The American Spectator

Michael Tomlinson| 11.13.08 @ 7:21AM

While we should look back to the Reagan era (now dead with the election of radical leftist Barack Obama) for inspiration we need to start looking ahead and finally embracing the idea of governing once back in the saddle (cowboy lingo appropriate to Reagan and W) not merely occupying DC. The best way to do that is stop funding for Democrat special interest groups and staffing the bureaucracy with Republicans and conservatives who want the country to prosper and succeed.

Look for buyers remorse to sweep the states where ACORN stole elections (Nevada, Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, MN, etc.). Then we can gently and humbly say, "I told you so."

Also in resisting Obama's radical agenda when we're sure to lose a vote every Republican should state, "In the footsteps of President Obama I vote present and sit down." Let the Democrats carry their own water and don't ever give them cover or bi-partisanship on an issue that doesn't benefit a low tax, pro-defense and pro-family values agenda.

stu.b.con| 11.13.08 @ 7:47AM

It's always the same with these faux conservatives. Why do we always have to compromise (read acquiesce) our prinicples to the dimwitted, feel good, big government (read big brother) types who NEVER see the need to or show the desire for similar "compromise"? Didn't we just see 8 years of W "reaching across the aisle"? What did that do for his presidency? And John McCain...need I say more?
No, if we are to get out of the wilderness it's time to move back to Reagan, not run into the wilderness bleating like a bunch of sheep!

frost| 11.13.08 @ 7:54AM

In an age where the economy may be falling apart, much of which was caused by massive corruption in congress (with Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al.), the Illegal Aliens and virtually Open Borders; humungous spending, bail-outs and probable tax increases in a vast variety of areas. Then, what some have called a fictitious “War-on-Terror” - - the continuing mess in Iraq with our USA footing the total bill, thanks to the absolute and total incompetence of Dubya (presently tied with Jimmy Carter for the dubious distinction of All-Time-Worst-President-Ever) - - - plus, there’s Obama’s socialist agenda, and a multitude of other problems too numerous to catalogue....
- - - but what do the inept and ultra-wimpy Republican argue about? Gay-Rights, stem-cells and abortions; banning the Morning After pill and outlawing Internet Wagering in a pandering move to appease the religious right (while collecting as much as possible thru Lotto)..... God, I wish they’d spare us from the sanctimonious pontificating! School prayer, the Ten Commandments in public places and Gore’s Global Warming fiasco? Yes, even the idiots in the GOP are strangling us in sheer stupidity, over-reaching in those relatively minor planks that receive so much attention, and there’s the terminal Political Correctness too…
Republican dumbies may someday wake up to the REAL threats, but, by then it’ll probably be ‘way too late.
Tax-Cuts, vastly reduced spending, closed borders? Those are the REAL issues!
Should'a had Rudy, a guy with cojones. But, that said, now I fear it's too late, the "Something-for-Nothing" bunch outnumber we producers...

malm| 11.13.08 @ 8:00AM

Not a mention of income inequality, or health care; which the people clearly want treated as a right. And, start adding dental, and cosmetic procedures to the package, as well. Sorry rugged individuals with trust funds, but that is the name of that tune. The collectivists kicked your asses. But, bask in the glory of knowing RINOS like Smith, Schays, and Coleman lost. hey, Chambliss may lose as well. He was a bum, right? Voted for the prescription drug outrage. Poor Saxby he showed a heart for poor folks in Ga., and decided they didn't have to chose eating dogfood in order to afford t heir meds. Punish him. Stay home and show another grand act of muscular conservative enforcment of the agenda. And, as my bumper sticker reads, " the beatings will continue until morale improves". Even brownouts and ten dollar a gallon gas , once utopia energy takes over, won't be enough for you guess to ever make a comeback. But hey, you have the Reagon library and the ranch. Every group of fanatics needs their version of Disneyland.

schays,

dgdc| 11.13.08 @ 9:57AM

OK global warming is the one faith based initiative republicans aren't supposed to like. There is still a heck of a lot that can be done to to boost enviromental cred that dovetails with conservative values.
Stop subsidizing destructive agricultural policies. Corn is the welfare queen of crops and it's industrial production, enabled by hefty subsidies is devastating the farm belt. Expand fishing free zones, it protects environment and will give fish stocks a chance to recover and make more fish for future fishing. Develop and support policies to improve farm land soil quality; otherwise the breadbasket of the world won't be feeding anybody. And make parties clean up there own messes as a priority instead of an after thought.

Captain America| 11.13.08 @ 9:59AM

The "reformist" and "traditionalist" differentiation puts to mind the jurist difference between constitutionalists and constructionists.

If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing.

Jeremy Jester| 11.13.08 @ 11:05AM

I read Brooks' column with equal amounts of dismay and wonder. Dismay that the "reformist" crowd continues to think the conservative movement needs to "modernize"...hello, aren't we're here to conserve something? Do core values and principles "modernize"; does liberty "modernize", or perhaps the principle of smaller government? The proposition is ridiculous.

I continue to wonder at the leftward lurch of the reformist minded conservative intelligentsia. I often find the KISS method produces some of the best results. How about we keep it simple and stick to promoting those basic conservative values and principles centered around liberty and smaller government.

