left-wing politics, I know that the future leaders of the Democratic party are not more moderate but more extreme. Democrats will go further and further to the left, start to attack religion, while younger people will grow up and start to have families and begin seeing things from a different perspective. They’ll ask themselves–why are the Democrats preventing me from knowing if my child has an abortion?

  I think I’m confirmed somewhat by the fact that according to polls, young people would be more likely to vote for Mike Huckabee than for Mitt Romney. Despite him being more religious, they see Huckabee as being more of a moderate. He is more moderate, except on social issues. They also see him as more honest.

  I don’t support his views on social issues, I find them too extreme also. But the reason that Huckabee represents the party on that is because the middle in the Republican party is running away from social issues and avoiding talking about them. In the 90s, the reason the Republican party was gaining support was because, with leaders like Newt Gingrich, it represented itself as the party of common sense. Gingrich also spoke of the conservative positions on social issues as common sense compared to the liberal views. So, despite that noisy radicals from the Christian Coalition and Moral Majority were on the news every now and again, people heard politicians like Gingrich stick up for the conservative position as common sense, and didn’t take the Republican party as a bunch of extremists.

  Now moderates in the GOP are talking about ditching social conservatives and ostracizing everyone in the party that’s not pro-free trade or doesn’t support Bush’s position on immigration. Good luck having success with that.

• 37 stlouismark // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:53 pm

  Barlett is ignorant. I’ve been reading his columns at Forbes, and his “big idea” for the Republican party are to support a brand-new VAT to fund the ever-expanding federal government. Good idea, Bruce! And he calls himself a “Reaganite”??!?

  He also claims the Republican party is “dominated by right-wing extremists”. Really? Is that why the king of the moderate wing, John McCain, was nominated in last year’s election? Was McCain not moderate enough for Bartlett? He also implicitly suggests that the Democrats have moved to the center, which is utterly laughable. This is a party led by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, & Harry Reid. Democrats have moved way to left every since Clinton left office.

  Also, Glenn Beck isn’t a Republican. If you listen to him, you’ll find that he is about as “anti-Republican” as Bruce Barlett is.

  Bottom line, Bartlett is a former conservative who has gone off the deep end. Supporting massive new taxes to fund a massive government with more entitlements isn’t the way to go – it’s actually ridiculous that I even have to refute that idea.

  Bye Bruce.

• 38 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:07 am

  It worked so well in 1996 and 2008, didn’t it?

  Hilarious. In 1996, we were told that the Kemp pick excited the base. And in 2008, we were told that Palin excited the base. Yet despite all this “base excitement” we still have people like you tell us that we lost those two elections because the base wasn’t excited.

• 39 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:34 am

  Chekote—

  From my perspective Dole lost in 1996 because he made his entire campaign about cutting taxes when people were more concerned about the deficit. In that way Dole was actually pandering to the Republican base.

  McCain I think had a pretty good chance to win at one point, but he screwed himself because he was basically incompetent as a campaigner. Palin didn’t hurt him until she started to make herself look stupid and incompetent as well. I don’t think moderates ever believed she was the far right fanatic that the left did.

• 40 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:58 am

  ireign,

  Do you think it makes sense to voters in the middle when Republicans refer to Buy American provisions in the stimulus as protectionist? As if deciding where to spend taxpayers dollars is the same as placing barriers on trade? I think it only makes sense to conservatives.

• 41 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:03 am

  Your problem, isnt the Republican Party, your problem is that you are not a Conservative, but rather a declared Independent. Nobody wants Democrat Lite, when you can get the real thing.

  Your sneering superiority complex aside….when the Independents get enough of Socialism then the Republicans will be back in power.

  PS- You seem to be in love with the leadership and leader that is Reagan, and not his ideas….which are better represented by Sarah Palin than by John McCain.

  Exit Question: Does Fred Thompson have enough charisma for you to follow a Conservative again?

• 42 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:09 am

  One more thing fellas, if the GOP split, its the Religous Right that would come out way ahead, not vice versa. You live in fantasy land if you think otherwise.

  A Mike Huckabee, Welfare State Lite, and strong Christian Values platform, brings in African Americans and more importantly Latino Catholics, especially recent Latino immigrants, steals them away from the Left, and you peel some Social Liberals from the Left…but lets face it, that isnt a large constituency and you will be a secondary regional party of the NorthEast….behind the far Left Social Liberals and Socialists that the Democrats would become.

  Be careful what you wish for.

• 43 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:28 am

  Kemp should have been on the top of the ticket, that being said, Perot kneecapped the GOP again….so? Bush I would have won in 1992 if not for Perot, however, that doesnt stop the Left and “independent centrists” from claiming it was Pat Buchanan’s Culture War speech, does it?

  The problem was that the GOP lost Newt and put Delay and then fat man whats his face in charge of the House…..really bad moves. Then the war and an energized Left, who always energize when they have a US war to oppose.

  Newt would be even better than Fred Thompson, but Romney was preferable to McCain.

  In the end, it will be far Leftist pushing their radical Leftist domestic agendas that will chase voters away. Unless of course people like Progressive Fascism….which maybe they do.

  Firearms and Ammo sales continue at unprecedented levels. Perhaps that industry will lead the US out of the recession. LOL! Consumer le[a]d!

• 44 ProfNickD // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:40 am

  Bartlett cites no evidence whatsoever that the Republican Party lost the Congress and White House because of the influence of the “Religious Right,” whatever he means by that.

  Regardless, he doesn’t, because there isn’t any. The results from the ‘08 election are instructive: 20% of conservatives voted for Obama (mistakenly hoping he was conservative), social conservative turnout was down from ‘04, and voter turnout overall was down from ‘04 in about a dozen states, mostly very conservative ones like ID and UT.

  Sounds to me like to GOP’s problems are in part related to the fact that the Religious Right didn’t support the GOP *enough*. In other words: it is clear that millions of social conservatives simply didn’t vote in ‘08.

  This, of course, makes sense: in ‘06 the GOP was widely viewed as corrupt/molesters, which assuredly turned off social conservatives. In ‘08 McCain was also widely viewed to be the “moderate” candidate — pro-immigration, pro-environment, completely silent on social issues. (Of course, he lost.)

  It doesn’t seem like the GOP has had much luck with “moderation” or with turning off the social conservatives.

  Funny, liberals keep giving “advice” that the GOP be moderate and ignore social conservatives — perhaps because that advice has served liberalism/the Democrats well for the past few election cycles.

• 45 rbottoms // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:49 am

  Palin didn’t hurt him until she started to make herself look stupid and incompetent as well.

  Looked?

  Funny, liberals keep giving “advice” that the GOP be moderate and ignore social conservatives — perhaps because that advice has served liberalism/the Democrats well for the past few election cycles.

  Please find the farthest right most conservative candidate you can, preferably someone who doesn’t believe in evolution or global warming and isn’t afraid to say so.

  Seriously.

• 46 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:05 am

  Redfish

  Dole lost because there was no reason not to re-elect Clinton. The ecoomy was going well. No wars. Americans don’t throw their presidents out of office because drug use went up slighlty. Palin hurt because she came across as ignorant about key issues and unprepared for higher office.

• 47 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:06 am

  I don’t think anyone would blame him for Dole’s loss.

  Did I blame Kemp for the loss? I think not. I was responding to an assertion by another poster that the GOP lost in 1996 and 2008 because the base wasn’t excited.

• 48 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:09 am

  something you have to take seriously when arguing that GOP is losing because they are running polarizing or too conservative candidates.

  Dole lost because there was no reason not to re-elect Clinton. Mac lost because he decided to pander to the base and picked a completely unprepared, uninformed VP candidate and in the process threw out the most important weapon he had against Obama: experience.

• 49 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:11 am

  Reagan, and not his ideas….which are better represented by Sarah Palin than by John McCain.

  Reagan was well versed in the issues. Palin wears her ignorance of the issue as a badge of honor.

• 50 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:13 am

  Chekote,

  When Clinton was re-elected in 96 he had low approval ratings, the deficit was still rising, he was in the middle of a campaign finance scandal.

  Republicans nominated “its my turn to be President” Dole, who didn’t campaign on anything except a 5% tax cut

• 51 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:15 am

  15%

• 52 rbottoms // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:57 am

  Republicans nominated “its my turn to be President” Dole, who didn’t campaign on anything except a 5% tax cut

  Dole was the candidate of you kids get off my lawn.

• 53 Sporty1946 // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:00 am

  Sorry, Bruce. Partisanship is not the problem with the Republican party. The problem is there are too many liberals in the party claiming to be conservative and telling us how we should act. If you were ever a Reaganite Republican, somewhere along the way you became a Rockefeller Country Club Republican and seem to care more about being liked by your friends in the media than in espousing conservative founding principles.
  Politics IS a partisan contest and our system has been a two party system for quite some. I’m sorry that you may not have the stomach to get in the trenches and fight on our side to save this country from what the Dems are to doing to destroy it but it is time to pick a side, be a partisan and save this country from certain destruction. Otherwise, stop pretending to be conservative and go join the other side. You sound like McCain, Frum, Brock and others who claim to be conservatives but truth is you appear to be hiding behind that description while doing whatever you can to denigrate and disparage those that are truly conservative.

• 54 Midas // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:03 am

  Wow, another “I’m here to save the GOP” piece from the left-leaning side of the Republican party. There’s a reason no one read your book, nitwit. Like Frum, you always seem to think that you and folks like you – not conservatives – are the end-all and be-all of the party. Fact is, you’re the problem. You’re the ones that gave us McCain and a host of other squishy candidates and behaviors that we’re paying for now. Get lost.

• 55 Sporty1946 // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:03 am

  Hey Chekote,
  Good to see you found a safe place to spout your anti-Palin smears. Having fun?

• 56 Midas // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:07 am

  Let’s correct a bit of something here Dole *and* Bush the Elder lost because of Perot. Period. Had either of them been a candidate that appealed to the conservative base more, Clinton would’ve never won. He never had a majority (and let’s not try to argue that if Perot hadn’t run those folks would’ve stayed home or maybe voted for Clinton – those were all votes ’stolen’ from the Republican ticket – just like Nader in 2000, but that’s another story). Someone above said Clinton won / Dole lost because there was no reason to vote against Clinton – well, more than 50% of the voting public *did* vote against Clinton. Let’s keep the story accurate.

• 57 Sporty1946 // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:09 am

  Midas, don’t waste your time trying to keep the facts straight with these guys. They don’t care about facts.

• 58 balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:33 am

  “The problem is there are too many liberals in the party claiming to be conservative and telling us how we should act. If you were ever a Reaganite Republican, somewhere along the way you became a Rockefeller Country Club Republican and seem to care more about being liked by your friends in the media than in espousing conservative founding principles.”

  Man, I swear I can hear a Frum banging his head against the wall from a few states away…

• 59 Moe Lane » Funny: I’ll believe that Bruce Barlett is serious about helping the GOP recover… // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:50 am

  [...] This is fronted (via Instapundit) because this is the problem: we have lists and lists of people who want some nebulous Little Red Hen to fix their pet problem with the GOP.  Fixing the problems themselves?  Not so much. [...]

• 60 Funny: I’ll believe that Bruce Barlett is serious about helping the GOP recover… - Moe_Lane’s blog - RedState // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:50 am

  [...] This is fronted (via Instapundit) because this is the problem: we have lists and lists of people who want some nebulous Little Red Hen to fix their pet problem with the GOP.  Fixing the problems themselves?  Not so much. [...]

• 61 sinz54 // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:56 am

  profnickd sez: “Sounds to me like to GOP’s problems are in part related to the fact that the Religious Right didn’t support the GOP *enough*. In other words: it is clear that millions of social conservatives simply didn’t vote in ‘08.”

  That myth, DELIBERATELY promulgated by the social conservatives, has been decisively refuted by the exit polls–which anyone can check for themselves on the CNN website and elsewhere.

  In 2008, McCain received 78% of the vote of self-described conservatives, nearly as many as who voted for Bush in 2004. And social conservatives turned out to vote in numbers comparable to 2004.

  McCain lost because of two factors: A decisive shift of Independent voters (who are now a plurality) to the Dems; and a massive turnout of black and Hispanic and young voters, who hitherto had voted in smaller numbers.

  The Karl Rove strategy of turning out the social conservative base assumed that the GOP and the Dems would split the Independent and moderate vote roughly 50-50. That had been the case in the last few elections, which is why Bush got elected twice. But that assumption collapsed in 2008. Without a good showing among Independents and moderates, the GOP will lose no matter how much of the GOP base turns out.

  Beyond this, the GOP lost the Hispanic vote which Bush and Rove had tried so hard to cultivate. The fight over the immigration bill, which was tinged with nativist sentiment, drove the Hispanics into the Dems. And their vote proved decisive in delivering New Mexico and perhaps Colorado to Obama.

  I’ll say this again: YOU have a real tendency to assert things without evidence, just because YOU want to believe them.

  I hope folks notice that my posts include references to real facts, real charts, real statistics, real evidence. Whereas yours never do.

• 62 Kaz // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:58 am

  I have no idea what Barlett and Frum stand for…I really don’t. I would love to see an outline of their views on specific issues. All I seem to read from both of them is how much they despise the Republican party, with few examples of where they differ on issues.

  It seems to me the biggest problem with the Republican party is they have consistently nominated big government, kinder-gentler, “moderates” like Bush, Dole, Bush, and McCain for POTUS. None of these folks are fiscal conservatives, none of them were successful in reining in the size of government, and none of them kept deficits in check. Fiscal conservatives who typically voted Republican

  While you may have issues with social conservatives, the Republican party has been primarily weakened by the lack of fiscal conservatives in their ranks. In 2008 there was little enthusiasm amongst fiscal conservatives to vote for yet another big government Republican (McCain), or congressmen who supported the run up of enormous deficits in the 2000’s

• 63 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:00 am

  Bruce, I think you’re conflating some groups here — and, by so doing, muddling your point. You say that today’s GOP does little but appeal to “birthers” — and that they need to do what the Democrats did with the DLC.

  But that’s two completely different issues, isn’t it? The whole “birther” thing has less to do with ideology than it has to do with sanity. In other words, one can be quite far away from the ideological middle and still accept the demonstrable fact that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America.

  The DLC, though, wasn’t about wresting control of the Democratic Party away from conspiracy theorists. It was about moving the party’s center of ideological gravity to the right.

  If you believe that the Republican Party’s center of ideological gravity needs to similarly move towards the middle (ie, to the left), then I’ll respectfully disagree and wish you well in your ex-Republicanism. We don’t need to re-win the support of more Arlen Specters and Lincoln Chafees. We need fewer of them. And saying that, in no way, endorses the “birther” movement or anything resembling it.

  I think the party can exorcise itself of nutty leaders without moving left ideologically.

  All that said, I do think it would serve the GOP well to reconnect with the concept of federalism — particularly as it pertains to questions of social policy. While I’m a devout fiscal conservative, and something of a free agent on social matters, I don’t see any reason why the GOP can’t be a comfortable home for both Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani.

  The answer for them both is federalism on hot-button social issues that otherwise divide them. As a supporter of Giuliani’s in the 2008 presidential primary, it was something I tried hard to sell to my social conservative cousins: it’s entirely possible to support a pro-choice candidate for president without selling out one’s values on the issue of life or gay marriage or whatever.

  The great thing about federalism is that it doesn’t require anybody to necessarily compromise their core beliefs. Rather, two sides which disagree about some matter can instead just accept a change of venue — allowing them to join forces on those things where they do agree.

  The problem with the aforementioned Specters and Chafees is that they don’t simply disagree with most of the rest of us on social policy matters. They disagree with most of the rest of us on virtually all matters before the federal government. And, for that reason, I firmly believe the party is better off without them.

