The American Spectator

jack| 11.6.08 @ 7:31AM

Obama and Dems won because of Republicans. When Reps controlled both houses of Congress they became just as corrupt and as incompetent as the Dems when they ran things. They would not cut spending. It also didnt help that G.Bush was not a conservative. Does everyone forget Compassionate Conservatism? That very statement tells you all you need to know about G.Bush. He was a big government guy,just like his Daddy,he believed and still does that government can do good things, and do them well. His lack of spending discipline helped destroy the Republican party along with moderate Republicans who always have their finger in the wind.
Bush also is the main reason the Dems have moved so far to the left. Bush spent so much money on government social programs and government in general he left the Dems no room. How do you outspend the greatest spender in human history?
Republicans not only need a strong conservative voice from a good communicator so they can win again, they need it so the Dems can move back towards the center or this country is finished.

bluecollarbytes| 11.6.08 @ 7:36AM

"Educated people cannot be moved by appealing to lower-middle-class resentments. They must be confronted in an intelligent way."- William Tucker

Puleeze....if they are so "intelligent", whassup with voting for a guy who floats just above intelligent confrontation of his proposed policies?
These folks have the same human inclinations as the rest- what's in it for ME? They're all ME-people. We've now produced consecutive generations of them, probably to the point of no return.

What Republicans need, short of some new awakening built on new blood, is a secret plan from the planet Zeldar.

dgdc| 11.6.08 @ 7:59AM

Tucker seems to be beginning to understand some of the shifts of the electorate, not completely but beginning to.
He does not get silicon valley and its buisness though. They're engineers , they weren't brainwashed in college because they were too busy studying equations. They don't fear organized labor because they don't treat they're employees like crap. They make a high value added product so they aren't looking for resource give aways and farm subsidies.
If republicans want techie support republicans need to have something to offer. This will not happen if anti-science creationists stay in control of the party.

Robbins Mitchell| 11.6.08 @ 8:02AM

I think John Randolph of Virginia may have anticipated Baroque Obozo nearly 2 centuries ago....
"He is so brillian,but so corrupt....he shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight."

malm| 11.6.08 @ 8:49AM

Finally a conservative who understands. Now make the next leap Mr. Tucker and move to a third party movement. Start the MAP, The Modern American Party, and watch a truly formidible and interesting movement based on political agnostic approach come forth and lead America to the status she must attain. But, you will not do this, and instead continue to live by your own free choice in a right wing prison, and the guards will be your cherished conservative principles as dictated by warden Limbaugh. You do understand that what we have here is a failure to communicate. A one way diatribe is not communication, but the prison boss of conservative minds insists this is the way to victory. Boss Hog Rush could not get Reagan elected dog catcher in the reddest county in the USA , if the gipper came back to earth in his prime. The best thing that could happen to conservatives is if the democratic party does impose the fairness doctrine. Then these motor mouths who in the public mind are the republican party in heart and mind would be truly challenged, Then their loyal listeners would wake up to the reality of politics and begin to change and grow. Any honest person must realize that this man is a troubled meglomaniac. Show mercy and put him out to pasture.

M. Tobias| 11.6.08 @ 8:54AM

I am sorry, but there can be no strategy for 2012. It is too far in the future and the world is just too unstable. Nor is there any positive short term strategy that is viable, except "wait and see what develops".

The world does not end at the borders of the United States. It begins there. G. W. Bush very probably would have been a one term President, like his father, if it weren't for 09/11/2001 and the WOT. And john Kerry probably would not have been his opponent.

Yes, the birds may be singing, the skies cloudless, the Dow at 12,000 and the Palestinians and Israelis may be holding hands and singing Kumbaya. But, probably not. So enjoy the fall weather, football, basketball and hockey and relax. Conservatives never go away, they just need someone to vote for. So find a true conservative and run him, or her, for office. There is all of the future strategy the Republican party needs.

Miles Hession| 11.6.08 @ 11:14AM

Sarah Palin is the part of the future of the Republican Party and your attitude toward her is what is wrong with the Party. Her ability to connect with people is akin to Ronald Reagan. People like you called him "stupid", remember?

Greylion| 11.6.08 @ 11:59AM

Tucker - you are a consumate ass and the principal reason that the republican party is going to die a messy death. Conservatisim, on the other hand, will live on and rise again dispite your best efforts to repackage yesterdays republican garbage aka "sellout/bailout".

Heartlander| 11.6.08 @ 12:15PM

They aren't college-educated, they are college*indoctrinated* by the leftists like Ward Churchhill and William Ayers who control most faculties in this nation (including in Christian colleges). Colleges seldom engage in education in the liberal arts anymore. Gone are the days of careful research in primary source documents to learn about a time, or the meaning of a work of art. Instead, students are indoctrinated with factoids they have to memorize and regurgitate on command, and are never taught the basic rules of logic such as the law of non-contradiction, the requirements for evidence, or that an effect can never exceed the sum of its causes. They have been indoctrinated to be left-wing, and have been denied a genuine education. We can try to form little reading groups to teach them how to educate themselves, but the government will call that hate speech and try to shut it down via thoughtcrime laws and zoning ordinances. But we ought at least to try.