Anthony| 11.13.08 @ 11:45AM

O.K. Was it not the David Brook's and his ilk of elitist "Reformers" within the Republican Party that gave us the prescription for last week's horrific defeat? McCain was the very imbodiment of all these gurus' thinking and analysis as to what was best for the Republican Party to expand its base; better package its "brand". God, make me gag, why don't you all? McCain, who supported amnesty for illegal aliens, global warming carbon credits, and a whole host of other liberal dogmas, was left for bear fodder, or, road kill .(in keeping with RET's outdoor riff) He lost the Hispanic vote, big time, the carbon credit crowd wasn't going for carbon -lite, when it could have the real deal with Obama, his friend, and fellow band of brothers, Colin Powell, pulled the rug out from under the war hero, with the weaseling comment that the R Party is still a bit too extreme for his taste, sorry old friend. So, thanks to the David Brook's of the party, McCain has been running in circles placating all the "right" voters , all the "right" issues and all the "right" MSM, yet in the end, once again, they all gladly kicked him in the teeth. Only the base, that he despised, demonstrated more loyality to him then he did to us. Yep, we sure need to listen to David Brook's & friends all right. Might I suggest we plan a retreat deep in the AK woods and invite all the R intellligencia to attend, then, in the middle of the night, leave them there for the wolves, bears and Gov. Palin to field dress. What do you call 100 Republican elitists at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!!

Bob| 11.13.08 @ 12:24PM

Let's face it, the future of the Republican party is not in any of your hands -- at least in the next election. The election in 2012 will be a referendum on how well Obama does his job. If the economy turns around and the Iraq war ends, he will win by an even larger margin than this time.

What you need to talk about is the definition of "true conservative". Is someone that believes in low taxes, reduced spending, and limited government but is pro-choice a "Conservative"? Is someone who is a staunch pro-life advocate but also believes in a single payer healthcare system a "Conservative"? Names always get us in trouble -- and it is obvious that is happening here as well. Before you talk about "Conservative principles", you need to agree on a definition...

Katelyn| 11.13.08 @ 12:40PM

Please, no more Sarah Palin. Conservatives can be conservative AND intellectual at the same time.

ruth| 11.13.08 @ 1:08PM

Yeah, intellectual like "three letter word -j o b s- " Biden. Sarah would never be able to keep up with the likes of scholars such as Pelosi, Reed, Kennedy, etc. MENSA members all.

malm| 11.13.08 @ 1:29PM

Now Bob conservatism is whatever El magnifico of zee golden mike says it is. And, if you deviate at all , well no soup for you. So to play it safe and to stay on his good side brag about being rich, and make fun of poor people.This will hold you in good standing in his exclusive club that the American majority will beg for forgiveness and leadership in 2012. Hey, maybe even 2010.

Eugene Debbs| 11.13.08 @ 2:52PM

Katelyn,

You're right. I'm not a conservative and don't pretend to be. However, I'm always looking for conservative opinions and am ready to be convinced on some issues.

Conservatives during the past thirty years have contributed great things to our political discourse. Chief among these contributions is the understanding that markets are the best way to create wealth to improve people's lot. This is by and large accepted by even the most leftist intellectuals. (Not that they're aren't differences; I'm talking about broad philosophical principles.)

When I tune in to right wing radio (some of which is terrific) or listen to Sarah Palin and learn that I am not a "real" American or that I am unpatriotic, I recoil from conservatism as I would a poisonous snake.

I am not one of those who are arguing conservatives ought to become more liberal.

I am arguing that conservatives ought to promote those among them who make the clearest, most articulate arguments and who do not resort to low, divisive attacks on people's patriotism. William F Buckley and George Will should be your guides.

Conservatives have plenty of more battles to fight and win. I'm open to what they have to say. Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan, however. Reagan was a great president because he had great ideas. And he was not just a good speaker: he was a good speaker because he had a thoughtful, intellectual nimble and curious mind. Palin and Bush are not articulate and not great speakers because they are not intellectually curious; they don't respect ideas, reading, or good debate.

Eugene Debbs| 11.13.08 @ 2:56PM

.....

I'm NOT saying that Palin or W. are stupid. Far from it. What I AM saying is that they are not interested in ideas or learning or reading. This makes them inflexible, inarticulate, and muddle-headed, and it prevents them from being capable of explaining complicated policies or principles to the people they would lead. To be a good leader is to be a good orator. The two are inextricably linked.

Steve the Soothsayer| 11.13.08 @ 3:01PM

We can only hope that a positive legacy will become more important to Obama than pushing left-wing lunacy on the American people. Clinton came to this mindset (to a degree) only after his party was routed in "94. Now that he has landed in the highest office, Obama just might begin to see more clearly the threats facing our country and what is needed (besides talk) to fend them off.
His first act in office should be to demonstrate to Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Rangel and Co. that he is not their parrot.

tippy| 11.13.08 @ 3:18PM

They should rename the Republican Party the conservative party. Then, make it defined by conservative principles. Party heads should then throw out anyone who doesn't stick to the principles.

This must be done because the party can't be about the personalities within it. It has to be about the principles. If we go the personality route, we'll never win against Obama. He won solely on personality (and... OK, a tax cut promise... even though it didn't make sense).

They must rebrand, but it has to be legitimate. They need to create a promise that is adhered to in every context. And then it must be communicated by building relationships. We can't talk at people anymore. We can't be proud of our 72 hour direct mail drop and then say we mobilized.

Obama mobilized by building relationships with people over a two year period. Every time I visited Facebook this year, all of my friends were attending Obama events or creating Obama clubs or groups. They were evangelizing. That doesn't come with a TV ad. We must be out engaging people and working with them.

And when we engage, we must talk about how the conservative agenda raises all boats. We took for granted that people should understand the philosophy. It's actually a bit more complex than liberalism and must be simplified. Trickle down is an accurate term, but it's bloodied. There must be a new way to say it.

Conservatism helps everyone, but is probably of most social import to the poor (whether they're white or minority). A growing economy, driven by achievers, creates opportunities for everyone - especially the poor, who otherwise are left to gov't programs.

Finally, we should lost the religious moralizing. Conservatives should make it clear that they are supportive of those interests and will do everything they can to ensure their voice is heard, but stop short of committing to legislating for them. Leave those issues up to the states to decide.

By adhering to the moralizing, you're opening the door for anyone to point out even the slightest "failing" of one of our members. Kind of like how people point out Gore's energy consumption because he's so heavy-handed in telling everyone else how to live.