  There’s such a thing as power in numbers — but there’s also such a thing as a chain being only as strong as its weakest linc, er, link. And I would much rather the Republican Party rebuild itself from a sound ideological platform that embraces federalism on social matters as much as possible than try to score cheap short-term gains by building numbers with people who will leave us at the altar at brass tack time.

  Ironically, I think you’re witnessing the Democratic Party’s newfound governing coalition breaking up for having sold its ideological soul for a quicker, easier route to a Congressional majority. In the end, it won’t have served the cause of liberalism well.

  And neither would a similar move from the Republicans serve the cause of conservatism well. And, ultimately, that’s what I want to see: the cause of conservatism served well, not the cause of Republicanism served well.

• 64 sinz54 // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:05 am

  ireign sez: “Protectionism is politically astute but not economically sensible.”

  Ironically, many areas of the nation that benefit from free trade aren’t going to vote for the GOP for other reasons. Whereas the swing voters of Ohio and Pennsylvania are very sensitive to the changes wrought in their areas by NAFTA and foreign competition.

  Washington State benefits from trade; Boeing competes worldwide against Airbus. But Washington State usually votes Dem because they’re social liberals.

  The same holds true for Silicon Valley. One would think that the entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley, many of them self-made men whose inventions made them a fortune and which they sell worldwide freely, would make them into Republicans. But they are all Dems; the CEOs of Google contributed heavily to Obama’s campaign. That’s because the young Silicon Valley enterpreneurs of today were the libertarians and counterculture hippies of yesterday. They all work long hard hours; they work side by side with gays and lesbians; and so the few times they have a chance to relax, they’ll smoke pot and go hot tubbing and hook up for some frantic sex (”casual quickies”) before they get back to work. They are turned off by the moral scolding of the GOP.

  Boeing and Silicon Valley aren’t demanding protectionism because they’re world leaders in their respective fields and don’t need protection. It’s the Rust Belt’s heavy industry that has been upstaged by foreign competition–and that’s the area that keeps opposing NAFTA and free trade.

• 65 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:26 am

  sinz54 said: “Without a good showing among Independents and moderates, the GOP will lose no matter how much of the GOP base turns out.”

  *********************

  I don’t necessarily disagree with that. And I also mostly agree with your calculus about the ‘08 race, as compared to the ‘04 and 2000 races.

  But there is a problem with your statement here: and that is that “independents and moderates” are hardly a monolithic group. In fact, it’s a disservice to facts to look at them in any way that considers them a group.

  To wit, there’s an argument going on for what has contributed to the recent decline in Republican party identification. Not surprisingly, people on the right of the political spectrum will say that it’s folks like them abandoning Republicans for embracing (for lack of a better term) the triangulation of people like Bush and McCain. People not on the right of the political spectrum will say that it’s folks like them who can’t associate with the Christianists who have come to dominate the Republican Party.

  Truth be told: there’s probably some truth in both views…which means that neither side is completely right or wrong.

  As such, talking about appealing to moderates and independents is facile. Which moderates? Are they moderate about things like abortion and gay rights? Or are they moderate about things like fiscal and security policy? Are we wanting to appeal to the fiscally conservative, socially liberal “moderates” like Rudy Giuliani? Or are we wanting to appeal to fiscally liberal, socially liberal “moderates” like Arlen Specter?

  Because that’s two very different kinds of moderates, isn’t it?

  Which independents should the GOP appeal to? Ex-Republicans like Lincoln Chafee who left the party because he differed with the party on virtually every matter before him? Or Ex-Republicans like Bob Barr who had very different qualms with the GOP of the Bush era?

  That’s two very different kinds of independents, isn’t it?

  Are you catching my drift? Because it seems abundantly clear to me that a GOP that tries to appeal to both Lincoln Chafee and Bob Barr (both of whom are now independents) is a GOP that has no real reason for existing.

  That doesn’t, though, mean that we shouldn’t target one or the other.

  I’ll just put it out there bluntly: I’d have roughly zero tolerance for a Republican Party that would endeavor to rebuild itself by wooing back the Lincoln Chafees and Arlen Specters of the world. I would, however, strongly endorse a Republican Party that (at the federal level) rededicates itself to the ideals of federalism that can accommodate both the Rudy Giulianis and the Mike Huckabees of the world.

  Federalism might be a tough pill to swallow for both sides.

  Social conservatives need to realize that they will continue losing ground on their issues so long as they’re primarily fought in Washington rather than Jefferson City, Topeka, Montgomery, etc. They also need to realize that moving the fight from Washington to the states is NOT tantamount to surrender — rather, it’s a strategic shift that would give them a far better chance of success in places where such a will exists.

  Republican-inclined social liberals, on the other hand, are going to have to become comfortable with the idea of (for instance) Roe v. Wade being overturned so as to move the issue of abortion back to the state legislatures. They, too, need to realize that the demise of Roe v. Wade does not amount to the demise of legal abortion anywhere and everywhere. It simply recognizes the fact that the US Constitution doesn’t speak to the matter and is, thus, relegated to the states by the 10th Amendment.

  The key to Republican revival, IMO, lies somewhere near this strategic compromise. We don’t need to lay down our arms on social policy matters. Rather, we need to move that fight to different venues so we can join forces on those matters where we do agree and which are rightly and necessarily being debated at the federal level.

• 66 Odograph.com » Blog Archive » Anti-Republican // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:27 am

  [...] An interesting piece by Bruce Bartlett on why he (longtime Republican) has become Anti-Republican: I think the party got seriously on the wrong track during the George W. Bush years, as I explained in my Impostor book. In my opinion, it no longer bears any resemblance to the party of Ronald Reagan. I still consider myself to be a Reaganite. But I don’t see any others anywhere in the GOP these days, which is why I consider myself to be an independent. Mindless partisanship has replaced principled conservatism. What passes for principle in the party these days is “what can we do to screw the Democrats today.” How else can you explain things like that insane op-ed Michael Steele had in the Washington Post on Monday? [...]

• 67 The Anti-Republican | Grab Our Party // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:35 am

  [...] Bartlett talks about why, as an Independent, he considers himself an anti-Republican. If the GOP wants to regain strength, it needs to heed some of Bartlett’s advice: stop [...]

• 68 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:42 am

  sinz54 said: “Ironically, many areas of the nation that benefit from free trade aren’t going to vote for the GOP for other reasons.”

  **************

  I’m sure you’re right about that, at some level anyway. But protectionism would be such a bad mistake for our country — regardless of who supports it or opposes it — that it certainly can’t play a part in any Republican reformation.

  Let’s not forget the history there. The Republican Party was pretty dominant at the federal level in the decades between the Industrial Revolution and the Great Depression. And it was the Republicans more than the Democrats of that era who embraced the tenets of trade protectionism. Ultimately, this wasn’t only horrible for our country’s fortunes — it was also enough to put the Republicans in the political penalty box for decades on end.

  Whoever the GOP might attract or repel with a shift on trade policy (or, at least, trade policy rhetoric….which is what Democrats have mostly done), it wouldn’t be worth it. I’d rather the Republican Party dissolve altogether than see it repeat the mistakes of Herbert Hoover and the progressives of his era, most of whom were Republicans.

  My country comes before my party. The day that it doesn’t is the day I’ll have lost my soul.

• 69 Daily Pundit » Those “Crazy Conservatives” - Again // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:37 am

  [...] Why I Am Anti-Republican I think the Republican Party is in the same boat the Democrats were in in the early eighties — dominated by extremists unable to see how badly their party was alienating moderates and independents. The party’s adults formed the Democratic Leadership Council to push the party back to the center and it was very successful. But there is no group like that for Republicans. That has left lunatics like Glenn Beck as the party’s de facto leaders. As long as that remains the case, I want nothing to do with the GOP. [...]

• 70 ProfNickD // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:38 am

  sinz54,

  You clearly didn’t read my post (which provided data from the CNN exit polls) but you managed to cite incorrect data from those same exit polls.

  Conservatives did NOT support McCain in the same proportions as they did Bush in ‘04 — Obama won 20% of conservatives, a full 1/3 more than did Kerry.

  Further, church attendees supported McCain by a lower proportion than they did Bush.

  The youth vote did not change whatsoever from ‘04 to ‘08 as a proportion of the electorate: in both elections the 18-24 vote was 10% of turnout. This demographic supported Kerry anyway in ‘04 and Obama didn’t add a lot to his vote total by slightly increasing his performance in this demographic — the youth are just too small a demographic to really matter.

  Interestingly, McCain did far worse than Bush among Hispanics, even though McCain is a moderate and manifestly pro-immigration.

  Further still, neither sinz54 nor anyone else is able to explain the decline in turnout from ‘04 to ‘08 in very “red” (conservative) states, namely: AK, KY, OK, SD, and UT to name several.

  For those interested, the CNN exit polls for ‘04 and ‘08 may be found at the following, respectively:

  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/

  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

  Historical voter turnout data can be found here:

  http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm

• 71 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:39 am

  Re: Stlouismark // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:53 pm (#38) –

  “Also, Glenn Beck isn’t a Republican. If you listen to him, you’ll find that he is about as “anti-Republican” as Bruce Barlett is.”

  Exactly. (*SIGH*)

  “Bottom line, Bartlett is a former conservative who has gone off the deep end. Supporting massive new taxes to fund a massive government with more entitlements isn’t the way to go – it’s actually ridiculous that I even have to refute that idea.”

  Yep. (*SIGH*)

  Re: Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:07 am (#39) –

  “In 1996, we were told that the Kemp pick excited the base.”

  And he DID. It’s just that DOLE was at the head of the ticket – not Kemp.

  “And in 2008, we were told that Palin excited the base.”

  (*SNORT*) (*SMILING AS I SHAKE MY HEAD IN AMUSEMENT*)

  Chekote. Have you ever heard of a guy named McCain…???

  (*ROFLMAO*)

  On a serious note… WHY must we keep on revisiting the same facts with one side absolutely incapable of seeing the lessons in them and the other side – my side – constantly forced to “remind” them of the true circumstances and reality…???

  (*SIGH*)

  Re: Redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:34 am (#40) –

  “McCain I think had a pretty good chance to win at one point…”

  McCain had ONE chance – and of course he blew it.

  If McCain had come out against TARP he might have stood a chance. That was his ONLY chance.

  Re: Redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:58 am (#42) –

  “Do you think it makes sense to voters in the middle when Republicans refer to Buy American provisions in the stimulus as protectionist? As if deciding where to spend taxpayers dollars is the same as placing barriers on trade? I think it only makes sense to conservatives.”

  (*JUMPING OUT OF MY SEAT*) (*CLAPPING, SHOUTING, STAMPING MY FEET IN APPROVAL*)

  * Sinz… are you LISTENING…?!?!

  (*WINK*)

  BILL

• 72 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:41 am

  Re: Escapevelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:03 am (#43) –

  “Nobody wants Democrat Lite, when you can get the real thing.”

  BRAVO…!!! ENCORE…!!! (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)

  (The problem, Escape, is that NewMajority is a sort of “alternate reality” where many denizens actually DO want the GOP to become the Democrat Lite Party.) (*SHRUG*)

  BILL

• 73 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:46 am

  Lets look at what Reagan actually said and stood for, (hint, it wasnt centrist wishy washy-ness. Reagann would welcome you to the party Barlett, but he wouldnt have moved the soul of the Party to you, and joined then join the Party.

  Let Them Go Their Way

  March 1, 1975
  2nd Annual CPAC Convention

  Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

  Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

  continued…

  http://reagan2020.us/speeches/Let_Them_Go_Their_Way.asp

• 74 balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:58 am

  Can any of the Reagan eulogists here tell me how many tax increases Reagan signed into law while President?

• 75 Republican Party Needs More Votes if it is to Win // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:58 am

  [...] Bruce Bartlett explains why he’s not a Republican anymore using a time-honored refrain:  He didn’t leave his party; his party left him.  While he now considers himself an “independent,” he’s more than non-partisan; he’s “anti-Republican.”  Why? I still consider myself to be a Reaganite. But I don’t see any others anywhere in the GOP these days, which is why I consider myself to be an independent. Mindless partisanship has replaced principled conservatism. What passes for principle in the party these days is “what can we do to screw the Democrats today.” [...]

• 76 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:00 pm

  Re: Escapevelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:03 am (#43) –

  “[Bartlett’s} sneering superiority complex…”

  Yep!

  (And when someone with MY… er… smiling superiority complex is rubbed the wrong way, you KNOW Bartlett is out of control!) (*SNORTING CHUCKLE*)

  “You seem to be in love with the leadership and leader that is Reagan, and not his ideas….which are better represented by Sarah Palin than by John McCain.”

  EXACTLY…!!!

  (*APPLAUSE*)

  Ronnie would have LOVED Sarah Palin – and her family too. Of that I have no doubt.

  Re: Escapevelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:28 am (#45) –

  “…Perot kneecapped the GOP…”

  No. There I must disagree with you.

  GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH kneecapped the GOP – and his own re-election bid – by being… er… George Herbert Walker Bush.

  Hey… I voted for Perot – knowing full well he was probably half a brick short and couldn’t win.

  Recall… Bush had done his best to reverse Reaganism and replace it with pre-Reagan GOP “establishmentarianism.” Bush BROKE HIS SOLEMN pledge and vow of “No New Taxes.” Bush allowed Colin Powell to let Saddam’s Revolutionary Guard excape the “Highway of Death” and thus live to slaughter the Kurds and Marsh Arabs post-Gulf War 1.

  George Herbert Walker Bush SUCKED!

  (*SHRUG*)

  All I’m saying… don’t blame Perot for Bush’s self-destructive actions.

  INDEED, Escape… we should THANK PEROT in the sense that without the Perot movement I’m not at all sure that the Gingrich/Armey movement would have gathered strength and support as quickly as it did sufficient to take over Congress in ‘94. Think about that.

  (*SHRUG*)

  “The problem was that the GOP lost Newt and put Delay…”

  Jeezus, Escape… you’re (almost!) as frigg’n brilliant as I am…!!!

  (*SELF-DEPRECIATING GRIN*)

  Seriously… dead on. DeLay and Lott… (*SIGH*) (*GRITTING MY TEETH*)

  “Newt would be even better than Fred Thompson, but Romney was preferable to McCain.”

  Agreed. (Though I’m not a Thompson booster; the man just doesn’t have it in him to fight and win on a national level.)

  I was never a Romny fan either… but no doubt… I would have happily voted for him last November as opposed to what I did – namely, I voted for Bob Barr because I couldn’t bring myself to vote for McCain.

  BILL

• 77 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:02 pm

  Re: Balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:58 am (#76) –

  “Can any of the Reagan eulogists here tell me…”

  Balc. Please Send your tuition check to:

  Bill – 10926-3030

  As soon as it clears I’ll be glad to serve as your private tutor.

  You’ll find my rates VERY competitive! (*WINK*)

  BILL

• 78 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:06 pm

  Re: Redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:13 am (#52) –

  (*SHRUG*) (*NOD*)

  BILL

• 79 balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:11 pm

  “Bush allowed Colin Powell to let Saddam’s Revolutionary Guard excape the “Highway of Death” and thus live to slaughter the Kurds and Marsh Arabs post-Gulf War 1.”

  Saddam actually was slaughtering the Kurds well before Gulf War 1.

  Meanwhile, per GHW Bush:

  Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. … We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different–and perhaps barren–outcome. “

  GWH Bush once again gets ripped for not being the idiot his son was/is.

  And what have we bought with the deaths of thousands of America’s finest young men and women?

  Heckuva job , Bushie.

• 80 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:17 pm

  I voted for Bob Barr as well(who puts Ron Paulnuts to shame), but then I voted for Ralph Nader in the general in 2000 and 2004! McCain in the 2000 primary (with a divided Senate and Newt led strong GOP House)….and Fred Thompson in 2008 primary.

  South Carolina.