As _The Story of English_ showed years ago, we aren't dropping 'g's, we just never got around to adding on that element of south-eastern English dialect to our accent derived from the West Midlands, Wessex and Yorkshire (and Scandinavia and the Germanies)

Spartuchis| 11.6.08 @ 12:22PM

Republicanism is not the same as conservatism. This confusion has led to the Republican party being neurotically confused about what exactly it stands for. Perhaps it's time for social conservatives to found their own damn party and leave the Republicans to the fiscal conservatives--one of these factions has to go. The fact of the matter is that demography is destiny and the cities are getting bigger and the rural areas are getting smaller and unless the arguments for voting Republican are tweaked accordingly, you can forget about any sucesss. No urban liberal will ever vote our way if he has to share the stage with percieved fringe nutters for whom abortion, homosexuality and religiuos fundamentalism are the main thing (I'm okay with all three, BTW--I'm a fiscal conservative first and a Republican second).

ReasonedTexan| 11.6.08 @ 12:53PM

You don't get it. None of you do. The Republican Party and both forms ofConsrvatism are dying. Why? Because they are based on fundamentally flawed world views. Social Conservatives see America as a Christian nation who should be controlled by a Christian government that is big enough to make sure everyone is living according their interpretations of Biblical law. But America is not, and never has been a Christian nation. (Hence the seperation of Church and state in the Constitution.)
The Economic Conservatives are just plain naive as is evindenced by Greenpan's testiomony about the melt. He didn't see the flaw. What is the flaw? That the "free market" is run and fueled by greed.
And that there is no trickle down effect. Cut taxes on the rich and they save more money. Raise taxes on them and they invest more to make more. Hence the fact that the economy and the stock market and the middle class and the rich all do better under Democratic presidents.
This election proved Barnums maxim: You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time (ie die hard Republicans) but you cant fool all of the people all of the time.
As for Palin, she is a redneck bimbo moron and the Dems should only pray that she run again in 2012. Maybe by then she'll know how South Africa can be a seperate country than Africa.
Peace out.

jm| 11.6.08 @ 1:00PM

A good presidential candidate, such as Sarah Palin, does not have to be "all things to all adherents" as Mr. Tucker implies. The candidate, as Reagan and Clinton proved, succeeds by becoming the most articulate, engaging carrier of the message. Let's avoid snobbery of all varieties in the new movement.

Eric Kimberling| 11.6.08 @ 2:03PM

Reasoned Texan, you make some very interesting points about social conservatism dying, but I disagree with you on the fiscal side. Economists have proven time and again that if you cut taxes on the rich, they invest more domestically and less overseas, thus stimulating the economy. The free market is proven, but we've also just proven that it can't go 100% unchecked. So we can't conclude that the free market has failed us and hit the reset button; instead we need to make sure we have better oversight of that free market.

cd| 11.6.08 @ 2:12PM

Obama manipulated his way to victory by way of every conceivable dishonorable tactic available,
none of which I suppose will ever be investigated, as decency and honesty are the antithesis of this thug and his cronies.
A complicit main stream media at his disposal fawning at his every word was worth far more than his illegal, untraceable campaign donations.
Despicable.

elle| 11.6.08 @ 2:47PM

ReasonedTexan -
Kindly shed your obviously superior intelligent brilliance on this poor little conservative christian girl by explaining where the words "separation," "church," and "state" appear in the First Amendment - or anywhere else in the U.S. Constitution for that matter. And no fair cheating by quoting me the Soviet Constitution!

Ima Mac| 11.6.08 @ 2:49PM

The future of the Republican Party lies with college students and recents grads. But with the current state of the GOP, why would any young person vote Republican? The GOP needs to update its image. It ought to produce a series of ads (/ YouTube vids) along the lines of the 'I'm a Mac / I'm a PC' TV commercials. The 'PC' Democrat should be a nanny-state loving, tax-loving, politically correct social studies professor. The 'Mac' Republican should be an Hispanic venture capitalist.

Badger| 11.6.08 @ 3:46PM

reasoned texan -
the doctrine of "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. It is from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a congregation of Anabaptists in the state of Connecticut in a time when Congregationalists were considering establishing themselves as the official state church. It was intended as a one-way wall... to prevent the state from coercing its citizens regarding membership in a particular church. Not for the state to block the free public expression and exercise of religion.

As for taxing the rich, when they're taxed more, they don't invest in our economy, they hide their wealth offshore. When corporations are taxed, they simply pass on those taxes to the consumer. Lower tax rates mean more transactions, which equates to more economic growth, which equates to more government revenue. Get your facts straight, both social and economic, before you dump your liberal elitist trash on those who see it for what it is.

Edwin Lutz| 11.6.08 @ 4:18PM

What the Left has proven in this election is nothing new. It is simply emotion over reason. The current "crisis" needs to be solved and the Left, which has long since realized collectivism fails, will lead the herd of panicked Americans anywhere they can. The Left is no longer looking for an answer to problems or a political system, they have none. The Left simply would like people to remain in a sense of fear over injustice, insecurity, and regret. The Left will express the fear and panic as anger toward the traditions and norms of America which hold it stable.