Sorry for the length, but that's just the beginning...

Ster| 11.13.08 @ 3:19PM

MENSA members? HA! Who cares? Have you seen what all these 'scholars' have done to our country? These scholars may make great advisors, but I don't want them governing.

As Bill Buckley stated, he'd rather have the first 100 people listed in the Boston phone book in the Senate rather than any faculty member from Harvard.

Sarah may talk like she'd not in possession of an IQ of 130+, but neither did Bill Clinton. Obama may be very smart, but as we can see, he can't make a single decision. Truman never got through college, but people remember him fondly.

Heck, Sarah has had more experience than John Edwards did when he ran for VP... Did ANYONE question his lack of experience? NO! At least not in the media. He even ran for President this time around. Did we hear that he had no experience? Nope.

Heck, Sarah got where she was by herself, without the help of racists and terrorists or a political city-machine. She ran against the machine... and won.

ster| 11.13.08 @ 3:27PM

Eugene:

While I disagree with you that Palin of W don't like ideas or reading... well, actually, I do not know that, so I believe it's presumptuous, I admire your honesty.

I especially admire your take that Reagan was one of the intelligent folks, full of ideas. All but one of my friends are liberals. WAY liberal. My brother would admit to leaning Socialist. Every single one of them believed Reagan was a buffoon. I can't imagine why... but that is the case. They all believe he was a complete idiot and a puppet. The biggest problem I have with them is that they believe he deserves 0% of the credit for the fall of the former USSR.

It is very refreshing to see someone who is on the left not think the guy was a fool. It proves your intellectual honesty. I don't care what side of the aisle one is on, if one is intellectually honest, progress can be made.

Kudos to you.

Richard| 11.13.08 @ 3:45PM

Look at getting involved with the Constitution Party at the grassroots level. The republican Party has morphed into the "Democrat lite" party and will not return to it's conservative roots any time soon.

We might as well get started now and NOT put off finding a home for an ideology that can save America from it's dark future.

In any event, the U.S. is long overdue for a viable third party and conservtives are known for their organizational skills and unwavering loyalties. This can happen a lot quicker than most think.

Eugene Debbs| 11.13.08 @ 3:48PM

Ster --

Thanks for the kind words. My overall argument is that a notion has developed that someone can be a "good speaker" without having good ideas. People used to say that Reagan was a "great communicator" and in the same breath say he was intellectually lightweight. Historians have begun to prove this idea false, but I would say their proofs aren't necessary.

In politics, the best leaders have been the best speakers. (Of course it does not follow that every good speaker would make a good leader.)

The Cold War was long, complicated, and full of sacrifices and contradictions. We required men of intellectual brilliance to EXPLAIN it to the country.

Why spend billions to put a man on the moon? Because it is easy? No, because it is hard.

THAT's how a president speaks and leads. Kennedy could do it, so could Reagan.

The great tragedy (or tragi-comedy) of Clinton is that God gave him the gift to lead, but he was too undisciplined and selfish to to use that gift.

It remains to be seen if Obama is just an "empty suit."

Many people are scoffing at his "eloquence" or the fact that he wrote two books. I think his books and his incredible speech-writing abilities are signs of promise. You might not like his specific policies, but he has the potential to be a great president. Perhaps some of you will one day feel about Obama the way I now feel about Reagan, whose spirit I admire but whose politics I still disagree with strongly.

Eugene Debbs| 11.13.08 @ 3:50PM

As a liberal Democrat, I want to second the notion that conservatives should form a third party ....

I know I don't have to explain why to most of you.

Angie in S.C.| 11.13.08 @ 3:55PM

I would hardly try to argue that Reagan was an idiot, but I would hardly call him a great thinker with great ideas. Years ago, Reagan came to S.C. to do a debate in the Carter years of returning the Panama Canal to Panama. My good friend did the make-up for the debate and told me years later that all of the debaters, except Reagan, were engaged for hours in intellectually stimulating conversation while Reagan had nothing to add to the conversation. He, however, was great at reading from his teleprompter. There is your great intellectual of the right.

mikey| 11.13.08 @ 4:06PM

David Brooks is as much a Republican as David Gergen is today. It wasn't just Republican congressmen who went to Washington to reform bad government who ended becoming bad government. These journalists/talking heads may have gone to Washington to bring a conservative voice to be heard from the liberal chorus, but they became a part of the liberal chorus.

Brooks and anyone else who claims to be a Republican or a conservative from years ago but now mouths liberal talking points deserve the boot from the party and the movement as much as the Republican politicians who betrayed conservatism by legislating like Democrats.

Bye bye Brooks, don't let the door hit you on your way out the door - don't worry, your colleagues at the NYT are waiting for you with open arms.

john| 11.13.08 @ 4:26PM

Brooks was on the money. Perhaps the election result set him free to address reality and abandon all that philosophical rambling that was intended to avoid telling his conservative readers that McCain was going to lose and Palin was a disaster. The fact is the GOP has gotten itself on the wrong side of history. I could list at least fifteen propositions all of which are strongly opposed by conservatives (three eg. to illustrate the point: the Iraq war was a huge error, creating a universal system of healthcare, women's free choice in abortion), but which enjoy majority support in the country. The GOP is dominated from top to bottom as Brooks says by people and organizations that are married to policies that are either flawed or based on myths And thus conservatives are reduced to chanting silly mantras like this is a center right country. Readers may recall that before the election another favorite was the awful approval ratings of the "Democratic" congress, well the Dems just increased their majorities in both houses by substantial margins which perhaps tells us what people thought the main problem was in congress . Furthermore the far right has also created a huge media operation, of which the Spectator is a small cog, of talk radio, tv and publishing where many earn large sums promoting the most extreme conservative positions imaginable. These pronouncements are largely treated as a joke and irrelevance by increasingly large numbers of Americans (eg. Limbaugh's current ranting about the Obama recession when it's two months before the guy takes office). The consequences are there for us to see. Now whether this turns into the realignment election depends on the effectiveness of Democratic governance and based on what I've seen so far don't count on Obama making a lot of mistakes. In fact right now I'm going to predict the Dems make further gains in 2010. Why. Well the economy is going to remain in recession for all of 2009 and will start to recover in 2010 and the Republicans are going to get the blame for driving the economy in the ditch and Obama will get the credit for pulling it out. Add in he will have closed the Iraq operation down by then, and maybe Afghanistan too since we are clearly losing there. Harmony will have been restored with all our major allies, Gitmo closed, torture ended. And finally as the cherry on the cake some sort of universal healthcare program will have been rolled out by the spring of 2010. Mark my words this is what will happen.