• 81 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:25 pm

  redfish says: “Do you think it makes sense to voters in the middle when Republicans refer to Buy American provisions in the stimulus as protectionist? As if deciding where to spend taxpayers dollars is the same as placing barriers on trade? I think it only makes sense to conservatives.”

  ************************

  Er, but if the public sector is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on things, then what’s the practical difference between a protectionist policy making a barrier on trade and one that simply restricts those expenditures to domestic sources?

  You’re wanting to create a distinction where there’s no functional difference. Obviously, a “Buy American” provision wouldn’t amount to anything in those cases where the federal government isn’t buying anything or anything much. But if the federal government was a monopsony buyer and it said that it will only buy from domestic sources, then what’s the difference between that an a rote trade barrier? None that I can see.

  We can’t have this both ways, unfortunately. Labels don’t really matter much to me, ultimately. But I do recognize their necessity in the political debate. You can say that a “Buy American” provision in a massive spending bill is, technically, not a trade barrier. But you can’t say that it doesn’t amount to the same thing.

  That’s a big part of the problem with demand-side Keynesian fiscal policies, after all. If the government becomes such a large buyer of something, then protectionism is almost built into the procurement system by default.

  And that creates the very same problem that classical trade barriers present: the prospect of retaliatory trade policies that will hit us right where we can’t stand to be hit.

  Can you imagine, for instance, the impact of China deciding to shift their capital resources out of our public debt towards other vehicles? Because they could do that today if they wanted to. As it is, they don’t want to because they’re heavily invested in our success…and they know that pulling some of their capital would harm what would remain.

  I’m sorry, bro, but this “middling” trade paradigm you’re searching for is a fairytale. It doesn’t exist. There’s no way to split this baby. Even trying to split it could have profound unintended consequences….it usually does.

• 82 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:27 pm

  Re: Midas // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:07 am (#58) –

  Fair enough, Midas; Clinton was indeed a PLURALITY president both terms. No argument there.

  Still… as I noted in an earlier post…

  PAPPY BUSH SUCKED.

  (*SHRUG*)

  I mean there’s just no getting around that from a Reaganite/conservative perspective.

  Dole…???

  Yeah. (*SHRUG*) Him too, unfortunately.

  “Senator ADM” was a war hero and certainly less of a turncoat than Pappy Bush, but again… not exactly a transformational figure.

  Oh… and btw… let’s recall.. Back in ‘92, Clinton was “the conservative leaning” Democrat – the “New” Democrat.

  Oh, sure… we knew about Gennifer Flowers… but in a “oh, he’s just a good ol’ boy” sorta way – not a “hey… did you hear he RAPED a woman back when he was AG of Arkansas?”

  Yes… I’m somewhat “extreme” in terms of what I consider matters of integrity. I’m willing to cut off my nose to spite my face and few other folks are. That said… even with Perot… I personally wouldn’t have voted to re-elect Pappy Bush and I’m a guy who voted twice for Reagan (and worked for the ‘84 campaign as an active volunteer) and for Bush in ‘88. (Perot in ‘92… Dole in ‘96… Bush in ‘00… Bush in ‘04… Barr in ‘09.)

  BILL

• 83 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:37 pm

  Re: Balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:11 pm (#81)

  “Saddam actually was slaughtering the Kurds well before Gulf War 1.”

  (*SNORT*) (*FAIRLY CONTEMPTUOUS CHUCKLE*)

  Yes. (*ROLLING MY EYES*) Yes he was, Balc. But I was talking AFTER Gulf War 1 as it applied to how a guy like me who voted for Bush in ‘88 turned against him in ‘92.

  To further emphasis how much this factor infuriated me, allow me to note… Bush’s POST Gulf War 1 refusal to protect the Kurds and Marsh Arabs after basically egging them on made me ASHAMED to be an American at the time. Not that Bush ever saw it, but I wrote the 43rd President a letter telling him just that.

  (*SIGH*)

  I tell ya, folks… I remember the Bush (Pappy) presidency. I remember writing letter after letter to President Reagan in California literally begging him to either privately or if need be publicly admonish Bush and use his influence to “save” the GOP from Bush. I just couldn’t understand why Ronnie was silent. And then… his letter… THE letter… the letter informing the nation of his Alzheimer disease.

  If only President Reagan hadn’t gotten sick. To this day I still wonder how history might have turned differently had President Reagan been willing and able to stop George H. W. Bush from squandering his and the GOP’s legacy from the ’80’s.

  BILL

• 84 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  Re: Balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:33 am (#61) –

  “Man, I swear I can hear a Frum banging his head against the wall from a few states away…”

  (*GRIN*)

  Ya think he’ll head back to Canada to get medical attention for the head trauma?

  (*GUFFAW*)

  BILL

• 85 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:43 pm

  Re: Kaz // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:58 am (#65) –

  “I have no idea what Barlett and Frum stand for…I really don’t. I would love to see an outline of their views on specific issues. All I seem to read from both of them is how much they despise the Republican party, with few examples of where they differ on issues.”

  Money, Kaz; money. (*SHRUG*)

  Bartlett is sincerely half off the deep end – I’ll give him that!

  Frum on the other hand….???

  With Frum it’s about the paydays. Period. End of story.

  He’s a niche player. (*SHRUG*)

  BILL

• 86 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:47 pm

  The real fight for the future is for the education system, (and the media).

  Because its much harder to turn indoctrinated young people that will be continually reinforced with media, lies, spin, and propaganda. Yes most people move conservative as they grow older, however we cant abandon history and education to the Left. He who controls the past and the first draft of history, controls the present.

  Which begs the question? Why, after 8 years of GOP control of Congress and the Presidency, is the education legacy….Ted Kennedey’s “No Child Left Behind.”

  Pathetic.

• 87 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  barker13: “Bartlett is sincerely half off the deep end.”
  *****************
  Maybe, maybe not. I actually thought that “Imposter” was a terrific book — I’d been searching for some kind of explanation for the cognitive dissonance I kept feeling when looking at the Bush Administration. I voted for GWB twice — but was ambivalent about it in 2000 and virtually pained by it in 2004.

  Still, I considered him the lesser of two evils in both races. Still do, in fact. If given those same range of options again, I’d make the same choices I made then….and just as unenthusiastically.

  So, really, my experience with Bruce Bartlett is that he has a lot to offer the debate — even in those instances where I just don’t agree with him. But I’m trying to figure out here what exactly he’s looking for the GOP to do.

  “Appeal to independents and moderates” just doesn’t cut it for me — because those two groups are extremely heterogeneous in nature. There are dozens of different subgroups of moderates and independents. Moreover, just saying that we have to move beyond Glenn Beck (or Limbaugh, or whomever) also doesn’t cut it. Because, frankly, Glenn Beck claims to be every bit as “anti-Republican” as Bruce does.

  I want to know what, specifically, Bruce wants the Republican Party to become. I’m less interested in the “who” and the “who not” than I am the “what” and the “what not.”

• 88 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:56 pm

  Re: Contrarian_libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:00 am (#66) –

  “…I don’t see any reason why the GOP can’t be a comfortable home for both Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani.”

  (*PROFFERED HANDSHAKE*)

  Yep! I was a Giuliani supporter last year! An enthusiastic Giuliani supporter!

  Here’s the deal, though… and it’s HARD for most folks to get through their heads:

  You can DISAGREE with someone or some facets of ideology/belief while still respecting that person AND respecting that belief.

  For example…

  You mention Huckabee.

  Huckabee makes my eyes roll! (*SNORT*)

  I see Huckabee as a southern version of Romney (in terms of not trusting him) and I’ve had it “up to here” with “born again” politicians.

  THAT SAID…

  I’m quite happy to have Huckabee in the Party. I’m quite happy to have Evangelicals in the Party. I RESPECT Evangelicals.

  Back to Rudy…

  Sure… I have my ideological disagreements with Giuliani… I can see why many of my fellow non-New Yorker conservatives neither trust him nor feel he’s “one of us.” That said, I certainly consider him “one of us” in all the big ways that count.

  (One Caveat: He’s now disappointed me TWICE. Two strikes and you’re pretty much “out” in my book. Still… I’m planning on keeping an open mind.)

  “…it’s entirely possible to support a pro-choice candidate for president without selling out one’s values on the issue of life or gay marriage or whatever.”

  EXACTLY…!!!

  “The problem with the aforementioned Specters and Chafees is that they don’t simply disagree with most of the rest of us on social policy matters. They disagree with most of the rest of us on virtually all matters before the federal government. And, for that reason, I firmly believe the party is better off without them.”

  Amen, brother! AMEN…!!! (*WINK*)

  “There’s such a thing as power in numbers — but there’s also such a thing as a chain being only as strong as its weakest linc, er, link.”

  (*NOD*)

  (And cute play on words!)

  BILL

• 89 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:01 pm

  Note to New Majority Republicans, the Gay Conservative is not a huge constituency. Most Gays are radical Leftwingers. Ever read Marcuse Eros and Civilization?

  Gay Marriage is a losing issue for the Democrats. Most Democrat voters dont support Gay Marriage. Lets take Californias Prop 8 for example, where radical Leftwingers and Queers started calling African Americans niggers and trashing Christian Churches and trampling on Christian symbols.

  Now you may personally support Gay Marriage. The Libertarian position would be that government has no business in the marriage business. However the Conservative position, correctly surmises that the family and procreation and the socialization of children are of primary importance to a well functioning progressing advancing civilization and society, and thus the institution of marriage was created in support of these. And I couldnt agree more.

  So to argue in favor of Gay Marriage is not only un-conservative, but indeed, not a compromise to gain votes.

  And furthermore, Western Civilization based on Judeo-Christian combined with Greco-Roman values, metaphysical constructs, and systems……are by definition conservative positions.

  Being anti Religious Right is not a Conservative position.

  If you want to create a party that is something other than conservative be my guest.

• 90 djnichol66 // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:02 pm

  Since voting the straight Republican ticket in 1972, I have voted Republican exactly once, for governor of Minnesota in 1994. In my opinion, Reagan started leading Republicans down the path to the point they find themselves in today.

  What I remember most from the Reagan years are the massive deficits and the increases in federal spending that one year reached 15% over the previous year. Such is the memory of a diehard fiscal conservative and advocate for fiscal responsibility.

  The increase in anti-gay rhetoric didn’t endear me to Republicans either.

  Rather than getting bogged down in words like conservative and socialist, Republicans should ponder the meanings of words like leadership and stewardship. When Republicans start demonstrating the qualities of good leaders and good stewards is when they will come out of the wilderness.

• 91 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:05 pm

  You can DISAGREE with someone or some facets of ideology/belief while still respecting that person AND respecting that belief. === barker

  And yet, you couldnt bring yourself to vote for Bush I, and instead split with a Populist, Perot…..thus giving victory to someone and an ideology that you are much more vehemently opposed to.

• 92 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:07 pm

  Re: Contrarian_libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:26 am (#68) –

  “…“independents and moderates” are hardly a monolithic group. In fact, it’s a disservice to facts to look at them in any way that considers them a group.”

  BINGO…!!!

  (*NOD*)

  (Good luck trying to get Sinz and the rest of “them” to see this, though.) (*SHRUG*)

  “Which independents should the GOP appeal to? Ex-Republicans like Lincoln Chafee who left the party because he differed with the party on virtually every matter before him? Or Ex-Republicans like Bob Barr who had very different qualms with the GOP of the Bush era?”

  * Com’on… ALL TOGETHER folks…

  BOB BARR! BOB BARR! BOB BARR! BOB BARR!!!

  “…a GOP that tries to appeal to both Lincoln Chafee and Bob Barr (both of whom are now independents) is a GOP that has no real reason for existing.”

  (*THUMBS UP*)

  “I’ll just put it out there bluntly: I’d have roughly zero tolerance for a Republican Party that would endeavor to rebuild itself by wooing back the Lincoln Chafees and Arlen Specters of the world. I would, however, strongly endorse a Republican Party that (at the federal level) rededicates itself to the ideals of federalism that can accommodate both the Rudy Giulianis and the Mike Huckabees of the world.”

  (*JUMPING UP*) (*DOING A LITTLE VICTORY DANCE*) (*POPPING A COLD ONE IN CELEBRATION*)

  (*SMILE*)

  “Social conservatives need to realize that they will continue losing ground on their issues so long as they’re primarily fought in Washington rather than Jefferson City, Topeka, Montgomery, etc. They also need to realize that moving the fight from Washington to the states is NOT tantamount to surrender — rather, it’s a strategic shift that would give them a far better chance of success in places where such a will exists.”

  I hereby nominate Contrarian_libertarian as GOP candidate for POTUS in 2012!

  (*SMILE*)

  “Republican-inclined social liberals, on the other hand, are going to have to become comfortable with the idea of (for instance) Roe v. Wade being overturned so as to move the issue of abortion back to the state legislatures. They, too, need to realize that the demise of Roe v. Wade does not amount to the demise of legal abortion anywhere and everywhere. It simply recognizes the fact that the US Constitution doesn’t speak to the matter and is, thus, relegated to the states by the 10th Amendment.”

  (*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

  Jeez…! I can hardly wait to keep reading down this thread! Does Contrarian_libertarian actually GET THROUGH to certain “regulars…” I’m staying tuned!

  (*WINK*)

  BILL

• 93 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:10 pm

  Just because you dont support gay marriage, doesnt make you anti gay…..though the Left will promote lies.

  There is a difference between tolerance and legal, state, and material aid. There is a difference between not promoting certain activities(especially via state sanction, funding, etc… and actively persecuting them.

• 94 SeanNC // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:11 pm

  If you think Glenn Beck is a lunatic then I am GLAD you aren’t a republican. That speaks volumes to me. I now have an idea of who you are and what you believe. It’s clear to me now that you are a David Frum, squishy, RINO moderate who would throw the Republican party under the bus to gain the approval of your dinner party journalist friends who will then write favorably about you in the pages of the New York Times.

  I know your type. You would bash Sarah Palin mercilessly while utterly refusing to use similar language to describe Dear Leader so you will be seen as being reasonable by the elites in the media. Your need to be loved by the media and the political class will cause you to do just about anything to gain their favor. Musn’t be too harsh towards THE ONE, but Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck/Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh bashing is necessary if you want to be accepted by the right people.

  People like you make me sick.

• 95 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:20 pm

  contrarian_libertarian,

  There are also plenty of subgroups of conservatives. There are paleo-cons and neo-cons, who break down over issues of trade, sovereignty, foreign intervention. There are libertarians and traditionalists, who break down over social issues and economic issues. There are deficit hawks and supply siders, who break down over issues of taxation and budgetary spending. There isn’t this clear example of what a ‘true conservative’ is that many conservatives think there is.

  What I was saying earlier, is that any party that wishes to succeed–Democrats or Republicans–doesn’t have to give up their principles, but they have to convince the middle that their party represents common sense more than the other party. That’s what creates the ‘big tent’.

  The problem with extreme elements in the Republican party is obvious; they never care about practical policy making and their rhetoric can go over the top to the point that they look nuts.

  The problem with moderate elements in the party is that too often they care too much about polls and politicking and political strategy. Moderate Republicans are obsessed with ‘the hispanic vote’, ‘the youth vote’, etc., to the point that they give up all of their principles and stand for nothing. They have to realize that just like not all black voters supported affirmative action, not all hispanic voters are supportive of illegal immigrants (and not all hispanic voters supported Sotomayor), not all gay voters care about gay marriage, not all young voters care about drug legalization. Their job isn’t to pander to people, but to stand for principles and persuade people. The Republican middle needed to stand up during the Sotomayor nomination and say that to claim hispanics will reject them if they don’t vote for her is patronizing to hispanic people.

• 96 ProfNickD // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:20 pm

  contrarian_libertarian is right on his federalist argument — the states are where the social conservatives should be active.