The danger as we have seen throughout history is the herd can become desperate at times and will grasp at a single hero, a person to end the anxiety at all costs. Today the hero is Obama, at least until reality is thrust upon the relaxing masses who will have no relief. They will leave just as they came.

Our mistake as Republicans is that we have believed religion and the traditions of the country would combat the bankrupt 200+ year old philosophical assault of emotion over reason, material wealth is evil, love is the solution and the individual interests of you are subordinate to the collective. Further, when religion and tradition began to lose ground we engaged in crisis politics of our own. Fear of the government being central. We were wrong and for too long we have left a intellectual vacuum expand in our country.

What we need is a return to reason and a naked promotion of reason as the solution to our problems. We need to stop engaging in crisis politics, we cannot win but for the fleeting time the herd has come our direction. We need a philosophical revolution of reason, individualism and civilization.

Bill| 11.6.08 @ 5:14PM

What the conservative movement clearly needs is a leader that will articulate our principles. Listening to fools like David Brooks, Carl Rove, Bush and McCain has led us to defeat and as such their point of view deserves no credence in a serious discussion of conservatism.

the-gunslinger| 11.6.08 @ 5:46PM

Obama won because the Media anointed him. Period.

Jesus himself could not have beat him...because he would never have gotten his message past the Obamedia gatekeepers.

You can't win if nobody's hears you.

Spicy Joker| 11.6.08 @ 5:49PM

Forget 2012. Whoever Republicans nominate in 2012 will be to the Republicans what Howard Dean was to the Democrats. We have serious long-term problems.

First, we've alienated young people. Republicans keep assuming young people won't show up to vote. They forget that young people get older. Young people might've voted for Obama because he's a celebrity in a celebrity-obsessed culture, because of the vibes he gives off, or because of some other illegitimate reason to vote for a candidate. But those are still their reasons. I can't tell you how many Obama voters I know who don't agree with - or understand - half of what Obama believes. They just know he's "cool" and that supporting Obama is the "cool" thing to do - everybody's doing it.

Second, we've alienated the growing number of people who have college degrees. Yes, some of them are brainwashed, but many of them are just turned off by the apparent ignorance and anti-intellectual posture of people like Bush and Palin. I'm not saying we need to nominate a fussy pseudo-intellectual. I'm saying we need to stop nominating people who come across as ignorant buffoons. I don't think anyone here would dispute that someone who sounds more like Michael Medved or Larry Elder would have far greater appeal to middle-class and upper-class voters than Bush and Palin do. Yet Medved or Elder are conservative - and far more conservative - than Bush or Palin.

the-gunslinger| 11.6.08 @ 5:51PM

fix typo: You can't win if nobody hears you.

federale86| 11.6.08 @ 5:57PM

Smart, don't think so. He had an opponent who would not use the best issues against him, a compliant press, and a Bush inspired panic over an economy not even in recession. Lucky, yes. Stupid opponent, yes. Compliant press, yes. Aside from the press, the next time won't be so easy. There won't be Bush to kick around anymore. The economy will be in a tailspin due to high taxes, cap and trade, regulations, and probably some terrorist attacks from his friends in the Muslim community. Next time someone will stuff Jerimiah Wright down his hopey changey throat.

ReasonedTexan| 11.6.08 @ 6:04PM

For those of you questioning the seperationg of church and state I give you the first amendment of the United States of America constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And I will say once again we are not a Chrsitian Nation. We are a nation of every religion and even the dreaded atheisists. We can not, we must not, be bound by hte doctrines of the Hate Mongers who have hijacked Christ's loving teachings and would do unto this GREAT LAND, the land I have fought and shed blood for, what the Taliban and Al Quaida would do to the Middle East and Muslim countries.
And yes, Badger and elle I speak of you.

dgdc| 11.6.08 @ 6:08PM

And important lessons from this election are already being forgotten. Most of the opposition is neither stupid nor corrupt. Do not underestimate them and don't recklessly alienate them.

Hannibal| 11.6.08 @ 6:11PM

Republicans need to (accurately) define ourselves as the rebels who are "questioning authority". Not only is that attractive to youth, it's true. The culture is in the grip of the multicultural, politically-correct prune-faced school-marms who want to control our every move and thought. Yet they convince the kids that they're the "cool" ones. Because we let them get away with it.

Please!

"Radical Republicans In Love With Freedom" are a lot cooler than stiff-necked, Liberal jackboots policing where we smoke.

George Bruce| 11.6.08 @ 6:29PM

dgdc | 11.6.08 @ 6:59AM

"He does not get silicon valley and its buisness though. They're engineers , they weren't brainwashed in college because they were too busy studying equations. They don't fear organized labor because they don't treat they're employees like crap. "

Umm, no, they don't fear labor unions because their high value products are made in places like China, where employees are treated like crap and trying to organize a shop might get you beaten to death. It is the poor smucks who still try to make things in America who fear the unions.

Edwin Lutz| 11.6.08 @ 7:28PM

Are you all kidding me? Pandering to the young, brand ourselves as "questioning authority" this is the problem! Try reason and good communication. Try asserting logical arguments for our leadership. Do you all remember the appeal of Perot? Why dont we try some cool hip graphs and numbers to prove our need for conservative principles. You see logic does not have to re-brand itself ever and it always appeals to the young and to the old. Stop the slogans! Stop the pandering! It only lasts until the next crisis.