megapotamus| 11.13.08 @ 4:30PM

As Thatcher said, "The facts of life are conservative." No one needs to be told what that means. New Ideas are, at this point, the problem not the solution. Of course these New Ideas of spreading the wealth are not new at all. What we need is a fuller adherence and greater understanding of Eternal Truths. Again, these are self-evident but do not propogate themselves nor do they defend themselves from the sugary deceptions of socialism. Who is in a position to do this I cannot imagine but we are in the thrall of New Ideas that will inevitably bring Old Complaints. Self-control and self-discipline up and down the board are our only cure for what ails us. All else is distraction and delay.

I'm flabbergasted at the appearance here of the late Eugene Debbs. Welcome sir. There is no need to shine the bum of the late and beloved Ronald Reagan but your manners do you and yours great credit. I'm not sure how being a "Liberal Democrat" squares with your stated views; no doubt your own side often asks that question, but it is a tonic to see someone on the other side speak with something other than raw spite. Glad to meet a true fellow citizen. We will need you guys as Baracktopia implodes. If it does.

aware| 11.13.08 @ 4:37PM

Eugene... the true ideological battle is about whether our Constitution is the real law of the land or just a fig leaf to cover what ever anybody wants. Some of us believe(KNOW) adherence to the letter of that document is the very key to our system of government. And that system is the key to our unique prosperity. For example, the preamble states...to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..." this means it is illegal for our federal government to favor any citizen or group or party over any other. But what do you think the Welfare State does? The States CAN lawfully set up a welfare state but the only way the Feds can is through a Constitutional Amendment. This is not how it was done and so it is operating outside the law.

There are many other things it has done the same way and it has diminished all our personal freedoms in the process. This is just one example.

All should start by reading the Constitution. It can be done in 20 min. It says exactly what the central government CAN do. Everything else it CANNOT do, lawfully that is. It is that simple and this is where the real fight needs to be. After all, we're fighting for not only our rights but even the rights of our opponents!

aware| 11.13.08 @ 4:44PM

John... your post is not helpful. Go back to your crystal ball.

Colorado Jack| 11.13.08 @ 5:33PM

Aware says: "Some of us believe(KNOW) adherence to the letter of that document is the very key to our system of government. "

Okay, let's talk about that. Article I, Section 9 says that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it." Esam Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan by Northern Alliance forces. He is now in the Norfolk Naval Station Brig. So he is entitled to habeas corpus, right? I don't see anything in the Constitution that makes any exception for enemy combatants. Norfolk is certainly under US jurisdiction. If you truly believe we are or should be governed by the letter (your word, not mine) of the Constitution, then you should agree he is entitled to habeas corpus. Do you?

Paula Wagstaff New Zealand| 11.13.08 @ 5:42PM

Whatever happens at the next election, my ONLY prayer is that Sarah Palin is nowhere near it.
Now I am a committed Christian, and believe her conservative social values, BUT this woman is dangerous and would open the door for the
fundamentalist Christians who are the equivalent to the Islamic fundamentalists,
They are determined to 'take this land' for Christ,
rather than living the true gospel that the kindgom of God is 'within' they are like the Pharisees of Jesus day, who accused Him of everything uder the sun, as they beat their chests and thanked God they were not like the 'sinners'
Be very alert, and look beyond the outside,
and see the cunning, and unquencible 'ambition'
in the name of God.
And she can talk her way out of a paper bag, and seemingly put in all back on the other person, as she elevates herself to be squeeky clean.
Like an 'angel of light'

Hugh Johnson| 11.13.08 @ 6:20PM

Please stay in the wilderness where you can't fuk up the economy anymore.

Mark Oberle| 11.13.08 @ 6:29PM

Ronald Reagan raised taxes , balloned the National Debt., and increased the size of government as a percentage of GDP. Why do you conservatives keep lying to yourselves??

Tim| 11.13.08 @ 6:32PM

Paula, while I can understand people having concerns about Palin, I am truly amazed at the irony of your argument against her. Indeed, your argument casting her as a Pharisee places you among the Pharisees yourself! God has told us that judging the heart is for him alone. How would you know whether she stands truly with the Lord or is a hypocrite? Indeed, aren't you, by your indictment, thanking God that you are not like Sarah Palin, "the sinner"? I don't doubt that you are sincere in your concerns - just as I assume Palin is sincere in her desire to serve America faithfully - but the vehemence of your complaints strikes a dissonant chord with usual Christian witness.

Furthermore, fundamentalist Christians are absolutely incomparable with fundamentalist Muslims. Christ's message is one of love and faith, not one of religious conversion by force. Have you seen any fundamentalist Christian suicide bombers lately, or any that have flown airplanes into buildings?

And COJack (who loves ya, baby?) - it's a common understanding that the Constitution was written by US citizens for US citizens. Yes, it's only fair to extend its protections to legal immigrants, since we invited them here. Illegal aliens... I'm not so sure, but we do it anyway. I think that's more liberal construction of the Constitution than most Americans would support. However, to go so far as to claim that the Constitution was written to apply even to America's foreign enemies? I don't think the majority of Americans would agree. Of course, it takes only a majority of NINE Americans...