  At the same tijme, the national GOP, however, cannot actively *embrace* same-sex marriage (or any other non-traditional marriage) and abortion rights.

• 97 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:20 pm

  Re: Escapevelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:05 pm (#94) –

  “And yet, you couldnt bring yourself to vote for Bush I, and instead split with a Populist, Perot… thus giving victory to someone and an ideology that you are much more vehemently opposed to.”

  Yes.

  (*WINK*)

  (Well… “yes” on the theme; I’ve examined the actual “numbers” many times since the ‘92 Election and it’s not absolutely clear to me that Bush would have won absent Perot.)

  (*SHRUG*)

  But, hey… rather than argue that… let’s stick to the concept itself.

  EXAMPLE:

  I actually considered voting for Obama in ‘08.

  Heck… if I had actually thought on Election Day that McCain had a chance… I would have voted for Obama.

  Why…???

  Long term perspective vs. short term. (*NOD*)

  McCain would have DESTROYED conservatism from WITHIN as President and titular head of the GOP.

  Had McCain won last November he would have followed an Obama Lite economic plan (a Bush-like economic plan) which would have only served to destroy the American economy at a SLOWER pace than Obama is doing.

  YET…! Yet… by doing so… by basically being an incompetent… this would have ENSURED continued dominance of the Democrats in Congress BECAUSE everything that went wrong 2009-2012 would be blamed on MCCAIN…!!!

  (*SHRUG*)

  FURTHERMORE… with Obama the defeated ‘08 Democratic candidate… WHO would that have left in the drivers seat for the Dem ‘12 nomination and a clear path towards the presidency…???

  Hmm…???

  No, Escape… here’s my reasoning:

  I’m HOPING the country can survive the Pappy Bush presidency followed by the Clinton presidency followed by the Dubya presidency followed by ONE SINGLE TERM of Obama OR two terms of Obama but with a Republican Congress – if not in 2011 than by 2013.

  (Are you following…???)

  By contrast… (*SIGH*)… I couldn’t imagine the country being able to survive a Democratic Congress 2007 thru… LONG TERM CONTROL with a President McCain serving ONE failed term and in doing so leaving the GOP in shambles with HRC on deck to take over in 2013 WITH a Democratic Congress.

  Hey… you may read this and end up discounting my analysis… but my reasoning is my reasoning.

  BILL

• 98 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:21 pm

  barker13 wrote: “You can DISAGREE with someone or some facets of ideology/belief while still respecting that person AND respecting that belief.”
  ************************************

  True. But even that’s not what I’m getting at. Frankly, virtually every time that I cast a vote for anybody, I’m forced to accept that I don’t agree with them on every issue. And that’s OK. As Mark Twain said, “It is not best that we all should think alike, it is differences of opinion that make horse races.”

  What I’m getting at is that I can be stridently pro-life and vote for a stridently pro-choice candidate like Rudy Giuliani without having to swallow my pride at all…..and without demanding pull a Romney and have an epiphany on why he’d been wrong about abortion and gay marriage all his adult life.

  The secret here is federalism. That glorious concept which says that two people who differ on some matters can put them aside by delegating them to other people to figure out on their own.

  I consider myself a pro-life libertarian and I can vote for Rudy Giuliani not because I’m able to put principle regarding abortion aside — but because I trust him when he says that he’d push for a judiciary that would remand the matter he and I differ on to the states (where it belongs).

  Then, I’ll take my fight to the state capital and carry on with my day. He hasn’t given anything up to be a bedfellow with me, and neither have I.

  I’ll say this until I’m blue in the face: FEDERALISM is the key to rebuilding a successful Republican Party and conservative coalition. That is a vastly different concept than moving the party’s ideological center to the left (or the right, for that matter). Instead, it’s tantamount to choosing our battles to fight together — and passing the other ones along to other people at other places.

• 99 liv&win // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:24 pm

  Escapevelosity, I think freedom and human rights are, or should be part of conservative values. I fear your vision of conservative would have limited rights for minorities…well, I guess it does, doesn’t it. Being anti-humanist isn’t conservative either. Live and let live!

• 100 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:27 pm

  Re: Escapevelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:17 pm (#83) –

  “…Ralph Nader…”

  I respect Ralph Nader.

  (*SHRUG*)

  (Remember when Nader, Gingrich, Buchanan, Ron Paul, and – I’m assuming – both you and I were going nuts blasting the Dem Congress’ midnight pay raise deal?!)

  Yep… the political spectrum isn’t always neatly “Right” vs. “Left.” There’s a lot of “Big L” Liberalism in most “Barker” conservatives and (hopefully!) a fair amount of “Big C” Conservatism in most libs.

  (*WINK*)

  I think of ideology more as a “circle” or perhaps a three dimensional construct than a simple straight line from Right to Left.

  BILL

• 101 balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:27 pm

  djnichol66: Rather than getting bogged down in words like conservative and socialist, Republicans should ponder the meanings of words like leadership and stewardship.

  Bingo. The last 8 years is a testimony of the Republican Party embracing rhetorical battlegrounds and ignoring leadership and stewardship.

  The Party is dead set divided between those who want to “starve the beast” … and those who want “the beast” to be able to advance their social or geopolitical agenda … and those who just want “the beast” to continue to be an ATM that helps provide the seed money to inflate economic bubbles, then covers the downside for speculators when the bubbles burst.

  Unfortunately – the Republican job description for the ideal President seems to no longer include “management”. If you believe that government can and will only make things worse … why would you care about how well someone can actually run government?

• 102 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:30 pm

  profnickd: “At the same tijme, the national GOP, however, cannot actively *embrace* same-sex marriage (or any other non-traditional marriage) and abortion rights.”
  ***********************

  Would they have to? Because I don’t think they would. Instead, they’d short-circuit the issue entirely.

  The model here, so far as issues go, is the death penalty. How many debates do we get into nationally (or for federal office) regarding the death penalty? Almost none. Now, part of that is because opinions on capital punishment were long pretty one-sided (in favor of it).

  But that’s changed a bit in recent years….support for capital punishment has waned in the last decade or so. Still, you don’t hear the issue being discussed at presidential debates or on talk radio or anywhere else on the national stage.

  And the reason is that it’s been removed from the national stage — and only occupies debates at the state level (such as when former IL Gov. Ryan commuted the sentences of the state’s death row inmates en masse upon leaving office…citing excessive flaws of physical evidence, as I recall).

  Abortion and gay marriage, as issues, are threats to the national Republican Party. And I say that as somebody who is at the same time pro-life on abortion and in favor of same-sex marriage. Opposition to gay marriage and abortion may be a great platform in middle America…but it’s a deathknell in many other places. And the party can’t just write those other places off.

  That said, neither should we have to accept a fiscally-liberal Republican like Chafee or Snowe simply to have a chance at competing in states like Rhode Island or Maine.

  This is all so obvious to me, I don’t know why the PTBs in the Republican Party haven’t moved quickly and violently in this direction….opting instead for a suicidal “either/or” outlook on the question of ideological rigor.

• 103 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:33 pm

  I consider myself a pro-life libertarian — ContrarianLibertarian

  Me too….and you can add Christian Classically Liberal Conservative to that.

  While Im a Southern States Rights kind of fellow, I recognize that the gates of Federalism are too difficult to put back together, after the 20th Century. We have to take the fight to the Federal Government, because that is where the fight is. It would be nice if it werent, but wishful thinking never led to successful politics.

  AFAIC, the greatest legacy of GW Bush is Roberts and Alito, and he almost screwed that one up (Harriet Meyers). Its a shame that Souter held out for a Leftwing Democrat president, or that Ginsberg didnt succumb to illness and old age, trying to wait out Bush. Relying on Kennedy to do the right thing, isnt an ideal situation, IMO.

  However, now we are getting post 60s identity politicos on the Supreme Court, racists and sexists, and revolutionary activists….via Obama appointments.

• 104 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:36 pm

  Unfortunately – the Republican job description for the ideal President seems to no longer include “management”. If you believe that government can and will only make things worse … why would you care about how well someone can actually run government? — Balsconesfault

  That is one big reason why I would have voted for Mitt Romney.

• 105 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:39 pm

  balconesfault: “The Party is dead set divided between those who want to “starve the beast” … and those who want “the beast” to be able to advance their social or geopolitical agenda … and those who just want “the beast” to continue to be an ATM that helps provide the seed money to inflate economic bubbles, then covers the downside for speculators when the bubbles burst.”
  ***********************************

  Well, speaking as somebody who is not an “Anti-Republican”, I can say pretty definitively that I fall into none of these three categories at all.

  1) I don’t want to starve the beast, I want to chop his head off. All we’ve gotten by trying to starve him is a really hungry beast. If we’d have gotten different results from starving the beast by holding pat on taxes and hoping spending would eventually take care of itself, I might think differently. But all we have now is higher spending and the inability to raise enough tax revenues to ever pay for it.

  2) Being that I want to chop the beast’s head off, it should be pretty clear that I don’t desire to have him to advance my own agenda.

  3) As for economic bubbles, I don’t see the government as playing a proper role either way. The best protection against economic bubbles we could have isn’t bigger, better, and more strongly enforced regulation…..it’s a sound paradigm of moral hazard.

  It’s OK to me if somebody wants to illogically buy into inflated assets — so long as everybody understands the risks involved and that they’re the ones taking on the risk. If the risks are hidden (as was the case with the CDSs that offered prospective buyers no indication of counter-party risk entailed), then we have a dysfunctional marketplace and an unsound moral hazard. Similarly, if market participants have reason to believe they have some sort of public assurance or guaranty to their investments, that similarly disrupts moral hazard.

• 106 Right Wing Nut House » ANGRY IDEOLOGUES vs. THE STATISTS // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:40 pm

  [...] Bruce Bartlett has some similar thoughts: I think the party got seriously on the wrong track during the George W. Bush years, as I explained in my Impostor book. In my opinion, it no longer bears any resemblance to the party of Ronald Reagan. I still consider myself to be a Reaganite. But I don’t see any others anywhere in the GOP these days, which is why I consider myself to be an independent. Mindless partisanship has replaced principled conservatism. What passes for principle in the party these days is “what can we do to screw the Democrats today.” How else can you explain things like that insane op-ed Michael Steele had in the Washington Post on Monday? [...]

• 107 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:40 pm

  Re: Contrarian_libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:55 pm (#90) –

  To clarify if need be…

  (*WINK*)

  I think Bartlett is SINCERELY pissed off at conservatives.

  Whereas I believe Frum is just about… er… Frum.

  (*SHRUG*)

  “I voted for GWB twice — but was ambivalent about it in 2000 and virtually pained by it in 2004.”

  Steve Forbes was my ‘00 candidate. (*SHRUG*)

  I hat… er… disliked… much of what Bush ran on as a candidate for the Party’s nomination in ‘00.

  Interestingly enough, I was actually more enthusiastic about voting for Bush in ‘04; little did I suspect what a Bush second term would actually look like.

  (*EXPRESSION ON MY FACE AS IF I’D JUST TAKEN A BITE OF SPOILED SEAFOOD*)

  “So, really, my experience with Bruce Bartlett is that he has a lot to offer the debate…”

  As previously offered, I too liked Bartlett back when he was writing for the Journal… (*SHRUG*)… but my “experience” here at NewMajority is that he’s simply a bloviating none-too-bright thin-skinned… er… curmudgeon.

  (*CHUCKLE*) (*WINK*)

  Hey… bear in mind, CL… I gave Bartlett the benefit of the doubt the very first time he “contributed” one of his anti-conservative rants here to NewMajority.com

  Back then… he actually responded – not just to me but to a few other posters. His responses were hostile and frankly offensive though.

  (*SHRUG*)

  So… unfortunately… from me he now reaps what he sowed.

  (And bear in mind… compared to what I think about Frum… I consider Bartlett a paragon of integrity and virtue!)

  (*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)

  “I want to know what, specifically, Bruce wants the Republican Party to become.”

  Good luck! (*CHUCKLE*) Getting Bartlett or Frum to fish or cut bait will be I expect… umm… quite a challenge.

  (*SMILE*)

  BILL

• 108 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:42 pm

  liv&win – I think freedom and human rights are, or should be part of conservative values. I fear your vision of conservative would have limited rights for minorities…well, I guess it does, doesn’t it. Being anti-humanist isn’t conservative either. Live and let live!

  Gay marriage is not a human right.

  I am more pro human rights than any leftwinger. If you accept the Leftwing version of human rights then good luck with that. I support minority rights through individualism, color blindness, equality before the law, and equality of opportunity. If you break people up into groups and then support groups rights, priveleges, protections, etc affording individuals rights only in relation to their group affiliations…..part of racist, sexist, groupist, identity politics, then you sir are an enemy of mine…..on the level of Nazi-ism which is closely related to modern Western Progressive Leftism.

  The unborn are human’s too, what about their human rights? Should we abandon them, because they dont vote?

• 109 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:46 pm

  contrarian_libertarian,

  Actually I’m not sure how much that’s true. Referenda across the country have shown that even in liberal states people don’t support gay marriage. Most Americans also support more restrictions on abortion than currently exist, even if they don’t support the extreme social conservative position. So I think this perception that social conservativism is poison for the national party is a bit misled and influenced by people letting liberals define the debate on this.

  The negative perception of Republicans does sometimes get validated when social conservatives go over the top and start suggesting that abortion be banned in the Constitution or gay marriage be banned in the Constitution. That shouldn’t be an acceptable point of view, in light of federalism. But on the other side, what do Republicans accept and don’t accept? Do Republicans accept a candidate who thinks partial birth abortion should be legal? Do Republicans accept a candidate who is against parental notification rights?

  Which brings us to other issues also. Pro-choice and pro-gay marriage conservatives are welcomed in the party. Are anti-free trade conservatives welcome in the party? Are deficit-hawk anti-supply side conservatives welcome in the party? Are not fiscally-liberal, but fiscally-moderate conservatives welcome in the party?

• 110 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:49 pm

  Re: Escapevelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:01 pm (#92) –

  “The Libertarian position would be that government has no business in the marriage business.”

  True.

  “However the Conservative position, correctly surmises that the family and procreation and the socialization of children are of primary importance to a well functioning progressing advancing civilization and society, and thus the institution of marriage was created in support of these. And I couldn’t agree more.”

  Truer than not. (*SMILE*)

  “So to argue in favor of Gay Marriage is not only un-conservative, but indeed, not a compromise to gain votes. ”

  (*SMILE*)

  It all depends upon who’s doing the arguing! (*GRIN*)

  Seriously… you appeal to freedom and you appeal to something deeply connected with the American soul.

  Yes… you’re right… such an appeal is “un-conservative” in the sense you use the word “conservative.”

  Yes… “traditional” values – marriage being an institution meant for one man to marry one woman (at a time) (*GRIN*) – is ALSO a sentiment that strikes a cord deep within the American character.

  (*SHRUG*)

  So… we’re back to the “federalist” argument.

  GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!

  (*WINK*)

  BILL

  P.S. –

  “…Greco-Roman values…”

  (*PONDERING*)

  I don’t know… (*PREGNANT PAUSE*)

  Those Greeks… ya know…???

  (*GRIN*)

• 111 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:50 pm

  Balsconesfault wrote: “Unfortunately – the Republican job description for the ideal President seems to no longer include “management”. If you believe that government can and will only make things worse … why would you care about how well someone can actually run government?

  ********************

  Balsconesfault commits a fallacy common in the arguments against conservative governance. If government can only make things worse, why would you care how well somebody runs it?

  What’s the fallacy? Well, the fallacy is that “running it” assumes that which government puts on its plate belongs there in the first place.

  In other words, I expect the government to provide for the common defence. And I expect this because the Constitution explicitly requires it of the federal government. Whether I think government involvement in national defense will or won’t be the best way to defend our nation matters none: the Constitution expressly empowers them — requires them, in fact — to provide it.