Howard| 11.6.08 @ 8:21PM

Many good points. I have to wonder if there is a Republican gene that causes bumbling and stumbling communication. Except for Reagan (who was initially a Democrat), most of the recent GOP candidates are challenged when it comes to expressing a solid argument. Jerry Ford, Bush Sr, Bob Dole, Bush Jr. McCain. All were totally outmatched in debates. The only reason for some GOP wins is that the Democrats have an arrogance gene. Except for Slick Willie, all of there candidates were pompous and arrogant. We need ideas and people who can sell the ideas.

Quartermaster| 11.6.08 @ 8:31PM

I don't think Tucker understands just how much the field will be tilted in 2012. This is 1933 and Hitler has been told by von Hindenburg to form a government. Hitler then took the levers and fixed things so no one would be able to removed him from office.
While the analogy is not 1 to 1, the Dems have the ruthlessness of the Nazis and will do whatever it takes to solidify marxism. hijacking the census will probably be one of the most effective tactics they can, and will, use. They can't amend the constitution to abolish the electoral collge, so they will simply hijack it.
The Rs better realize they are in a fight for their lives, and that of the country. Frankly, I don't think they have the guts for it. Lincoln may have been an evil man, but he saw what needed to be done to refound the country and did it. Over the last 8 years the RNC and other anointed R leaders have shown they can't think, don't want to think, or are plain brain damaged. How else to explain not reforming the primary system after Dole was crushed in '96, Bush's squeekers and now McCain's crushing loss. All three were the "it's my turn" candidates and the party morons were more than happy to obilge.
To succeed you will have to convert the Rep party into a conservative party. IT has never been a conservative party, and even a cursory look at the sainted Reagan's administration, the closest we've gotten in the last 100 years, show's he wasn't a conservative either. He wouldn't deal with Congress the only way they understood, and neither Bush did it either. As a result you have a nearly tapped out FedGov and a loco left congress more than happy to assign the blame. How can you argue whrn the Presidents above wouldn't vetoe the Congress's utter insanity. Since they refused, you can't absolve them.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I don't think the Conservatives in the Republican party have the moxie to purge the party and rebuild it. After all, "where else will they go?" Let them call for volunteers and get none. Quit writing checks. Most of all, don't vote for them, if that's all they give us.

DJ| 11.6.08 @ 9:20PM

The republicans lost western states like neveda because they've virtually abandoned the libertarian wing of the party. When libertarian leaning people saw the way you guys treated Ron Paul and his supporters (real christian like by the way...) they tuned out.

Young people completly new to politics were very excited about Ron's candidacy and the republican party by extension. They were thirsty to become involved and be a part of the debate and not to mention generous donors. The social/neo cons slammed the door in their face and tried to pass off Huckleberry hound and Mitt Romney as a real conservatives.

Check out Ron's book, you all will find you agree with alot more than you thought you did.

If you don't have time for that pick up a copy of 1984 because that's where we're headed now thanks to Bush and Obama.

g. gerlach| 11.6.08 @ 10:21PM

It's not just "smart" It's money, tons of it and free adds via the media in damn near every T.V. show made. If not for the left media who would not vet this guy at all, he would have lost to any republican but especially a "Conservative Republican".

We need to change the media or add to it or just plain take it over. We have to show what the real difference is between the left and conservatives, stop using candidates trying to be likable to liberals. We need to stop from the phony campaigning from the "center". That's what they do! Then they make a hard left after the election is over. We need to be who we are, Conservatives! It wins every time it's tried. The media is the key and we need to find a better way around it, or through it.
So many who voted for O, just don't ever see who we are. All they know of republican conservatives is what the liberal media tells them about us, not what we really believe. They think we are all racist, bigoted, homophobes, the party of hate, and war mongers. We know the truth but we must find a better way to show that to the masses.

Paul| 11.6.08 @ 10:59PM

I am an independent voter who lives in the suburbs. Feel free to discredit my opinion (because I am not a "real" conservative or a "real" American). But do so at your own risk. I am exactly the kind of voter you should be courting. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can win on the strength of their base alone. That's an especially big problem for Republicans, whose base is shrinking (through both demographics and the rejection of the sort of "disloyal" party members who dared to question the readiness of Sarah Palin).

I voted for Obama. Before that I voted for Bush.

I am not in love with the Democratic party by any means, but it did less to drive me away than your party.

Ten years ago, when I thought about "Republicans" I thought about small government, low taxes, liberty (in economic matters), personal responsibility, an emphasis on merit, pro-life, and a strong defense. All attractive ideas.

Now when I think about "Republicans" I think about anti-intellectualism, a paranoid obsession with "elitism" (who cares?!?), The Christian God, anti-gay, fear of diversity, expensive pre-emptive wars, run away spending, and huge deficits. Not attractive ideas. But it seems like the "leaders" of you party want to go even farther in this direction. Good luck.