Eugene Debbs| 11.13.08 @ 7:26PM

Re: R Reagan's debate in SC. It's true, Reagan was at times caught up short on facts and figure. He was not a details man, and we know now that for at least part of his second term his illness may have contributed to his ability to remember particulars.

It is also true that conservatives choose to remember a Ronald Reagan that was NOT always in line with the values they passionately espouse. They choose to forget how vituperative the criticism of Reagan was from the RIGHT when he held out an olive branch to the Soviets.

However, my point is only this: Reagan spoke movingly and with conviction about this country, and you can't do that unless you have control of the ideas and philosophy undergirding the country. He taught the country that it was right and good for us to be a proud country again -- not just out of mindless and reflexive patriotism, but out of a true appreciation of this country as "the shining city on the hill."

I'm not just a liberal. I'm a proud tax and spend liberal. I don't have to agree or disagree with Ronald Reagan anymore. I can see and appreciate his leadership and I think it's important for all of us to remember and understand the source of his ability to lead.

(Just for the record. Tip O'Neil disagreed with Reagan about everyhing, but that didn't stop them from being great friends.)

geek| 11.13.08 @ 7:26PM

Unless the Republican Party can explain to a large number of voters why they should be supported, without saying negative things about the Democratic candidates, they will continue to lose.

Ronald Reagan in his time did exactly that and won. While the Republicans won since Reagan it was very narrow and times have now changed.

The party of yesterday is in the rear view mirror and the fear and smear does not work against a candidate that can walk and chew gum at the same time or is street smart enough to fend off mindless attacks.

The GOP has to have competent and qualified candidates that the voters will trust and has a message that will explain how the future will be better based on content and not contempt. Candidates such as Palin will do more harm than good by never passing the straight face test with those voters whose support is necessary above the 57 million who voted in 2008.

ruth| 11.13.08 @ 7:33PM

Wow! What liberal nut-job balloon just exploded all over AmSpecBlog? Go home, freaks. We were trying to have an intelligent exchange of ideas.

GoodReason| 11.13.08 @ 7:58PM

Tyrrell says the meeting was attended by "libertarians, evangelicals, tax cutters, hawkish foreign policy advocates, and others." Were there no Red State Feminists there, and if not, why not?

As a Red State Feminist, I say to you, "the tent is not large enough yet." You should be looking for the new flowers growing in the niches of the wall. What groups have discovered they do not agree with the shift that will be taken by Obama? What groups who voted for Obama did so only because McCain was not, in their eyes, a real alternative?

For example, the black and Hispanic faith communities in California who voted for Obama, but also for Proposition 8--don't you see an opening here? How about the women who discovered because of Sarah Palin's candidacy that they really are feminists, after all--but they are Red State Feminists, not Blue State Feminists, and they do not agree with a blue state policy agenda? Were those women invited to your meeting?

Dear whoever-you-are who attended this meeting: you are not looking hard enough for the new groups who are your future. Get out there and bring them into the tent--fast.

Red State Gal
http://redstatefeminists.org

aware| 11.13.08 @ 8:02PM

Colorado jack.... in case you don't know the document I'm talking about is the Constitution of the UNITED STATES. Not the world. Enemy combatants are covered under the Geneva Convention which is an international treaty. Why can't you Lefties stay on topic? Thanks for proving you know how to twist things..everybody see what I meant about where the fight is.

Paula New Zealand| 11.13.08 @ 8:26PM

Hi Tim,

I understand you rconcern.
Yes God does know the heart, however we are given many many scriptures that gives us the ability to 'know' people as Paul also instructed.
If you read all the scriptures on who the false apostles and false prophets are, what they say and what they do.
Also the people in Jesus day expected him to restore the kindgom there and then, they also never understood that the kindgom was within.
When you pass within and the 'eyes' of your heart are opened, you can see more clearly, that is why we are to take the beam out of our own eye, so we can SEE clearly.
Discernment is also a gift of the Holy Spirit.

I do hear the difference you mention between,
the C/fundie and M/fundie, but the common thread is that they both want to bring in the kindgom by force.
The C/fundie use the scripture that the kindgom of God suffers violence, and the violent take it by storm. That is so true with the C/fundi.
They are the 'Joels army' and they are going to
take the kindgom by force, and those who have discovered the kindgom within, will suffer, as their violence speech and attitude attack us also.
I watched it operate in Sarah as she attacked Barack Obama. And as you know, out of the HEART the mouth speaks.
I heard ALL her words.

Eugene Debbs| 11.13.08 @ 9:19PM

Tim --

I think you don't really understand very much about "fundamentalist" Muslims.

Committed Muslims, first of all, are a very culturally diverse group: they span the globe, from Morocco to Indonesia.

Second, they do not force people to convert by and large. There may be some anecdotes along those lines, but it's largely a myth told by bigots and ignoramuses.

Third, terrorists are often NOT fundamentalists. Many terrorists we find are highly westernized. In fact, many of the 9/11 high jackers were educated in the west and not highly committed Muslims.

I've had the privilege to know many Muslims, particularly people from Syria and Jordan. They are good, friendly, highly cultured people. They resemble the stereotypes and stupidities of American media not at all.

Fourth, Christians have engaged in terrorism throughout history. In the modern world, there have been many instances of Christian groups perpetrating terrorist acts. The IRA is just one. There are several others throughout Europe.

The KKK, which always described itself as a "Christian" organization (protestant, of course) was probably the most successful terrorist organization in the history of the modern world. They engineered social policy in the south and midwest for decades. Using arson, bombings, murders, beatings, rapes, and kidnapping, they intimidated whole populations and influenced politics at local and state levels -- and even at federal levels of government.