  Contrast that with the latest movements into the financial and auto sectors. You’re damn right that I expect government will make the financial and auto sectors worse off by involving themselves in it. But what does that have to do with the question of who or wouldn’t make a good POTUS?

  We’re not electing a totalitarian emperor, for Pete’s sake. The question to ask is not whether we’re electing a President who will be good at managing the financial and auto industries — but whether the government should have its fingers in those pies to begin with!!

  There’s a reason that the framers crafted this nation by putting as power as humanly possible as close to the individual as they could. The preferred the individual (or private sector, as we’d call it today) to the states, where possible, and the states to the federal government where possible.

  We’re in the soup we’re in because we’ve flipped that around in the last century or so: more and more and more power has come to reside in Washington….which necessarily means that less and less and less of it resides in each one of our households, each of our cities and counties, and each of the several states as well.

• 112 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:52 pm

  Re: Djnichol66 // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:02 pm (#93) –

  “Since voting the straight Republican ticket in 1972, I have voted Republican exactly once, for governor of Minnesota in 1994. In my opinion, Reagan started leading Republicans down the path to the point they find themselves in today.”

  (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*) (*ROFLMAO*)

  Er… Dgn…??? I think you’re on the wrong blog.

  (*PLAYFUL SMILE*)

  (Or are you the ultimate Frum/Bartlett voter…???)

  (*CHUCKLE*)

  BILL

• 113 tim.or.tom // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:57 pm

  “That’s why I wrote my Wrong on Race book, which no one read.”

  No one read it because it was horrible, just like your little blog post.

  People like Bruce Bartlett need to figure it out; conservatives are not interested in their opinion and never will be. You didn’t leave the GOP, the GOP left you, blah blah blah. Too bad. We don’t want people like you in the party to be honest. Liberals masquerading as conservatives, we had enough of that with the Bush Administration. Kindly go register as what you really are, an independent liberal, and stop acting like you’re on our side.

• 114 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:00 pm

  djnichol66 wrote: “Rather than getting bogged down in words like conservative and socialist, Republicans should ponder the meanings of words like leadership and stewardship. When Republicans start demonstrating the qualities of good leaders and good stewards is when they will come out of the wilderness.”
  **************************************

  It’s a fair enough point — but let’s also not forget that, in the years since you voted a straight Republican ticket in 1972 and today, the Republicans have fared pretty well without you. Better, anyway, than they were faring back in Nixon’s day.

  That aside: I certainly agree that Republicans would do well to focus on being good managers and stewards. That’s one reason that I’m working overtime to try to convince Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to run for president. You should look into his record as governor. It isn’t flashy or full of any major ideological fireworks. He’s not the kind of guy who’ll end up on the political equivalent of Sportscenter’s highlight reel.

  Rather, he’s somebody who thinks outside the box and breaks a lot of the traditional molds. One of the first things he sought after taking office was a temporary 1% tax hike on upper incomes. The effort failed, but it underscored his singular focus on bringing the state’s fiscal house in better order.

  As it stands today, Indiana not only has a balanced budget in a year that’s proven awfully hard for states to produce one, it’s also sitting on a reserve fund of about a $1 billion in unallocated cash. Yes, I said cash.

  And he’s gotten the state to where it is primarily by holding the line on spending….thus earning his nickname of “The Blade.”

  IMO, the best stewardship and management the Republican Party could provide these days is bringing our out-of-control spending house in order. We’ve spent way beyond our means as a country. And, instead of coming back to life as the tax-cutting party, they should instead come back to life as the spending restraint party.

  People are deeply concerned — finally — with how much we’ve spent on government. And, if done correctly, I think it could be a strongly winning message at the polls for the elephants.

• 115 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:02 pm

  Re: Seannc // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:11 pm (#97) –

  “[Bartlett] If you think Glenn Beck is a lunatic then I am GLAD you aren’t a republican. That speaks volumes to me.”

  (*THUMBS UP*)

  Re: Contrarian_libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:21 pm (#101) –

  “…virtually every time that I cast a vote for anybody, I’m forced to accept that I don’t agree with them on every issue.”

  (*SHRUG*) Well… obviously.

  “As Mark Twain said, “It is not best that we all should think alike, it is differences of opinion that make horse races.””

  As Ed Koch says… “Anyone who agrees with me 100% of the time should have his head examined!”

  (*WINK*)

  “…I can be stridently pro-life and vote for a stridently pro-choice candidate like Rudy Giuliani…”

  I understand.

  (BTW… just FWIW… I don’t consider Rudy to be “stridently” pro-choice. I’d term his position “middle of the road moderate.”) (Just saying…)

  “…I trust him…”

  BINGO…!

  To folks like us… TRUST is a HUGE thing.

  Folks like us… we BELIEVE that INTEGRITY MATTERS…!!!

  Hey… (*AGAIN OFFERING MY HEAD*)… God bless us!

  (*GRIN*) (*GOOD-NATURED CHUCKLE*)

  BILL

• 116 tim.or.tom // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:14 pm

  “And, instead of coming back to life as the tax-cutting party, they should instead come back to life as the spending restraint party.”

  That makes absolutely no sense. No politician will cut spending while not cutting taxes. If you do that, you suddenly have all this free money lying around with nothing for it to be spent on! So what do you do? You go out and find something to spend it on! And this being government, you spend more than you have.

  There’s no reason the GOP can’t be both the tax cutting party and the spending restraint party; it seemed to work well in the 80s and 90s, did it not?

  Political parties lose power when they start behaving in ways either unacceptable to the public or contrary to their own principles and their projects don’t work. You guys are saying that the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 because of the former reason with social conservatives and such being too abhorrent to moderates and independents; I believe it is the latter.

  You guys blather on endlessly about birthers and death panelers and Ron Paulians and religious “conservatives” as if those people and their issues are important to the general public right now. They aren’t. The economy and spending are the concerns and the people are naturally looking to the opposition because both those issues are in bad shape for the ruling party. The GOP’s abandonment of its tax cutting-spending restraint principles during the Bush Administration does not mean the party should not keep presenting itself as the party of those things, which the people want. The issue is in delivering on that presentation with real legislative work.

  The endless focus on “extremists” at this site has more to do with the personal animosity of this site’s contributors towards people they view as “extremists” than with any electoral advantage or disadvantage those “extremists” brings to the GOP. That’s what it is about. And that is why the “New Majority” will remain forevermore an influence-less, despised voice within the conservative movement, always whining that it is either being ignored or attacked.

• 117 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:17 pm

  barker,

  The thing about the gay marriage issue is that there’s a huge middle ground that Republicans mostly aren’t exploring. Namely, that a lot of the rights that people want for gays that come in marriage really aren’t gay issues, per se. Its unfair, for instance, that if I’m living with a roommate who I’m close to (but not in a sexual relationship with), that I’m not allowed to give him hospital visitation rights, or other rights associated with marriage. The problem is that people on the left have defined this as a ‘gay issue’, when its not.

  Social conservatives should be fine in finding a way to give these rights to gay couples, under the logic that everyone, whether gay or not, should be able to have these rights. In fact, I remember reading about a conservative group in Arizona that was pushing exactly that–they wanted a law that would allow any two people (whether in a sexual relationship or not, to make it more neutral than civil unions) to be able to have some type of legal partnership with these rights.

  On the marriage issue, conservatives can point to how in places like Canada that have made gay marriage a right, there have been lawsuits against churches that refuse to wed gay couples. Conservatives can convince people that if gay marriage is considered a right, then gay adoption would be considered a right. And that would mean that Catholic adoption agencies who don’t want to adopt to gay couples would be ruled to be discriminatory and illegal. Those types of things are consequences of the courts or the government determining that its a discriminatory act to not marry gays. If its a discriminatory act, then its not very different from if an adoption agency would refuse to adopt to a black couple.

  Lastly, social conservatives need to stand up and say even though they don’t agree with gay marriage, they agree that workplaces shouldn’t be able to fire people for being gay. They also need to respect the fact that things were once terrible in this country for gay people, and its a good thing we’ve moved on from that. They need to say its not the 50s anymore and that its a good thing that gay people are no longer second class citizens. They need to reach out with an olive branch rather than a sword.

  As a moderate, thats how I think conservatives would be successful.

• 118 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:26 pm

  timorton,

  Seems to me that for the time being the surplus should be used to pay down the debt.

• 119 Angry Ideologues vs. The Statists - Rick_Moran’s blog - RedState // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:26 pm

  [...] Bruce Bartlett has some similar thoughts: I think the party got seriously on the wrong track during the George W. Bush years, as I explained in my Impostor book. In my opinion, it no longer bears any resemblance to the party of Ronald Reagan. I still consider myself to be a Reaganite. But I don’t see any others anywhere in the GOP these days, which is why I consider myself to be an independent. Mindless partisanship has replaced principled conservatism. What passes for principle in the party these days is “what can we do to screw the Democrats today.” How else can you explain things like that insane op-ed Michael Steele had in the Washington Post on Monday? [...]

• 120 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:47 pm

  timortom: “People like Bruce Bartlett need to figure it out; conservatives are not interested in their opinion and never will be. You didn’t leave the GOP, the GOP left you, blah blah blah. Too bad. We don’t want people like you in the party to be honest. Liberals masquerading as conservatives, we had enough of that with the Bush Administration. Kindly go register as what you really are, an independent liberal, and stop acting like you’re on our side.”
  ************************

  As I’ve said before, I think this view is largely wrong. I take issue with Barlett’s post — primarily because I think he conflates conspiracy-minded “birthers” with people who are merely ideologically right-of-center. Or, put another way, that “appealing to moderates and independents” by accommodating their ideological heresies is tantamount to shunning the birthers and Becksters.

  That’s a sophistic and facile view of what’s been going on within the Republican Party. It also makes the mistake of viewing moderates and independents as some kind of “group” — not unlike liberals and conservatives.

  I’ve read Bruce’s book “Imposter”, and I don’t at all think he’s a liberal masquerading as a conservative. In fact, the basic thrust of his book was taking the Bush Administration to task for its violations of conservative cardinal law. In other words, he’s right where you are about the legacy of the Bush Administration. Like you, he thinks they unforgivably strayed too far from the conservative reservation.

  So what I can’t quite grasp is, in light of that, what he thinks the GOP needs to do in order to appeal to moderates and independents.

  Isn’t that precisely what Bush tried to do with his Medicare expansion and various other big spending items? Isn’t that precisely what McCain purported to do as a candidate?

• 121 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:04 pm

  Re: Redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:17 pm (#120) –

  “The thing about the gay marriage issue is that there’s a huge middle ground that Republicans mostly aren’t exploring. Namely, that a lot of the rights that people want for gays that come in marriage really aren’t gay issues, per se. Its unfair, for instance, that if I’m living with a roommate who I’m close to (but not in a sexual relationship with), that I’m not allowed to give him hospital visitation rights, or other rights associated with marriage. The problem is that people on the left have defined this as a ‘gay issue’, when its not.”

  I’m with you! (To an extent!)

  Unfortunately… many folks nominally on “our side” have defined this as a ANTI-GAY issue – which it certainly shouldn’t be.

  (Hey… Red… btw… call me Bill!) (*WINK*)

  Bottom line… I’d definitely be fine with just plain old “civil unions” (though personally… I’m cool with gay marriage too).

  “Conservatives can convince people that if gay marriage is considered a right, then gay adoption would be considered a right. And that would mean that Catholic adoption agencies who don’t want to adopt to gay couples would be ruled to be discriminatory and illegal. Those types of things are consequences of the courts or the government determining that its a discriminatory act to not marry gays. If its a discriminatory act, then its not very different from if an adoption agency would refuse to adopt to a black couple.”

  No, no… I HEAR YA!

  Believe me… I’m WELL aware of the mess the Courts have made of things and how potentially worse they could make things!

  (*SNORT*) Oh, yeah… I do hear ya, Red!

  (*NOD*)

  BILL

• 122 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  barker,

  Well it is a gay issue as long the solution is defined as ‘marriage is for straight couples and for gay couples’. The federal government has no business supporting people’s sexual relationships, gay or straight.

  I don’t think marriage as-is should be seen as a problem, because its not about ’straight couples’, but about the children born in those relationships. I’m completely against the courts ruling marriage as-is as discriminatory not only because its not supported by the Constitution, but because its illogical, and it would set a very bad precedent. It would be protecting types of relationships rather than individuals. The current cultural environment where anybody opposed to gay marriage is branded as a bigot is also intolerable. Its more anti-conservative, anti-religion than pro-gay.

  If need be, I’d support marriage removed from civil law, to get rid of controversies, although I don’t think it needs to be.

  I’d support any civil union laws which did not create the same distinction–where the government supports ’straight couples and gay couples’. It would have to be neutral about sexual relationships.

• 123 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:33 pm

  timortom: “There’s no reason the GOP can’t be both the tax cutting party and the spending restraint party; it seemed to work well in the 80s and 90s, did it not?

  Political parties lose power when they start behaving in ways either unacceptable to the public or contrary to their own principles and their projects don’t work. You guys are saying that the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 because of the former reason with social conservatives and such being too abhorrent to moderates and independents; I believe it is the latter.”
  *********************

  Well, first, if the GOP was ever a party of low taxes and spending restraint, they long ago lost any claim to, at least, the latter moniker.

  But, second, whatever they were or weren’t in the past has nothing to do with what our country *needs* right now. I’m all for low taxes, really I am. I’m an avowed Friedmanite — and I agreed with the good professor when he said that “If a tax cut leads to an increase in tax revenues, we didn’t cut them enough.”

  The problem is: we’ve got some massive bills sitting in front of us right now. And we can’t just wish them away. Our primary fiscal focus in coming years MUST be to reduce the cost of entitlements. However, because we’ve gone on a spending spree the last 7 or so decades and run up the credit card bill, we’re going to have to keep as money coming in the door at the same time to have even a hope of restoring any fiscal sanity.

  We’ve always found it politically easy to cut taxes. And we’ve always found it politically easy to spend money. Because of this, we’re at a genuine fiscal crossroads. What we need now is the will to do the opposite of what’s been so easy all these years.

  Just because it’s been easy doesn’t mean it’s been good for us.

• 124 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:00 pm

  contrarian_libertarian,

  Republicans have to acknowledge that the laffer curve is a curve, which means it isn’t always a benefit to lower taxes. Of course if there’s no need for taxes you want to reduce them as much as possible, but sometimes there’s a need for taxes.

• 125 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:07 pm

  The Gay Sex agenda is based in an attack on Western Civilization and Society. Its purpose is to deconstruct or destroy the Bourgeousie Capilitalist structures (in this case the nuclear family), in order to bring about the possibility for revolutionary reconstruction of a new society based on Marxist principles. This has been in Leftwing literature for decades, at minimum.

  Tolerance, yes, promotion, material aid, and legal sanction no. End of discussion.

  Its seems to me that the argument for moving centrist is that the Left is winning the culture war…..so lets have a New Center Left Party that can beat the Far Left Party. And what are we left with….a 2 party system of Center Left and Far Left parties, and the choice for the voter will be how fast are we going to move towards Communism/Socialist State.

  Which is utterly ridiculous.

  If you dont have the courage of your convictions then hit the road.

  Gay Marriage is a winner for the GOP, its a big loser for Left. However, as the indoctrination centers continue to move towards dumbing down children and promoting Leftwing ideology and revisionist history….eventually the tide will turn.

  So it comes down to, are you willing to fight to save Western Civilization, or not? If you are down with the Revolution, then hit the road.

• 126 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  redfish: “Republicans have to acknowledge that the laffer curve is a curve, which means it isn’t always a benefit to lower taxes.”