The way to win back the middle (and younger voters), I think, would be (1) to become more libertarian, (2) to become less interventionist (millitarily), (3) to actually emphasize smaller government and less spending (in reality), (4) continue lowering taxes, but not at the expense of future generations (transferring wealth from the future to the present is no better than the so-called "socialism" you oppose), and, as much as it may hurt, (5) you need to become less the party of the white Christians.

There's nothing wrong with whites or Christians, but they aren't enough, on their own, to win an election. But the current Republican party gives off an extremely hostile impression to non-Christians and people of color. That's not very hip. And its not very American. We are a country of immigrants and a country of diverse religious beliefs. A little more tolerance would go a long way toward expanding the reach of your party.

Just my two cents.

neoliberal| 11.6.08 @ 11:29PM

Click on www.maser-media.org
and Email me on your thoughts. Trying to push for a National "Conservative" party (NY has one) and leave repubs out!

M. Tobias| 11.7.08 @ 12:48AM

I see a lot of fear of Conservatives among some of the correspondents to this blog. There is no reason to Conservatives. As a group, they are a pretty tolerant lot.

There is no organized Conservative movement, in America. Conservatives are a very loosely knit group of people who just happen to hold the same opinions concerning personal freedom, the uniform application of the law, frugality, personal responsibility and service to society. The central tenant of their political beliefs is that government should be very limited in both its size and the scope of its power. Socially, their world is not based upon the idea of the State as Patron, but of the individual as being responsible for his own support, with the family and then the community as a safety net. They have a freeman mentality as opposed to the slave mentality of many non-conservative citizens.

What this means is simply that Conservatives have no real desire to rule anyone, other than themselves. In fact, most would be quite content to simply be left alone by the Government, the liberal do-gooders and other busybodies. So there is very little chance that Conservatives will control the Republican Party. What they will do, is attempt to convince the Party leadership and its politicians, of a simple truth. When Republicans run on conservative principles, they get elected. When they govern in accordance with those principles, they get re-elected. When they become indistinguishable from moderate and liberal Democrats, they lose. Because Conservatives stop voting for them and Democrat voters have more than enough Democrat politicians of their own to vote for without having to vote for RINOs. The Republican congressman has just become an endangered species in the Northeastern United States for that very reason.

As to religion, many of the original European settlers came to this country to escape religious persecution. That tenant was carried over into the 1st Amendment, specifically to safeguard the people from forced conversion or religious outlawry. And most Conservatives embrace the concept of religious freedom.

Now, most liberal groups and movements, in America, are just the opposite. they exist to force the rest of society to universally comply with restrictions on behavior. Most often restrictions on trivial behavior that reaches into the most private areas of a person's life to regulate behavior that has little or no effect upon others. So which is more appealing to you; the person who passes a law that makes it illegal for you to smoke a cigarette in your own home after eating a high trans fat burger that you had to smuggle in from a McDonalds in another county, or the guy that only complains because you threw your burger wrapper on his lawn?

Anne| 11.7.08 @ 1:58AM

Reasoned Texan: your quote about fools was not from Barnum, but was a somewhat messed up quote from Lincoln. What Barnum said was that there was a sucker born every minute. Of which you seem to be a prime example, if you bought into Obama's promises. As for religion, Congress indeed may not establish a national religion, but the free exercise clause clearly contemplates that Americans are a religious people, and therefore Congress could also not pass any law prohibiting people from practicing their religion, whatever that may be. If you do not subscribe to Christianity, that is fine; but it does not bar any American from believing that our society ought to reflect Christian values and vote accordingly. So, quote for quote: GK Chesterton "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing--they believe in anything." I believe that is an accurate reflection of the current state of America: willing to believe in ridiculous, pie-in-the-sky promises from Obama about how the government will do everything for them including wiping their sniveling noses, rather than accepting some responsibility for their own welfare. And your understanding of economics is atrocious, especially since our income tax system does not tax wealth, but taxes income based upon taxable transactions. Plenty of wealthy people pay very little tax; besides, there is no direct correlation between higher tax rates and higher tax revenues.
As for the GOP: until it decides to stand for something, it has no hope--at least not from this life-long Republican. At a minimum: grow a spine; hold the line on government spending; protect our borders while supporting legal immigration of immigrants willing to actually work instead of freeload; self-reliance and individual responsibility; and, as a bonus, repeal roughly half of all federal legislation and give us back our liberty.

Paul| 11.7.08 @ 9:56AM

M. Tobias,

What you say sounds great. And I wish it were the message of the Republican party. But it's not.

I think conservatives may have a difficult time seeing just how bad the Republican image looks these days.

If everybody is so into taking care of their own personal business, then why do we see Republicans making fun of Georgetown cocktail parties and NY cosmopolitans? Why do we see so many Republicans insisting that this is a "Christian" nation (as if other religious views are worthy of less consideration)? Why the anti-gay stance? Why the apparent anti-science mindset? Why the fear of the middle name 'Hussein'?

To me, Republicans seem to be transforming into an ever-shrinking club of fearful Southern white evangelicals.

If you want to win elections you either need to make this country more white-white evangelical, or make your party more diverse. Stop making fun of "elites." Start embracing true personal freedom and responsibility.