You will say these were not "real" Christians. And I think you're right. But Muslims will tell you that the men that attacked us on 9/11 are not "real" Muslims either.

stonecoldliberal| 11.13.08 @ 11:26PM

Regarding the rights in the Constitution and whom they cover, the articulation of those rights flows from the Declaration of Independence, which states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Surely I don't have to remind all of you original-intent-conservatives of that, but there's the language.

The rights we enumerate are rights we believe that EVERY person is granted. Not just kings, not just landholders, not just white folks. Not just Americans. EVERY person.

We have heard a lot in recent years about whether American "exceptionalism" should be our guiding philosophy. I say yes, but in this way: America is exceptional because we dared to believe that all people are equal and deserving of respect.

The fact that we articulated that belief at a time when it was, basically, heresy to do so is one the most amazing political acts of all times. The fact that we have now devolved to the point of arguing whether, as Orwell pointed out, "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others" is perhaps our greatest failing, the stain on our flag that you are all trying very hard not to see.

(And, yes, I know that Orwell was talking about Stalinist Russia. I see the irony that many leftists supported that regime in ways that strain credibility--an understatement, to be sure; do YOU see the irony that conservatives, many of whom now rightly point to leftist support of the Soviets as proof of our fallibility, have made it their policy to support the same Orwellian insanity?)

Paula| 11.14.08 @ 1:08AM

Eugene,
I had no idea that the KKK were a Chrstian based organisatin. Forgive me for my ignorance.
I am from New Zealand.
However when Rev Wright was preaching, I thought he spoke a lot of truth.
When the Fox news come down on him, and I am a Fox news watcher, along with CNN, I thought to myself, actually isn't a lot of what he is saying true?
Eugene do you think America has been indoctrinated by the power/political/religious
tht is really NOTHING to do with Christ at all?

Eugene Debbs| 11.14.08 @ 2:00AM

Paula

The KKK claimed -- claimed -- to be representing "white Protestant Christians" in the United States against Catholics, Jews, and people of other "races."

Of course this does NOT mean that somehow Christianity -- protestant or otherwise -- is responsible for the vile actions of the KKK.

My point was simply that religion has been co-opted by Christians, Jews, and Muslim terrorists. (Yes there have been Jewish terrorist organizations.)

Ironically, the KKK and similar paramilitary groups in the US killed more people in the Jim Crow era than many Islamic terrorist organizations. Estimates for lynchings during this period often range in the many thousands, although we don't know exact numbers.

Paula@paulawagstaff.com | 11.14.08 @ 5:23AM

Thank you for explaining that Eugene.
Would it be possible for you to refer me to information I can study to find out more.
I was devoted to Fox and then found out the hard way, (by listening to the actual words that came out of the mouths of people) that Fox twist and attack, so I no longer trust them in anyway, infact won't even turn on Fox news.
So who could I research on the internet that would give me more accurate history of this.

joshua| 11.14.08 @ 6:37AM

Lulz. Conservatives all your base belong to us. Right wingers get pwned on their own home soil. Call lieberman and homeland security!

Reagan. the reality vs. perception chasm

Christian vs. Muslim Fundamentalism. (Xtians are worse.)

Future for "real" conservatives (There is none. unless you have a time machine set for the 20th century.)

Don't worry folks. Heres the bright side: Once everyone learns that the democrats are equally full of shite and are simply corporate party B to the republicans corporate party A, they will be forced to turn to 3rd party candidates out of sheer desperation, and then maybe we can get some real change in our political system. Nader, Paul, Mckinney, Barr, the crazy constitutionalist guy, and the guy who ran as a socialist (His name is not
B.O., and if they had a debate you could see what a real socialist looks like.)

aware| 11.14.08 @ 6:44AM

stonecoldliberal | 11.13.08 @ 10:26PM... The Declaration does not set up a government, it is a grievance document(notice all the "He has" lines). It explains why we are declaring our independence. At the time there was no central government. As far as created equal goes, this means before the law which is consistent with my point that it that it is unlawful for the Federal government to show favoritism. The point of the Constitution was expressly to set up the central government and the Preamble states the overall mission of that government. Both of these documents apply to the United States not the world at large. People vote with their feet on the truth of this by trying come here. If it applied everywhere they could stay where they were and enjoy the benefits there too.

What I'm saying is that we are not being true to that document and it has had and will have dire consequences if it continues.

The consolidation of power at the Federal level is a very real threat to personal freedom, yours and mine. We are very far down that slippery slope already, maybe to far. We have traded real freedom for the illusion of security. Franklin said in that we would end up with neither at the end of this kind of deal.
I'm doubtful we can return to the limited government the Founders gave us because it was meant for a citizenry that is moral, self-reliant, and self-restrained. When I look around I don't see many of those among us anymore. Now instead of citizens all I see are hypersensitive whiners and the Federal government has become the sustainer of losers. Individuals and businesses alike.
We are no longer a Republic we are a democracy. Democracy is nothing but mob rule and is always a transitional entity that ends in tyranny, whether of the one or the many. I have a bad feeling about the future of the American experiment.

tippy| 11.14.08 @ 9:21AM

Ruth,

You are observing one of the points I made in my post (which seems to have been ignored in favor of doing exactly what I warned against - discussing the quotes and actions of people we don't even know in favor of core conservative principles).

The Democrats are organized and using the Internet to build communities who believe in the message. One of the things they are doing in a very organized and calculated way is showing up on political forums everywhere.

One of the places targeted are RealClearPolitics articles (of which this was one). They show up in conservative-slanted op-eds and start making their case.

Republicans have a long way to go to master this tool the way Democrats have.