  **************************

  True enough. However, part of my frustration with a lot of my fellow conservatives over the years is that they, on one hand, argue in favor of smaller government and, on the other hand, tell us the tax rate cuts can actually enable us to have larger government (ie, because they produce more tax revenues).

  Well, for one thing, it’s quite obviously true that not all tax cuts lead to a net increase of revenues. Not in the short-term or the long-term. I think it’s possible that some tax cuts would. After all, I think the Laffer Curve is ultimately just common sense — unless one would argue that a tax rate of 100% would produce the maximum tax revenues.

  Anyway, my point is that Republicans might be wise to drop the tax rhetoric for the time being and, instead, focus on ways to cut spending growth. Cutting spending has never been the focus of anybody’s stump speech that I can remember. And there’s a reason for that: we Americans are a fickle lot…we like our taxes low and our government big.

  But, as it is now, I think voters may be in the rare mood to hear somebody tell them how they can cut some significant fat out of upcoming budgets. Cutting taxes while doing that would just make it that much harder to bring things closer to balance.

• 127 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:20 pm

  John Kasich, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford….we hardly knew ye!

• 128 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:23 pm

  escapevelocity—

  Actually thats somewhere along the lines with what I was saying, that moderate Republicans are foolish to think that being against gay marriage is a losing issue. The left is further from the middle than the right is. But I don’t think every part of the debate is a ‘gay issue’, and so conservatives shouldn’t treat it that way. The way that people on the left gain support is that they define these as ‘gay issues’ when they’re not gay issues.

  contrarian_libertarian—

  In this case, keeping tax rates while lowering spending would help pay down the debt, and the decreased interest rates and higher value of the dollar gained from paying down the debt would be a huge gain. Most Republicans also aren’t against all government spending just misplaced government spending; most agree with things like infrastructure projects, which need tax revenue. Its up to the party how much of a hard-line they want to take.

• 129 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:35 pm

  The way that people on the left gain support is that they define these as ‘gay issues’ when they’re not gay issues. — redfish

  I understand your point. Im even willing to concede changes in certain laws, to allow hospital visitation rights and such. However yours is just an attempt to sidestep the issue.

  Its much like other identity politics. For example the the Civil Rights Movement succeded when couched in Christian terms….the brilliance of MLK Jr. Indeed the Slavery Abolitionists of yor were in fact Christians with the courage of their convictions, and they were just as villified as they are now at the forefront of the Unborn Human Rights movment.

  Civil Rights werent about African American Rights, but about Human Rights. Unborn Rights are not about a groups rights but about universal human rights.

  The Left will continue to try to divide people into groups based on class, race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, language, culture, etc…, promote resentment, and use these groups support to promote their statist socialist agenda, wealth redistribution, the deconstruction of Western Bourgeousie Capitalist Society, the growth of government, etc.

• 130 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:39 pm

  One of the problems with teh Federalist Argument as given here as a savior of the Republican coalition…..lets take Gay Marriage as an example.

  States that do not allow Gay Marriage will be forced to recognize Gay Marriages from other states. As you can see, the battle has to be taken to the Federal level. If the Left wasnt advancing this issue, it would be a non issue….but alas, the Left is pushing divisive identity politics….and that is just the way it is. Its not our choice, to fight these battles.

• 131 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:41 pm

  What I mean is, the right is not driving an anti gay agenda. Its being forced onto the agenda by the Left and the Right has to react to it…..or just roll over and form a “New Majority.” The Right isnt obssessed with Gay Marriage…..the Left is.

• 132 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:57 pm

  escapevelocity,

  Yes I agree, the left is driving the issue: most people are happy with things the way they are and would be happy if politicians shut up about it. At the moment a lot of people are asking themselves ‘why not just give marriage to them, what would it hurt’ so thats why the left is getting more support at the moment.

  One way for social conservatives to advance, is by re-framing it the debate making it obvious to everybody that the left is driving the issue. If conservatives come out and concede things like hospital visitation rights (to everybody and not just gay couples), then it becomes clear to everybody that people on the left are just interested in attacking marriage as an institution, and attacking religion.

• 133 Contrarian_Libertarian // Aug 31, 2009 at 5:57 pm

  redfish said: “Its up to the party how much of a hard-line they want to take.”
  ********************

  Well, of course. But what’s not up to the party — to either party — is how much of a hard-line we’re going to need to take. I’m not sure people realize what’s headed down the pike for us fiscally.

  Highways and things like that are chump change, BTW. It’s entitlements that are threatening us. That threat is real and if we don’t take serious evasive action soon, we’re going to be in for decades of hurt…at best. The coming fiscal situation is that dire.

• 134 djnichol66 // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:08 pm

  It’s less a matter of the left driving the gay marriage issue than it is gay people driving the issue. Democrats try to tiptoe around it like Culver did in Iowa. Not all gay men and lesbians are all that interested in getting married but no gay man or lesbian sees it as attacking marriage as an institution or as attacking religion and thus will not be satisfied by having Republicans toss them bones like hospital visitation rights. In fact, hospital visitation rights are a separate issue.

• 135 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:13 pm

  djnichol, I don’t think most gay people care about gay marriage. They’d be happy with civil unions. It’s not so much a Democrat issue as it is a progressive issue.

• 136 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:30 pm

  It’s less a matter of the left driving the gay marriage issue than it is gay people driving the issue. — djnichols

  And Gays and Lesbians are a tiny minority which would have zero clout, UNLESS…..the Left was interested in using them and homonsexuality for some purpose.

  Its interesting to look at the majority African American view of the issue, where Gays and Lesbos present themselves as the equivalent of the African American just pursuing their human and civil rights. They take umbrage at the notion. Gays and Lesbians are generally well to do and have good jobs and equal opportunity….they arent an oppressed minority.

  Why dont we promote other deviant sexual behaviors and polygamy and beastiality….isnt that just the next group to proclaim the recognition of their human rights, to not just be tolerated but actively promoted with the resources of the state.

  Celebrate beastiality as just a moral and cultural equivalent of heterosexuality and manogamy…or you are a hate filled bigot!

• 137 andybates // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:34 pm

  Yes, it is definitely the social conservatives and in particular those opposed to homosexual marriage that is killing the Republican party. Look at California (for example), the Republican party as a whole is doing gangbusters in the state, particularly at the national level. Meanwhile, on the issue of homosexual marriage, the state is clearly a mix of progressive and moderate Republican as any reasonable poll will show.
  If only the Republican party would embrace homosexual marriage, a robust public option, a strong enviromental policy and other moderate “mainstream” positions as defined by the MSM, I have zero doubt we could duplicate our success in california in all 50 states!

• 138 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:35 pm

  Contrarian Libertarian,

  barker voted for that hurt.

  While there is some validity to the argument that McCain would have been blamed for similar outcomes….because that is what the Left do, no matter what. The fact of the matter is that we wouldnt have Sotomayor in the Supreme Court now, we would have Judge Brown from California. And the fact of the matter is that McCain would have been a brake on the Democrat Congress(and the pain that is coming would have been severely reduced)…maybe not to the level of our liking….but hey, barker takes the long view.

  

• 139 djnichol66 // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:37 pm

  redfish, I think there needs to be a poll to see if gay people would be happy with civil unions. There is a segment of the gay population that asks the marriage crowd, “Why do you want to be like ‘them?’”

  My position is either/or, either civil unions for all or marriage for all. I do know that if we have civil unions for same-sex couples then they will always get attacked in the courts as separate but equal.

• 140 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:37 pm

  andy , California voters rejected gay marriage a few times. Sure, I think California has a lot of social moderates, the moderate position isn’t necessarily pro-gay marriage.

• 141 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:39 pm

  djnichols, even if we have gay marriage in the end, I’m against the court ruling its mandated under the 14th amendment. The court would be going from protecting individuals to protecting types of relationships. There’s no good argument why polygamous marriage wouldn’t be protected. And the law would be used against churches and adoption agencies

• 142 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:49 pm

  That is the point redfish.

  The thin edge of the wedge.

  Gays must think its very unfair, but then again, so must Pedophiles, Animal Lovers, Exhibitionists, Nudists, and a whole host of other people that deviate from social norms.

  I mean why cant people just walk around Nude? Isnt that an abridgement of peoples rights?

  These anti Nude bigots need to loosen up a bit.

  You can continue with this charade forever….and trust me the Left will.

• 143 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  Speaking of hospital visitation rights.

  Lets talk about lover insurance coverage. Should insurers and companies be forced to provide coverage to an employees gay lover? If so, why cant another employee cover his friend that he/she isnt having sexual relations with?

  These things were built around the family for a reason….and that reason isnt to exclude queers, but to promote strong families which provide the foundation of civilization, via the socialization of children.

  Breaking down this barrier is simply an attack on the foundation of Western Civlization, another nail in the coffin….on the way to creating a new consciousness….a utopian vision of Marxist persuasion. What it will only do is destroy a civilization and others will mop up the leftovers and divide the leftover goodies among themselves.

• 144 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:55 pm

  In Europe this new mopping up civilization will be Islam….and the Gays and Lesbians should really enjoy that.

  Idiots.

• 145 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:56 pm

  Talk to Bruce Bawer.

• 146 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:32 pm

  Re: Escapevelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:35 pm (#141) –

  “barker voted for that hurt.”

  Smile when you say that, Escape!

  (*CHUCKLE*)

  Hey, Escape… you wouldn’t happen to be a “plant”… a “double agent”… would you?

  (*STILL CHUCKLING*)

  I mean… with your #146 post… well… it just makes me wonder if perhaps your agenda is to discredit rather than laud conservatism.

  (*SHRUG*)

  Just wondering…

  BILL

• 147 djnichol66 // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:40 pm

  escapevelocity talks to (or reads) Bruce Bawer? But he’s … gay! Bawer asserts that Europe has kowtowed to the religious sensibilities of Muslims so much that they are in danger of losing those values that most people in Europe prize. There are movements in different countries that are labeled right-wing and are building steam that are a reaction to this. Their intent is to protect European values which include rights, protections, and privileges for gay men and lesbians.

• 148 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:52 pm

  Visit Harry’s Place djnichol.

  It isnt the Gay Vangaurd of the Left that is leading the charge against Islam. Bruce Bawer has joined the NEO CONS! In fact the Left is still pushing non-racism and multi-culturalism with regards to immigration policy…..they are either in severe denial or are actively persuing a nihilist anti Western policy designed to destroy the Imperialist Bourgousie Capitalist Europeans Culture….so that Utopian persuits wont be thwarted anymore. At best its social engineering and experimentation run amok.

  Harry’s Place is filled with Decent Leftists that are the minority in the UK and are spewed with the most vile vitriol from the majority of the Left…as anti Muslim bigots.

  Note the silence of Western Feminists with regards to Islam? The capitulation. Naomi Wolfe even wrote about how erotic and praiseworthy the Burqua was.

  Wake UP!

• 149 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:56 pm

  djnichol , I think he knows that. From the perspective of conservatives, kowtowing to Muslim sensibilities is a result of a moral relativism which they also feel is also being applied to marital and sexual relationships. Most European countries still don’t have gay marriage, btw. Who does? Spain, I think.

  I’m not sure anything is going to bring the end of Western civilization, though.

• 150 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:57 pm

  Look at the last European Parliment Elections….

  Look at the Gert Wilders Party in the Netherlands…

  These arent Gay Rights Feminists Leftwing parties that are growing….in opposition to Islamic Shariah and Culture.

  In fact even Gays like Bawer are flocking to these parties. Because the vast majority of the Left is so confuzzled, muddled, or guilt ridden, or steeped in their own historical fantasy land at best. They are wedded to moral and cultural equivilancy…radical egalitarianism. (of course the Western Redneck/Conservative culture is not welcome or equal, but to be subjugated to every other culture).

  The Western Left is going to find itself in a very very long winter in most of Europe.

• 151 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 8:01 pm

  I’m not sure anything is going to bring the end of Western civilization, though. — redfish

  Demographics….which all lead back to the 60s where the family has been steadily eroded, women are working instea of procreating and abortions to finish the job, and immigrants are brought in to fund the lavish welfare bennies as the population ages and dies out….with a replacement culture and peoples waiting in the wings.

  Its no coincidence that we have 45 million immigrants from Mexico and 45 million dead fetuses.

• 152 redfish // Aug 31, 2009 at 8:17 pm

  I’m not sure getting women to procreate should really be the point behind anything. The US has a pretty steady population growth. Europe doesn’t but thats slowly turning around. At any rate the population growth in third world countries isn’t necessarily something to emulate.

  Abortions in the US from what I understand have been declining, the culture on that is already changing without the help of laws. Some Mexican immigrants have been returning to Mexico during the recession. Hopefully we can pass some reforms to deal with immigration problems.

  If the US does pass gay marriage and it turns out there are problems, things can be changed.

  Everything will work itself out in the end. The policies we have should make sense as policies, not be designed to keep up with third world birth rates or anything like that.

• 153 » Conservatives Opposing Conservative Extremism Liberal Values // Aug 31, 2009 at 8:28 pm

  [...] Party, such as former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett. Today he responded to a question as to why he has become so anti-Republican: I think the party got seriously on the wrong track during the George W. Bush years, as I explained [...]

• 154 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:07 pm

  Till tommorrow.

  Ill leave you with this, indeed Europe is now bribing people to have babies…because the state needs a reason to exist…the alternative is immigration.

• 155 Republicans United. // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:44 pm

  [...] In a recent post, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett has correctly noted the sad position of the Republican party these days and gives a somewhat good reason for why he is “anti-Republican.” [...]

• 156 Bruce Bartlett’s latest cry for a hug « Blog de KingShamus // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:04 pm

  [...] by KingShamus on August 31, 2009 From a genius over at David Frum’s Noo Wanna-Be Majority Hawtness. When I talk to old timers from the [...]

• 157 Christopher Chantrill // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:17 pm

  I understand everyone’s frustration with the Republican Party. But when we write about the GOP being dominated by the Religious Right I think we are repeating liberal talking points.

  If the Religious Right is such a millstone around conservative necks, then why was Candidate Obama always talking about his “faith tradition” and making it sound as if he were a Bible-believing Christian rather than a liberal Ivy-League secularist.

  It’s true that Republicans have abandoned what we remember as Reaganism. In my judgment that happened after 1998 when the budget went into surplus. But what about the 2001 and 2003 tax rate cuts? It’s true that Bush did No Child Left Behind. It would have had school choice but for Ted Kennedy. Medicare Part D? Well, imagine if the Democrats had designed the Medicare drug entitlement.

  Of course, the economy may be going gangbusters in 2011-12. And Obama may win reelection. But meanwhile it looks like the Summer of ObamaCare is creating a whole new regiment of recruits for the Republican Party. People are realizing that Obama means to change their health care, and probably for the worse. You don’t have to be a Bible thumper to realize that that ain’t good.

• 158 rbottoms // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:27 am

  Gays must think its very unfair, but then again, so must Pedophiles, Animal Lovers, Exhibitionists, Nudists, and a whole host of other people that deviate from social norms.

  The old prayer, “Lord make my enemies ridiculous” still applies. You may think having segment of the Republican party that equates gays with people who have sex with animals won’t hurt the GOP in the long run but the 18 year old Democrats who’s choice of Obama was their first vote will likely see your perspective as indicative of a party that has gone off the deep end. Even the kids who vote Republican this time around will want to have little to do with such a vile and intolerant aspect of their party.

  With Hispanics driven away by GOP immigration rhetoric, blacks insulted by everything from watermelon jokes to whack jobs threatening the president just who do you expect to attract to this rowdy collection in the future?

  You’re demographically screwed but the performance over this summer gives every indication that far from moderating this insantity the GOP will be doubling down for even more secession/gay bashing/hang ‘em high/fire & brimstone bellicosity.

  I say, keep it up. It’s most entertaining.