Peter Balsam| 11.7.08 @ 11:14AM

Did he win because he is smart or because he is a product of the powerful Chicago political machine coupled with the gutless republicans who are just as crooked as the democrats but not as smart.

John C| 11.7.08 @ 11:34AM

I take issue with Mr. Tucker's characterization of the California energy crisis. The crisis literally ended the day after the Democrats took over the Senate when Senator Jeffords left the Republican party and the Democrats promised more oversight of the energy markets. The California energy crisis was caused by greedy Enron traders who used various methods to limit energy supplies and increase their profits on short term electricity contracts, not by an actual lack of electricity supplies or anything to do with renewable electricity supplies (which played a very small and insignificant role in California's electricity supply at that time).

Time to look forward on renewable energy and not be mired in past prejudices. Utility-scale batteries, flywheel technologies, and other innovative electricity storage mediums are being developed that will someday, probably sooner than most realize, allow for renewable energy to be stored in quantities sufficient for utility uses, so it can be used by the consuming public as needed. Barack Obama realized this, and wants to invest federal money into developing this renewable energy storage and distribution network.

As for 2012, if the Republicans can't win all the southern states as a block, they probably have no chance of winning elections any time soon. Lurching to the right won't work. American elections are won in the middle. Even Reagan was big government at times when it suited his purposes, like supporting the saving of Social Security and the Illegal Amensty Bill of 1986.

Andy R| 11.7.08 @ 11:56AM

True words here.
What's needed is more Lew Rockwell, less Lou Dobbs.

Edwin Lutz| 11.7.08 @ 1:29PM

Paul, the reason the right does not like the "elites" is because the momentum of the Left does not come from the slums and the suburbs but the universities and the rich who are in the establishment. The elite coyly repeat the mantra;
Feeling is superior to reason
Wealth is evil
Caring is the solution
Sacrifice individualism for the collective

Yea, socialism has failed in every instance to deliver its promises, but the Left re-packages it. After the 1950s it was obvious the Left philosophical tradition had failed, so the Left's intellectuals gave up on the philosophy and began to mindlessly wander, herding the American politic with hyped injustices, insecurities, social and class warfare and confusion. Left is all "now" politics and current "crisis" management. The elite lead, trying to cash in on the intellectual void left by the socialist-communist-theories. The leftist theories were the last intellectual philosophy. Where the Republicans falter is that we do not provide a paradigm, we let the intellectual vacuum exist.

Paul, I fear with what you have written about the Republicans is the manufactured controversies made by the elites in the Left who have had to tear down American culture because they cannot tap into any authentic source of popular discontent. The Left is terminal, left only to sudden invigoration, when a crisis and panic push the American politic to grasp for answers.

Why do we dislike the elite so much? They have set the rules in the universities and the media, only allowing us to play by crisis politics, we took the bait, and we win some we lose some. What we need to do is assert a new paradigm: reason and laissez-faire capitalism.
Paul, what you do not understand is we are not white, we are not Christian or anti-whatever because we are racists, homophobes or the like. We are the hold overs from the Aristotle age of American politics before fascists and socialists of the late1800s and early 1900s. It is in the American white Christian community where the kind of capitalism and reason our country was founded on, has always been and will be traditional. The philosophy is who we are and who are past generations have been.

Paul, don’t believe we want you white and Christian we want you capitalistic and rational. We really don’t care about the rest. Do not be duped because the elites have told you who we are. Don’t be afraid to question the left because the media as hailed them as the answer. Don’t be disappointed because we have not been able to communicate the pre-socialist tradition the country was founded on.
Republicans need to quit attempting to be cool, quit playing the left's crisis politics and pitch a new political philosophy. Americans are upset and have disenchantment with politics because we have not filled the vacuum.

Obama is nothing new; his success is measured by the intensity of the emotion drawn out of the masses. It is not a revolution, or climax of a philosophical change, but a temporary seizure of power by the minority (the Left over Left) who have struck a crisis chord, with a war, slowing economy and tiredness of the Republicans.
Paul we need you, but you need to be critical of the ideas you have of Republicans. We do not exclude minorities, gays or non-Christians, but our philosophical tradition has a lineage and it is white and Christian (after all our country was born from Christian Europeans). I defy you to find any main stream conservative/Republican who says what you believe we are. We are the party of reason; we just don’t know how to get it across in a time of sound bites and slogans. It takes time and thought to communicate.

Don’t misunderstand us because our idea of reason comes from a white Christian tradition or because our explanations do not fit in a slogan.

Paul| 11.7.08 @ 2:30PM

Edwin,

Let me clarify my comments. I am not accusing the Republicans of being racist homophobes. I am talking about the image of the Republican party among independents.

To me, based on things coming from Republican mouths, I would say the Republican party seems to be the more elitist party and the Democratic party seems to be the more open party.

What makes me think this are things like Rudi's farsical anti-cosmopolitan speech at the convention, the "real Virginia" comments, McCain's statement that Western Pennsylvania is the "most" God-fearing, patriotic region of the country, Sarah Palin's obsession with small town America, Elizabeth Dole's false ad about Kay Hagen's alleged Godlessness, and all of the varied attacks on Obama's identity (as opposed to his ideas).