Eugene Debbs| 11.14.08 @ 10:21AM

Tippy --

1. There is no organized effort to infiltrate conservative sites on the part of liberals. I hope you understand that.

2. Liberals are more vocal now than they were before the election because they see the numbers favor them.

3. There's room for everyone, Tippy. Don't be paranoid.

tippy| 11.14.08 @ 11:26AM

Eugene,

I think you may have taken my comments the wrong way.

I don't think it's some great conspiracy. In fact, I think it's great marketing. They've energized their base by building relationships with them that go beyond slogans.

They are encouraged to participate, and they do. I have nothing against it, and think it's great.

I'm just pointing out that it IS happening. The most famous example from the past election is when Stan Kurtz was on WGN talking about what he learned about the Ayers/Obama connection from the then-opened Annenburg files.

Obama's campaign sent an email to his people telling them to bombard the station, and they did. But not just because they were following orders. They were engaged in his campaign and were rising to his defense.

I do disagree, though, that liberals are more vocal. They've always been vocal. Who's the first to march, protest, display yard signs and bumper stickers?

If you read my original post on this thread, I would hope you'd see I'm hardly paranoid. There is room, and I believe many who are conservative think they're Democrats because Democrats have done such a great job of defining Republicans.

Conservatives need to start the process now, or forever be lost.

ruth| 11.14.08 @ 1:28PM

Eugene, you are wrong. Astroturfing is/was an Axelrod strategy that employed liberal bloggers to post on various conservative sites to confuse and demoralize the opposition. This was well known on our side. I don't know if you are ignorant or deliberately mis-stating fact but astroturfing did occur before the election. Tippy, you are not paranoid and I agree that we need to mobilize quickly and we must define ourselves, but conservatism will never be forever lost. The precepts of conservatism are timeless and spring from the hearts of men/women.

joshua| 11.14.08 @ 3:01PM

Here's how I see it. There's a constant tension between progressives pushing the world foward and conservatives holding on to (what they believe to be the better principles of ) the past. There is nothing wrong with the constant tension and conservatism prevents to much foward movement, too fast. But conservatives will always be on the losing side of history and will always be battling that "republican-lite" faction of their party as some necessarily push the party foward. What conservative 50 years ago would accept the mere notion of civil unions, much less gay marriage, a black president, and a republican president overseeing the largest deficit/gov't/and socialist intervention in history? It would be nonsense to them and they would dismiss you out of hand, yet modern conservatives (the sober ones) are resigned to current conditions and have reconstituted their philosphies accordingly. But there were those 50 years ago saying " There will never be a n*****r president. F*****ts will never marry. A republican president will never offer socialist principles even in the gravest of emergencies. These are some of the eternal tenets of our party." And yet look where we are now.

On there other side of the spectrum there are always hard left progressives like myself that torture the democratic party and try to push it too far into the future too fast. See Ralph Nader circa 2000. And the civil wars for each respective camp are bloody and intense. But this isn't really about left vs. right but yesterday vs. tomorrow.

What will a "real" conservative look like in 2050? Ruth do you really think that there is anyway they can exist without morphing dramatically in response to events? The idea of some objective, platonic principles are somewhat absurd to me. Please spare me the Ayn Rand/John Galt nonsense. Small Gov't? Is it really possible anymore with hundreds of millions of people, trillions of dollars of gov't spending, and a baseline of what even an average libertarian expects uncle Sam to provide?

tippy| 11.14.08 @ 3:38PM

Joshua,

You are making the point in my original post on this thread. Conservatives have taken their views for granted for so long that they never explain or defend them.

A good rule to follow is listen to what Democrats call Republicans, and that will tell you what Democrats are. They've painted Republicans as racist and homophobic, but look at history - especially as it relates to race.

There's a reason MLK and Jesse Jackson were both registered Republicans. Republicans fought against slavery, made the civil rights laws possible and have paved the way for blacks while the Democrat party fought such ideas.

Now, obviously that kind of racism is a thing of the past and I'm not at all suggesting Democrats would want to go back to it. But the notion that blacks need the advantages of affirmative action are inherently racist. They presuppose that they can't do it on their own.

The very acknowledgment of our president's race is racist. Conservatism has never identified a group that needs help, nor have they ever targeted their message accordingly.

Electing our first black president is not historic. Electing our first president without mentioning their gender or race will be historic.

Same with sexual preferences. Sure, the religious faction has always had issues, but aside from marriage (which I think crosses party lines quite completely, given the CA exit polls) conservatives have always been for equal rights period. That means gays, women, blacks, etc don't get special rights. Everyone gets equal ones.

Conservatives advocate for people's freedom, and out of freedom comes innovation. Government keeping people in check only puts limitations on the possible.

I think you should revisit the philosophies a bit.

As an aside, Atlas Shrugged is hardly nonsense. It's an ideal, to be sure. But nonsense? It is a goal to which we should strive.

The thing people keep missing about conservatism is that people do and will fail. But that's not permanent. It's temporary. The philosophy assumes that people will be driven to make their situation better, and like with everything else, they'll be more motivated to do so than anyone else. And by doing it themselves, they'll feel much more esteem from the results of their actions.

You are making one more assumption that is faulty. Bush was not a conservative. He wanted to grow Republican Party by defining them as the one's who could distribute government funds more intelligently. That's not conservatism. Hence, my suggested approach in my original post. Abandon personality and define conservative principle. And then aggressively through out of the party anyone not adhering to them.

It may keep the minority for a bit, but at least they'll be pure, credible and trustworthy, which is a good long-term strategy and brand.

Eugene Debbs| 11.14.08 @ 11:59PM

This notion that the Republicans are the party of civil rights is just nonsense. Look at the electoral map since 1964, son.

The Republicans adopted the "Southern Strategy" of picking off whites in the south who could not stomach the Democratic party's change on the issue of segregation. (Because of the "northern liberal elites" that took over the party.)

It's true. Lincoln began a party of liberty for all Americans. But that was a long time ago.