• 159 My Kids Deserve Better » Blog Archive » My Kids Deserve Better // Sep 1, 2009 at 7:26 am

  [...] This is fronted (via Instapundit) because this is the problem: we have lists and lists of people who want some nebulous Little Red Hen to fix their pet problem with the GOP.  Fixing the problems themselves?  Not so much. [...]

• 160 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 8:06 am

  Re: Christopher-chantrill // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:17 pm (#160) –

  “But when we write about the GOP being dominated by the Religious Right I think we are repeating liberal talking points.”

  What…?! You mean you didn’t know that John Frigg’n McCain was a “secret bible thumper?”

  (*SNORT*)

  Chris… a lot of the folks here at NM aren’t exactly what you’d call… umm… “reality focused.”

  Hell… even Palin wasn’t noted for her “Christian fundamentalism.”

  (*SNICKER*)

  What many folks do is come up with the “answer” in their own heads prior to examining the question. Human nature to an extent; the sign of a mediocre intellect by and large. (Either that or a deliberate attempt at distortion and manipulation…)

  (*SHRUG*)

  “If the Religious Right is such a millstone around conservative necks, then why was Candidate Obama always talking about his “faith tradition” and making it sound as if he were a Bible-believing Christian rather than a liberal Ivy-League secularist.”

  It’s beyond that. Again, the historical memories of many of these folk are sorely lacking. I mean… LONG before we had “The Moral Majority” we had liberation theology.

  Remember…??? Remember that… er… “radical priest, came to get me released, we was all on the cover of Newsweek…”?

  (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)

  “It’s true that Republicans have abandoned what we remember as Reaganism.”

  Whoa there cowboy! You need to differentiate between REAL Reaganite conservatives and establishmentarian Republicans such as Pappy Bush (who started the deconstruction of the Reagan Revolution) and the fruits of power, the House and Senate RINOs of the post-Gingrich era.

  Yes… agreed… many LEADERS of the GOP abandoned Reaganism, but in reaction to this many folks like myself either left the GOP or stayed within it fighting FROM THE RIGHT.

  (*SHRUG*)

  “In my judgment that happened after 1998 when the budget went into surplus.”

  OK. So we ARE on the same wavelength. (Just don’t forget the “original sins” of Pappy Bush during his single term.)

  “But what about the 2001 and 2003 tax rate cuts?”

  2001 tax cut GOOD; 2003 tax cut probably BAD.

  (I say “probably” only because I’m always biased toward the SPENDING CUT side of the equation.)

  “It’s true that Bush did No Child Left Behind.”

  I supported NCLB, but I’m not so sure that cost/benefit wise we can look upon the program as a success.

  (Anyone have any fact based comments regarding that question… or rather the answer to the question???)

  “…school choice but for Ted Kennedy.”

  Yep! (*NOD*)

  “Medicare Part D? Well, imagine if the Democrats had designed the Medicare drug entitlement.”

  (*CHUCKLE*) Point well taken!

  The thing about Medicare Part D… the THEORY is sound. Basically, you don’t want to have to spend MORE on hospitalizations than would be the case if a successful drug treatment plan was followed at home.

  (*SHRUG*)

  (It’s like questioning whether to buy an umbrella rather than get your new suit ruined in a sudden rainstorm…)

  “Of course, the economy may be going gangbusters in 2011-12.”

  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

  (*FINALLY OUT OF BREATH*)

  Oh, Chris… you’re a funny guy!

  (*GRIN*)

  BILL

• 161 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 10:04 am

  What is wrong with beast lovers? You bigot!

  And the old if your against open borders, then you hate hispanics argument. Yawn.

• 162 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 10:13 am

  Maybe these disgruntled moderates could join the Democrat Party and along with the Blue Dog Social Cons drive the New Leftist Radicals out of control and leadership of the Democrat Party. They would be doing this country a far greater favor than attempting to drive Conservatives out of the Republican Party. You could move the Democrat Party back to the party of JFK and we could have actually have sane debates on policy in this country again.

  Every crime that you are blaming on Conservatives is being driven and has been created by teh New Left from the 60s and onward. The screaming the shouting, not willing to listen and debate, public unruliness shouting down Tom Tancredo and then stopping his polite reasoned political discourse by throwing a brick through the window.

  You New Majority folks have got the wrong folks in your crosshairs. Id hate to have you in my foxhole watching my back, as Id have to be more concerned with knives in my back from you than from incoming from the Left. Kindof like fighting the Cold War, while having to also fight the New Left domestically before every Cold War policy implementation…..which were made by the Scoop Jacksons and the Republicans.

• 163 Matthew Yglesias » Paulson and Bartlett on Republicans // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:27 am

  [...] to reality don’t speak more clearly and take more forceful action. Bruce Bartlett perhaps has the answer: I think the party got seriously on the wrong track during the George W. Bush years, as I explained [...]

• 164 GayPatriot » Whining about Being Left Out is Not a Solution to Revitalizing GOP // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:04 pm

  [...] off track during the George W. Bush years, repeats a lot of nonsense about the state of the party, suggesting he gets his news from left-wing blogs and a hostile media: I think the Republican Party is in the same boat the Democrats were in in the early eighties — [...]

• 165 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  Re: Escapevelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 10:13 am (#165) –

  “Maybe these disgruntled moderates could join the Democrat Party and along with the Blue Dog Social Cons drive the New Leftist Radicals out of control and leadership of the Democrat Party. They would be doing this country a far greater favor than attempting to drive Conservatives out of the Republican Party. You could move the Democrat Party back to the party of JFK and we could have actually have sane debates on policy in this country again.”

  THANK FRIGG’N GOD…!!! SOMEONE FINALLY GETS IT…!!!

  Escape. Being fairly new to New Majority, you probably have no idea how many times I’ve made this EXACT point.

  BILL

• 166 Contrarian_Libertarian // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  Christopher_Chantrill wrote: “I understand everyone’s frustration with the Republican Party. But when we write about the GOP being dominated by the Religious Right I think we are repeating liberal talking points.”

  **************************

  Well, OK — but just because something is a common (and ostensibly pejorative) refrain among liberals doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t some degree of truth to it.

  Obviously, whatever you want to call the voting bloc — social conservatives, the Religious Right, conservative Christians, values voters, etc. — they do carry a significant amount of influence within the Republican Party.

  And, despite the fact that I’m really not one of them, that’s perfectly fine with me. It’s not as if they’re a bunch of treasonous zealots…..they’re American citizens just like the rest of us, and they have just as much claim to a spot at the country’s table as anybody else.

  But just because they’re influential in the party hardly means that they “dominate” the party or otherwise assert some sort of Man-Behind-the-Curtain control. They have large numbers and, in a political system with democratic foundations, those numbers translate into influence over the direction of policy. That’s precisely how it’s supposed to work.

  What the Republican Party needs to be looking for are ways to keep the coalition on the same page. That doesn’t mean that everybody needs to become like me….or like Pat Robertson….or like John McCain….or like Mike Huckabee.

  It just means that we have to remember the common purposes we all share and rededicate ourselves to those principles. Those people who do not share those basic principles — even if they call themselves “Republicans” — should be given no say in the matter at all.

  It’s the principles themselves that matter. And, believe it or not, the same basic principles that can lead me to be a supporter of gay marriage can also lead me to fiscal conservatism and somebody else to oppose gay marriage. I strongly believe that — that common principles can be manifested by different people in different ways….even in ways that ultimately bring them to opposite conclusions and positions.

  The principles are limited government, a favor of the private sector (which includes all of us “citizens”) over the public sector, a dedication the values espoused in our founding documents, Constitutional literalism, etc.

  I wish that all Americans shared these principles. But they don’t. And some who are “Republicans”, sadly, do not. And while I’m still proud to call those people my fellow Americans, I think they’re harmful to the causes that the rest of us hold dear. As such, I’d rather they weren’t in the Republican fold — and I mean that sincerely.

  People are going to have ask themselves how dedicated they are to the *principles* of the Republican Party — not necessarily the particular *positions* of the party or of a majority within the party. I can handle dissension on this or that matter.

  But, as one great early Republican said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. And I think Honest Abe was exactly right about that. It doesn’t mean we all have to agree on every issue. But it does, I think, mean that we have to basically share the same common principles.

• 167 rbottoms // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:13 pm

  Maybe these disgruntled moderates could join the Democrat Party and along with the Blue Dog Social Cons drive the New Leftist Radicals out of control and leadership of the Democrat Party.

  I could see where kicking your butts the last two elections in a row ought to be an indicator that as Democrats we’re on the wrong track here. Thanks for the suggestions.

• 168 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:20 pm

  Re: Rbottoms // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:13 pm (#170) –

  (*GRIN*) (*CHUCKLE*)

  What you just don’t get, Rb, is that the GOP got its butt kicked by acting like… er… Democrats.

  (*SHRUG*)

  BILL

• 169 anniemargret // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:51 pm

  “If the Religious Right is such a millstone around conservative necks, then why was Candidate Obama always talking about his “faith tradition” and making it sound as if he were a Bible-believing Christian rather than a liberal Ivy-League secularis”

  How is God’s name can anyone know what is in the heart, mind and soul of another person? What do you know of what Obama believes and understands to be true for him? And what of it, anyway? I don’t take the Bible literally and still believe in a Divine Power inherent in human beings. Is this the litmus test now for presidents? To quote from the Bible?

  Frankly, I am tired of all the religious posturing presidential candidates are supposed to do now. Morality, ethics, upholding our Constitutional principles, and our adherence to the national good……these are what matters…not how many times a candidate God-talks.

  And there is a world of difference with the Religious Right and true Christians. A true Christian quietly goes about living the life that Christ taught, not trying to break down walls of separation of church and state. They don’t need the bully pulpit, nor do they need to take over the airwaves or threaten politicians to withdraw their votes.

  Given that I know some Religious Right evangelicals myself in my lifetime, I took it seriously when they said they were determined to make our government ‘a Christian one.’ If that doesn’t scare you, it should. And if they are the sizeable voice in the party, you’ve got a problem.

  God is not a partisan.

• 170 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 5:54 pm

  anniemargaret, you should hear FDR and JFK give speeches, you would be abhored by all their God talk.

  Your ignorance on the matter, and frankly anti religiousness, is sad. You are a product of the post 60s New Left education system reinforced by the Leftist dominated media. Ignorant and indoctrinated.

  Its a crying shame.

  Christianophobia is running wild!

• 171 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 5:58 pm

  And there is a world of difference with the Religious Right and true Christians. — anniemargaret

  Brilliant, can you sort out the true Muslims from the false Muslims for us next?

• 172 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 6:09 pm

  And if JFK and FDR dont drive you batty with the God talk, you will absolutely cringe at our Founding Fathers…

  It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible. – George Washington

• 173 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 6:09 pm

  And if JFK and FDR dont drive you batty with the God talk, you will absolutely cringe at our Founding Fathers…

  It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible. – George Washington

• 174 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  The Christian Right organized politically as a reaction to the New Left of the 60s. So if you disempower the New Left, then the Christian Right will calm down….as its the New Left that is driving their agenda and the more success they have the farther and farther they push. We are way past the sins of segregation and equality for women….yet there is never enough compromise that will please them.

• 175 anniemargret // Sep 1, 2009 at 10:26 pm

  escapevelocity: Yes. I agree. The “New Left of the 60s” did no good in many ways.

  First of all, I am a Christian, so kindly don’t preach to me. I am talking about Christians who want to ‘Christianize” the government of the US. There is a difference with Christians wanting to do good in this world and those who would tear down the principles upon which our country was founded. And if you cannot criticize that, then you are being disingenuous.

  And if our litmus test for choosing a President to see how ‘Christian’ he is, which “Christian” would you prefer? Baptist/Methodist/Episcopal/Roman Catholic? And do we omit Jews or other good people of high ethics and character because they are not Christian enough for some? Where does that end?

  Secondly, the ‘left’ right now has more morality in its veins than conservatives. It is very ‘Christian’ to help the poor, or the working poor of which this whole healthcare issue is being discussed. Just as you prefer to denigrate an entire segment of society as being all ‘leftists’ – so you too exhibit yourself as a rightist. Oh stop already with the ‘there is never enough compromise that will please them.’

  Healthcare reform to help the millions without? healthcare reform to lower the costs so that working families don’t go into bankruptcy? These are Christian values. And the ‘left’ is supporting them.

• 176 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:09 pm

  First of all your first sentence reads like this…..I am a Jew so I am entitled to slander Israeli Jews however I wish.

  This country was founded upon Christian values anniemargret. Namely Protestant Metaphysics.

  Thirdly are Christians now not allowed to participate in government bringing their ideology and worldview to the table? If not, who else is not allowed to bring their ideology and worldview to the table? And who is? And why are some not and others are?

  The Left is a snake pit full of Socialists, racists, Communists, sexists, ethnicists, and assorted crackpots and bigots.

  Did you know that Communism/Socialism is seen as a Christian Heresy? The attempt to replace God with Government and create Heaven on Earth. Its always ends in a Hell on Earth though. How many lessons in that do you need?

  Furthermore, I am not a “Rightest.” I am on the Classically Liberal Libertarian Enlightened Protestant Christian Left. Now the Marxist Left, I am a virulent enemy of.

  Im all about Health Care Reform. Too bad we are offered up such a crackpot half arsed reform that doesnt even tackle Tort Reform (because the Democrats wont touch the Trial Lawyers income generation), or what happened to negotiating prescription drug prices from Pharmaceutical Companies. Im all for portability, regulation of actuarial pools to even costs to consumers no matter where they are employed or are self employed. Im even for ditching Medicaid and Medicare and getting every body in the system and mandating coverage, and subsidizing the poor. In effect, I support the Massachusetts Plan that Romney passed up in Massachusetts. I also like the Swiss and German plans.

  What we got was another attempt by New Leftist Radicals to grab 1/5th of the US economy and put it under the control of the state.

  The Left isnt supporting Christian Values, they are supporting Socialist Values….and if you cant tell the difference, then that just shows you how dumbed down our society has become, as the education system is infested with Leftist Radicals.

  And I too think that the level of medical bankruptcies in this country is a crying shame, and should be eliminated.

  There is a difference between Christian Values and Socialist Agendas masquerading behind Christian Values. You should look into it sometime.

• 177 agentprovocateur // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:15 pm

  Escapevelocity, do you really think that your noxious view of homosexuality will win any converts to the Republican Party? Yes, telling people that their brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, parents, and friends who were born gay are somehow similar to pedophiles and people who have sex with animals will be a real winner for the GOP. And it is beyond laughable to talk about homosexuals leading to some kind of destruction of Western Civilization. You do realize that the Ancient Greeks (you know, the founders of Western Civilization) had a profoundly different view of homosexuality than you do? Of course, considering your unenlightened viewpoint, perhaps you don’t know that.

• 178 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:50 pm

  And what happened to the Greeks?

  What happened to the Romans?

  What is happening to Western Civilization now?

  Immigration, debauchery, multi cultualism, cultural exhaustian.

  Are you arguing that the nuclear family ensconced in marriage is not a foundation of Western Civilization? Is the single mother family model working out well for America?

  And why the bigoted dismissal of beast lovers? They are people too, and not hurting anybody, and the animals seem to enjoy it. Make love not war!

  Nobody is advocating intolerance of gays or lesbians, persecuting them, etc. There is a difference between people doing what they want in a free society in private, and demanding that the state, promote, sanction, and legitimize it. Why do these people need to have others approval of their sexual escapades? Ever asked yourself that?

  We can grant all the priveleges of marriage to gays, and that wont be enough obviously.

  Deviant sexual behavior should not be taught in schools.

  The homosexual agenda is not about gays, its about attacking Western Civilization…full stop.

• 179 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:57 pm

  Watch this video all 3 short parts. Also read Marcuse Eros and Civilization yourself. Ignorance is being used against you.