For your information, this stuff does not play well in suburbia. It's not just me being under the hypnotic spell of the Left.

I am all for reason and laissez-faire capitalism, but that’s not how the Republican party is branding itself these days.

Paul| 11.7.08 @ 2:40PM

I left out one thing. More than anything else, the present image of the Republican party is that which has been created by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Not your fault, but that's how it is.

Those two characters did not live up to the sort of intellectual conservatism that you are championing here. Nor did Sarah Palin.

John C| 11.7.08 @ 2:51PM

Edwin,

"Sacrifice individualism for the collective"

Is that not what conservatives and John McCain advocate with their "Country First" mantra? Put the country (collective) first above the individual. Both the left and the right hold this view, but for different reasons.

Grand Old Elephant| 11.7.08 @ 4:52PM

I wrote a posting about the six core values of the Republican Party's Vision for the Future at
http://abeandron.com/blog/2008/11/06/the-soul-of-th…publican-party

ReasonedTexan| 11.7.08 @ 5:35PM

Anne,
Thank you for correcting my egregious quote faux pas, and yes, it was more of a mangled paraphrase of Lincoln. And then raising the bar with Chesterson. If I weren't married and our political philosophies so diametrically opposed I'd pledge my heart here and now.
My 'atrocious' lack understanding of all things economic aside, I can only state that it is a fact that the economy, wallstreet and the middle class all do better under the Democrats. I would love to be rid of taxes but the question is, then what? If someone could give me well reasoned and moral answer then I could be swayed. No one has though. However, you are absolutely right about our liberty. I believe it was Franklin, but if I am wrong please correct me, who said somthing like, those who would sacrafice liberty for security deserve neither. I would add that they get neither as well.

Paul,
You are right about eliticism.

Roy| 11.8.08 @ 4:59AM

It is not, in fact, the case that wall street etc do better under Democrats. The last period of undivided Democrat rule was only two years long - hard to tell what effect it would have had, but the first thing they did was try to socialize a huge chunk of the economy. Then, Republicans took over Congress and after that I hope nobody thinks that the President by himself controlled economic policy from then on.

Before that, you'd have to go back to the 70's - and the economy was 100x worse then than it is now. Or you could go back to another period of undivided peacetime Democrat rule - the 30's..hmm..this thesis isn't holding up all that well.

It's also worth noting that the Internet bubble was inflating throughout the 90's. It popped with one almighty pop in 2000-2001. Clinton and the Republicans both more or less escaped blame for that because it didn't line up quite so neatly with an election cycle, and the Treasury Secretary and Congressional leaders did not run around like chickens with their heads cut off prophesying doom. As well, Clinton cashed in the peace dividend from winning the cold war - even if his defense cuts were a good idea, they were something that can only be done once.

As far as the idea that the Republicans are run by "anti-science fanatics", argued repeatedly on this thread: balderdash.

As far as the original poster, he betrays exactly the problem with this whole approach. Call me wrong and you may be right. Call me dumb and..well..the fact of the matter is I am not. I was doing college level math in eighth grade. I say this only because people like the author seem to imagine calling their opponents stupid to be an argument. There are millions smarter than me - you the reader may well be one of them - but call me dumb, and basically you prove that you are dumb.

On the other hand I AM dumb - in the sense that I am smart enough to know that there are millions of areas of knowledge out there and no one person can specialize in them all. Argue with a specialist about his specialty and you'll get buried. However, I will not yield arbitrary power to boss me around to anybody who can bury me under a blizzard of irrelevant facts, couched in intellectual sounding cliches, about random topics - and you don't have to be a genius to realize that anybody who does has the soul of a slave, and only awaits the right master.

Mr. Tucker believes that only a lack of "intelligence" keeps his proposal from being taken seriously. Well, I'd say it's more than that. Right now, we spend $700 billion on oil according to him(though with the price of oil having dropped, shouldn't that number drop proportionally?) If nuclear power were currently cheaper than that, we would already be using it - so it isn't. So instead of voluntarily spending $700 billion on oil, he wants the government to force us to spend $1 trillion on his preferred form of energy. Whether this government coercion comes in the form of forcibly taking our money and handing it to nuclear power plant operators so they can compete, forcing us to purchase nuclear power at uncompetitive prices, or forcibly taking more money from us than the freely negotiated price when we buy oil - it comes to the same thing in the end: Mr Tucker knows better than us, and if we do not agree, the government should force us to get into line.

The justification that this would hurt regimes that don't like us - maybe, but it would hurt us too. If the government forced us to spend more on energy than we currently do, we would be hurt-possibly worse than we hurt them. Certainly I do not believe that this is anywhere near a seriously effective response to the problems posed by some of these regimes. An Iranian regime with 20% less oil revenue would still be a huge threat. It would take years - decades - to even reduce it that much.

I believe the real problem is that enviro regulation has long since passed the point of diminishing returns - this applies to coal and oil-fueled plants as well as nuclear. But this is heresy against the enviro-religion that is held with an extremely fanatical narrowmindedness among precisely that group of people who imagine themselves to be the champions of reason. Conundrum.