  Part 1: The History of Political Correctness

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyu-9-OhHog

• 180 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 12:00 am

  The new protected victim classes to champion….the slippery slope….laid bare. Open your eyes.

  Next on Senate agenda? ‘Pedophile Protection Act’

  ‘Hate crimes’ law definitions would protect 547 sex ‘philias’

  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=97115

• 181 millerdrinker241 // Sep 2, 2009 at 12:48 am

  I’m confused by people who consider McCain to be a “moderate,” and have been since the 2000 primary. It’s true that after that election he threw himself a pity party and tried to piss off the leadership with contrarian votes for a year or two. By 2008, though, McCain had moved well to the right, and his only two deviations from the party line were on immigration policy (supporting an approach less forgiving the one Reagan tried to implement) and on torture. Even on these two issues, he modified his position to placate the base, and showed himself unwilling to act on his supposed principles. I would have liked to have a genuinely moderate Republican to vote for, who did not believe that you can credibly promise both to cut taxes and eliminate the deficit, and who did not favor a keep-our-military-overseas-forever approach to foreign policy. McCain was no such candidate.

  Republicans could make their party more appealing and more consistent by again showing skepticism toward foreign interventions and nation-building. They tried to do this in the 90s, but had a hard time letting go of their Cold War instincts, and so they would still make idiotic noises to antagonize China, cavalierly propose war with this or that enemy of Israel, an so on. Conservatives during the Cold War could consistently oppose government expansion and at the same time support military spending and interventions, to oppose Communist expansion. Limited government seemed threatened by Communism, so a deviation from the true conservative position seemed warranted. This position grew into a reflexive hawkishness, however, which no longer makes sense in tandem with limited-government views. If you don’t trust the government to run public works projects or health insurance programs, why would you trust it to completely remake the state and reform society in a distant part of the world?? And also to spy on anybody whenever it wishes?? And also to pick up anyone it pleases and detain and torture them indefinitely?? How can you wish to reduce the deficit but also condemn any decrease in military spending?? If the Republicans would reverse this inconsistency, and return to a Robert Taft-like position on foreign policy, I would vote for them. I think many others would as well.

• 182 barker13 // Sep 2, 2009 at 7:13 am

  Re: Agentprovocateur // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:15 pm (#180) –

  Writing as a lesbian trapped in a man’s body…

  (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)

  Hey… anybody been watching “Rescue Me” this season? Some funny $hit dealing with the… er… interactions between gays and straights!

  Listen… putting aside for the moment the fact that I’m a happily married man… (*SMILE*)… theoretically speaking I figure the more gay guys, the more POTENTIAL action for me in the heterosexual arena.

  (*WINK*)

  And as for lesbians…

  HEY! As long as they’re good looking and let me watch…

  (*SMILING SHRUG*)

  * Escape. CHILL! Live and let live, brother!

  BILL

• 183 barker13 // Sep 2, 2009 at 7:25 am

  Re: Millerdrinker241 // Sep 2, 2009 at 12:48 am (#184) –

  “I’m confused…”

  You certainly are, MD!

  Jeez… MILLER…??? REALLY…???

  (*SIGH*)

  Jeez… if it was Pabst at least there’d be the whole retro thing…

  (*CHUCKLE*)

  “By 2008, though, McCain had moved well to the right…”

  OK. Getting serious…

  You just hit the nail on the head: “MOVED.” That pretty much says it all. McCain is and was full of $hit.

  (*SNORT*) “Straight talker” my ass. This is a guy who HATED the religious Right but the moment he thought he could us them for his own electoral purposes…

  (*SIGH*)

  “…he modified his position…”

  (*ROLLING MY EYES*)

  Yep. You’re buttressing my point.

  Yes. Sure. Granted. People – including myself – tend to change their views, at least slightly, at least on certain issues, over time. But I’m referring to SINCERE change of view/attitude. McCain…

  (*SMIRK*)

  Listen. Just quick and dirty – no intention of belaboring the following points:

  From MY perspective –

  McCain is DUMB. I’m talking not too bright. (*WINK*)
  McCain is more often than not ineffectual. (Compare his rhetoric against pork to Tom Coburn’s SUCCESSES against pork.) (*SHRUG*)
  McCain neither understands nor CARES about the Constitution.
  McCain is a knee-jerk militarist.
  McCain is petty and vindictive – a guy who yes… would stab you in the FRONT… but would also have his minions stab you in the back. (See Sarah Palin.)

  Anyway… I’m not looking for debate on this; couldn’t care less if everyone or anyone agrees or disagrees.

  My only point is to give you a perspective on “why” so many people dislike John McCain.

  BILL

• 184 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 10:19 am

  This position grew into a reflexive hawkishness, however, which no longer makes sense in tandem with limited-government views — mikedrinker

  The deal is that was the pre Bush line going in to office. He sought to reduce US intervention and meddling in world affairs….and filled his administration with like minded people. Then 9/11 happened. Please awaken from your dreamworld mike. We need thinking Americans to vote in this country.

  Now I do have fantasies about going nuclear on this Anti American world, and pulling all our forces back to the US borders and minding our own business, and watch the world crumble before us, into conflict and probably World War, however, responsibility isnt just a word, and its in our best interests not to do that as well….at least from my point of view.

• 185 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 10:37 am

  I have a post coming up, with how the Health Care Reform could have gone in this country, but because we have New Left Radicals in Charge of Congress and the White House….how it actually went, showing the sheer insanity that policy “debate” has become in this country because New Left Radicals have taken over one of the parties in a 2 party system.

• 186 agentprovocateur // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:03 am

  re: barker13 // Sep 2, 2009 at 7:13 am

  A non sequitur from a barking dog. Perhaps you should ask your wife for permission to go play in traffic. Perhaps you could chase a car or something. As for that POTENTIAL action…judging by the ugly mug displayed on your blog (I guess the only reason you are married is because your wife is blind or took pity on you or both), the only action you would ever get would first require the approval code on your MasterCard.

  As for you, escapevelocity, demographic trends don’t favor the positions you hold, so perhaps you will still be around to see the “downfall” of Western Civilization. Enjoy!

• 187 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:26 am

  Yes, at least you readily admit that you are cheering the downfall of Western Civilization and Culture. Bring on the mass immigration heh?

  What I see happening is a massive backlash against the New Left Zeitgeist, especially in Europe. Enjoy!

• 188 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 12:02 pm

  So lets go over what could have and what did happen with Health Care Reform.

  What could have happened?

  D-We need health care reform, the cost is out of control, medical bankruptcy levels are unconcionable, and too many people are not covered and end up costing more for the care they eventually recieve.

  R-Yes, but what do you propose.

  D-Lets study systems around the world and see what works well, and also dovetails with our national values and character, as well as is workable from the standpoint of relatively easy migration form our current system. We’ll forma bipartisan committe to work on it.

  R-Sounds like a reasonable plan of action.

  Committee- The Canadian and UK systems have their good points, however as a system they seem not to be what we are looking for with their gatekeepers, single payers, and long weight times. The French also have a nice system, but it would require drastic changes from what we have now…so I dont think that is for us. Swiss system, not to shabby, we could probably work that here….and they recently moved to it from a system similar to ours….so we have a successful blueprint to work from. Lets mark that one down for further pursuit. This German System looks pretty inviting as well, keeping the private insurance market intact while reducing costs and creating co-opts to foster competition. Not too bad. We could work that here relatively easily as well. Mark that one down.

  We should probably look at the state systems in Oregon and Massachusetts as well. Oregon seems to be having the same trouble as Canada and the UK with long wait times. This Massachusetts Plan looks very promising, but its just getting underway so data on results is limited. However its kind of like the German Plan…..so lets use that one as well as a guide and blueprint to fashion our plan. It keeps to the principles of private enterprise and market mechanisms as well, which is quintessentially American, while also regulating that market better and insuring more people.

  Alright we have a plan, a combo Swiss/German/Massachussetts plan, with Tort Reform added in. We had a policy squabble about Federalism with regards to creating a national regulatory regime and market and thus superceding the 50 states Insurance regulators, however it was agreed by most that the cost savings from reduced red tape and paperwork, as well as increased competition it would foster was beneficial. We will use Co-opts like the Germans to keep costs down and keep the Insurance Corporations honest. We have portability, no denial for pre-existing conditions, and a mandatory participation, with subsidies for the poor. We are getting everyone into the same well regulated private system, and doing away with Medicare and Medicaid.

  Great job, lets put it up for vote.

  What we got?

  Hey, lets use Health Care Reform as a cover for increasing the size and power of the state. We can co-opt 20 percent of the US economy and centrally state command it, furthermore it would give us great power to control people via the health care system, micromanage their lives. But lets face it, most people arent down with that. What we need is to use subterfuge to achieve our goals. Instead of proposing a Single Payer Candian style plan, we should create this elaborate show, and underneath it, insert a “Public Option” and act like it wont result in a government monopoly system down the road, as no insurance company can compete with a Government Taxpayer Subsidized plan. Yeah, great idea. (Unfortunately, this logic was professed in numerous public venues and on the public record).

  Offers Public Option subterfuge Government Takeover of the Health Care Industry as Health Care Reform. People called them on it. They denied it. Then tapes of previous think tanks and conferences exposing the ploy come out. The American people are outraged and show up at town halls. The Democrat Leadership calls the American People Nazi’s for daring to voice their displeasure to the Politburo (and Nazi’s would actually be in favor of Nationalized State Run Health Care). Obama bumbles around, telling people to shut up and get out of the way with one side of his mouth, while professing bipartisanship out of the other. The Speaker of the House calls the American People Astroturf to be ignored, then sends out the Left’s professional Astroturfers and Union Thugs to outyell the American People and silence them, the Union Thugs start physically assaulting Americans participating in the democratic process and using their First Admendment Rights, then Americans start showing up with firearms to protect their rights to participate in government and speech from violent Leftwing thugs, enforcing the Politburo’s agenda. The media calls the the American people racists for opposing the One and violent whackos for bringing firearms to protect themselves from Union Thuggery. Blue Dogs say they cant support the Public Option, the New Left that dominates the party says, public option or nothing. Tort reform is never mentioned to reduce costs, as they are the number one contributors to the Democrat Party.

  And there you have it.

  Wouldnt it be nice if the New Left was disempowered from control of the Democrat Party?

• 189 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 12:07 pm

  This of course sidesteps the issue of Illegal Immigrants which impact the Health Care situation….but I ommitted that to keep things a bit shorter.

  The fact of the matter, is that the Democrats Health Care Reform, wasnt about Health Care Reform, so much as it was about advancing a Socialist Agenda through subterfuge and failing that through strongarm violent tactics all the while racialist demagoging….and making important policy discussions in this country a complete circus of ridiculousness and bile.

  Please, moderates, join the Democrat Party and disempower these yahoos! Western Civilization needs you!

• 190 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  “Of course, the economy may be going gangbusters in 2011-12.”

  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

  ———

  I have to agree with Bill’s assessment. Cap & Trade anyone? Artificial Energy Scarcity as an engine for growth?

  And that is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg!

• 191 Nikki // Sep 2, 2009 at 1:52 pm

  I think half the problem are all the lawyers elected to office! Reagan actually had a degree in economics – imagine that? Imagine electing senators and congressmen/women who actually have degrees in economics and have actually had experience running businesses rather then a bunch of lawyers who have never had to balance a checking account let alone run a business.

  I haven’t left the republican party, the republican party has left me!

  Until I start seeing republicans running for office who understand we are a REPUBLIC and NOT A DEMOCRACY, I will not support republicans again!

• 192 agentprovocateur // Sep 2, 2009 at 4:37 pm

  “Yes, at least you readily admit that you are cheering the downfall of Western Civilization and Culture.”

  You’ve found me out! I’m part of a secret organization, led by Fu Manchu and Ra’s al Ghul, determined to rule the world. Don’t tell Janet Napolitano.

• 193 barker13 // Sep 2, 2009 at 4:52 pm

  Re: Agentprovocateur // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:03 am (#189) –

  “A non sequitur from a barking dog.”

  MOI…???

  (*SNORT*) (*LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY*)

  Hmm… what’s next… “running dog imperialist lacky…?

  (*CHUCKLE*)

  “Perhaps you should ask your wife for permission to go play in traffic. Perhaps you could chase a car or something.”

  (*MORE LAUGHTER*)

  “…judging by the ugly mug displayed on your blog (I guess the only reason you are married is because your wife is blind or took pity on you or both), the only action you would ever get would first require the approval code on your MasterCard.”

  OUCH!

  (*CHUCKLE*)

  Re: Escapevelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 12:40 pm (193) –

  “I have to agree with Bill’s assessment.”

  (*BOWING WITH AN APPRECIATIVE SMILE*)

  Re: Nikki // Sep 2, 2009 at 1:52 pm (#194) –

  “I think half the problem are all the lawyers elected to office! ”

  Abso-frigg’n-lutely…!!!

  Reagan actually had a degree in economics – imagine that?

  (*THUMBS UP*)

  “Imagine electing senators and congressmen/women who actually have degrees in economics and have actually had experience running businesses rather then a bunch of lawyers who have never had to balance a checking account let alone run a business.”

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLw

  (*WINK*)

  “I haven’t left the republican party, the republican party has left me!”

  Amen! TRUTH!

  BILL

• 194 Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle // Sep 8, 2009 at 1:04 am

  The party’s adults formed the Democratic Leadership Council to push the party back to the center and it was very successful.

  This is just your opinion. Another way to look at it is that the DLC are just corporate whores. They supported the Iraq war. They support neo-liberal policies that have hollowed out this country. So I’d like for you to please cite where they were successful.

• 195 Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle // Sep 8, 2009 at 1:07 am

  escapevelocity:
  What deviant sexual behavior are you talking about? Do you mean people like Senator David “Diapers” Vitter? Last I checked, he was a Republican. What about Larry Craig? McCain’s other BFF(besides “Holy” Joe Lieberman)?

• 196 DOOMED TO DEFEAT AS LONG AS THE FOCUS REMAINS ON TACTICS OVER STRATEGY - The Public Interest : WTVC NewsChannel 9: Chattanooga News, Weather, Radar, Sports, Lottery // Sep 8, 2009 at 10:54 am

  [...] Bruce Bartlett: [...]

• 197 TOO MUCH TACTICS, NOT ENOUGH STRATEGY - The Public Interest : WTVC NewsChannel 9: Chattanooga News, Weather, Radar, Sports, Lottery // Sep 8, 2009 at 10:54 am

  [...] Bruce Bartlett: [...]

• 198 Did he come to bury or praise Suppy-Side Economics? « The Confluence // Oct 13, 2009 at 8:36 pm

  [...] pieces from the blog new majority.  The first is Tax Tea Party Fantasy from last spring and Why I Am Anti-Republican from late this summer.  It seems Old dogs do occasionally learn new [...]

• 199 Did he come to bury or praise Suppy-Side Economics? « Sky Dancing in a Man’s World // Oct 13, 2009 at 8:41 pm

  [...] pieces from the blog new majority. The first is Tax Tea Party Fantasy from last spring and Why I Am Anti-Republican from late this summer. It seems old dogs do occasionally learn new tricks. Possibly related posts: [...]

• 200 Oct. 22: DC Radio Hosts Economist Bruce Bartlett « Andrew Kreig’s Blog // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:26 am

  [...] On “Why I Am Anti-Republican” “I got an e-mail from a prominent Republican asking why I am so anti-Republican these days. Since many of my friends ask the same thing I thought I would share my reply: I think the party got seriously on the wrong track during the George W. Bush years, as I explained in my Impostor book. In my opinion, it no longer bears any resemblance to the party of Ronald Reagan. I still consider myself to be a Reaganite. But I don’t see any others anywhere in the GOP these days, which is why I consider myself to be an independent.” Details. [...]

You must log in to post a comment.