Like I said, I will not accept the label "stupid": But I am also a firm defender of the rights of those to whom it does apply to tell those who imagine themselves to be their betters to get lost. You don't have to be a genius to recognize government coercion, and reject it. I'm sure lots of the soldiers at Valley Forge had IQ's under 100.

Edwin Lutz| 11.8.08 @ 11:11AM

John,

Be real, there is a difference between choice among individuals to sacrifice for their/our country and merging self with the tribe/community/collective subordinating our individual choices to what the "we" wants. You fell into the easy trap, why the left seems appealing in simple terms.

Edwin Lutz| 11.8.08 @ 12:21PM

Paul,
The Republican Party does have trouble simply because it speaks in terms of branding as you have. All of those comments, except Dole's ad which was renounced widely, do "play" well in suburbia, in fact if the suburbs were the only voters we would have won. But burbs verse city is a strategic debate not what we are currently speaking of.

You have to explain to me how pandering (because that is what it is) to small town America, in part from Palin a small town American, is Elitist.

An Elitist is a person on the left, in the present case, who is a self-confessed irrationalist, who will not enter into a rational debate over ideology. The leftists from the "radical" movements in the mid 20th century have ideological control over the universities and the media. Despite their ideological philosophy being bankrupt, they keep up the momentum toward "the nanny state" (a dumbed down term for welfare stateism). Those in charge of the debate, in the universities and in the media, will not have it and will not allow anyone to tear it down. They leftist/elites control the discussion and will not allow access to the passive majority in this country. So, the left is elitist for the simple reason they refuse to end their lost social movement, they refuse to admit it and will not change. The leftist/elite bank on the lack of ideological opposition. So, an elitist in my estimation is a leftist like Obama, who uses intellectual acrobatics to remain in the ivory tower, to continue the lie, prevent debate and to crank out as many conformists as possible to keep the house of card from falling down (as it did in the USSR).

I can make it simple; if the Republicans are going to fight the Left, who are the rich and hold the Universities and the Media on feeling and fund-raising we will lose. This past election was on feeling and fund-raising and we lost, not a surprise. We lost because we were not heard, because we had nothing to say (did not appeal to reason

Paul| 11.8.08 @ 8:40PM

Your right. The new Republican party isn't really "elitist" in the traditional sense (richer, more educated, more powerful). It's more like preverse elitism (i.e., less intellectual, less trendy, and proud of it). My point should have been that the Republican party was the party that came across as less welcoming and more interested in painting itself as being made up of a "special" type of person (i.e., of the "real" American variety).

Paul| 11.8.08 @ 8:43PM

To combat the elitists on the left, the Republican party should foster some more elitists on the right, rather than coming out wholesale against intellectualism in general. You don't want to be the party of the dumb.

Edwin Lutz| 11.9.08 @ 9:13PM

Wow, Paul you really dont get it, rational thought is the only traditional Republican philosophy, going for hollow emotional control over the passive masses is just what we dont need more of, itis simply time to foster a philosophical change and leave the faild welfare state behind and re-shape America.
The test if you are a Republican should simply be, do you vote by reality and rational thought or do you vote on emotion, feeling and slogans.

Paul| 11.9.08 @ 10:45PM

Difference of opinion. Or is it difference of goals?

I thought we were talking about how the Republican party gets back into power. Right now, after getting trounced in the recent election, it looks to most objective observers that the Republican party does not get it.

I'm not a Republican. I'm an independent voter (who should be a Republican) trying to help explain to those of you in the Republican cocoon what you might want to do in order to win the next election. Mathematically, you are going to need to attract something more than your conservative base.

But if your goal is simply purity of ideas, with no concern for branding or reach, then so be it.

Josh F| 11.10.08 @ 12:15PM

Spot on. No sane person could see the McCain/Palin ticket as anything but laughable while they muddled incoherently about earmark spending and "government reform" during the last months of the campaign. Sarah Palin showed a breathtaking lack of knowledge at almost every turn. She was singularly incapable of delivering a coherent idea that didn't reduce to a trite slogan. Here's to a 2012 GOP ticket that can debate the issues of our day like a grown adult.

Roy| 11.11.08 @ 8:56PM

Heh, Paul, I have to thank you for the following:

" less intellectual, less trendy, and proud of it"

That really crystallized the issue for me. In what Bizarro world universe is "trendy" equated, or even in the same sentence with, "intellectual"? I'm not bashing Paul because that assumption is indeed in the cultural air..but WTH? "Trendy" means outsourcing your thinking to others.."trendsetters". It is something like the exact opposite of real, independent thought.

So I like the fact that Republicans are a welcoming place for those who show a sturdy independence from "trendiness".

Dan| 4.4.09 @ 10:48PM

I have to chuckle when I hear about the welfare state. Republicans take social security, medicare and medicaid payments far in excess of contributions to those systems and don't blink an eye. In fact, a spouse is legally entitled to social security at the highest rate of either spouse. That means that you marry someone who never contributed a dime to social security and they will be paid. The next time you Republicans whine about someone being on the dole, look at yourself in the mirror. Someone you know is on the dole, and it's either you or someone close to you. Bite that off and chew on it for awhile.