Lincoln's party, the party of national unity, a strong federal government, and equal rights, is now the Democratic party.

The Repubs are the party of Wall St. and the party of an increasingly shrinking region in the south and west.

Sorry, guys. You've backed yourselves into a corner with all that redneck talk and now no one wants to be seen with you in public.

Deborah| 11.15.08 @ 8:38AM

Not sure how this became a forum on who's a racist and who's not, so I'm just going to address the column Tyrrell actually wrote. There's a great column over at National Review Online titled: "Center? What Center?" It can be accessed here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MThlM2RmMDg3ZGQ5OGNlZDZhMmY0MjAwZWNiMTNiOTA= ... it's written by James Gimpel a professor of government at the University of Maryland at College Park. He says:
"What characterizes the centrist voter is not some peculiar set of policy positions, but rather ignorance of policy issues in general, coupled with vague impressions of the “goodness” or “badness” of the times. So-called centrist or moderate voters can’t even be counted on to vote.

"Consequently, they make a lousy starting point from which to frame a campaign platform. A campaign doesn’t move toward them, but instead attempts to inspire them to come in the candidate’s direction. The incoherent center moves to the left or to the right, inspired by the candidate’s enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of his supporters. It is foolish for the candidate to move to the center, because the center is never a fixed position to move toward.

"Moving centrists toward one’s candidacy is not a process that hinges on taking the right policy stands, either. Instead, it involves the enthusiasm and social contagion that builds around exciting candidates."

So, I'm with Bob. Let's stick to conservative principles and find an exciting candidate who can actually speak coherently and logically about those principles. We need to build a conservative political base from the local up through the national, and we need to start now. Thanks for all you do, Mr. Tyrrell.

boqueronman| 11.15.08 @ 12:32PM

Hey, Eugene. Karl is calling. Pick up on the Red line.

ruth| 11.16.08 @ 2:59AM

Notice that Eugene didn't address my astroturfing accusations? Nasty liberal trolls, we know you are here because we can smell your foul stench. It's laughable that you think you can insult us out of being conservatives. You might be glib but you have no substance. One strong conservative leader who can articulate our beliefs and we will kick your a**. Losers.

Rob| 11.16.08 @ 7:05AM

we have to kick out social conservatives from the party as the first step towards renewal, they have become a burdensome stone.Secondly let's adopt reason and freedom as our only mantra.

Red Neck| 11.16.08 @ 2:40PM

It should be "when" liberals overreach, not "if."

I hope the vague minded 3% who put Obama over the top, having no clue what he really intended beyond the empty slogans of "hope" and "change," regain their math skills and it dawns on them that you sure as heck can't spread around wealth if you tax its producers to death. If I'm a person just out of a job, really, do I want there to be LESS people who can afford to hire me, or MORE? This even goes for the well intended raised import duties. While something could be said for making America less dependent on semi-hostile parties, unless taxes are cut somewhere else, the supposed jobs they bring home will not show up in the equation.

Red Neck| 11.16.08 @ 2:45PM

It's social conservatives who are saving Rob, no thanks to him, from the fate of being in a society falling down the quicksands of nihilism. Those who enshrine reason in their temples ought to know, of all people, that no amount of reason can produce an imperative.

Eugene Debbs| 11.16.08 @ 3:31PM

Ruth --

I didn't respond to your weird accusations about astroturfing because I have no idea what that term means.

I read many different kinds of news and opinion sources. I read the NY Times, the National Review, The Nation, and sometimes the Am. Spectator.

If I write in with an opinion I can assure you it's no part of a liberal conspiracy of any kind. I just like reading things and writing things.

Your weird paranoia is not unique or solitary on the right, and if this site is any indication, it's just getting worse.

Sooner or later, cooler heads and more rational and intelligent people will prevail -- even among conservatives. Perhaps then we'll have a more civil and productive political discourse.

Until then all I can do is urge you to learn to relax. Maybe you should try some deep breathing exercises or something. You'll be all right.

ruth| 11.16.08 @ 4:32PM

That's a good one--coming from a liberal. Just look at all the typical liberals at the anti 8 rallies in California. Yes, i see many 'cooler heads' screaming vicious insults at ordinary Americans at those. You are such a joke.

ruth| 11.16.08 @ 4:33PM

--at those rallies.

Eugene Ruth| 11.16.08 @ 5:49PM

Again, Ruth --

You are associating me with something I know and care nothing about. "8 rallies in California"?

I've never been near to one, never heard of one, never advocated for one.

If you viewed people as people instead of having been divided into "conservatives" and "liberals" you'd be able to make more sense.

As it is, you paint with a broad brush --

And it doesn't amount to anything insightful or even interesting.

ruth| 11.17.08 @ 12:03AM

Eugene, just because you are ignorant of certain things doesn't mean they don't exist. Those voices in your head do, though. Your self-description: Nothing insightful or even interesting, I couldn't have said it any better.

tippy| 11.17.08 @ 10:33AM

Eugene,

Seeing blacks as blacks is racist. Seeing them as people is not. Now, which party divides up our country into tiny little special interest groups, and which just talks about people - all people?

Since you enjoy reading, which is cool... I think that's true of most here, check this out... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html

You appear, in your claims, anyway, to have an open mind. I'm curious of your reaction to this article.

bluecollarbytes| 11.21.08 @ 10:15PM

Some might think about getting rid of their anti-Palin obsessions. It doesn't look like she's going away, and I say great. What are you going to do, demonize her to the majority of Republicans, who favor her as a leader?

Philmon| 6.26.09 @ 10:48AM

"to pay attention to the way the country has changed."

We have payed attention to the way the country has changed, and we don't like it one bit. Here I'm talking about the entitlement, nanny-state mentality, "it's not my fault, it's dem ebidooers", waiting for government to come in and rescue us from our own apathy and sloth with other peoples' money ... or money they just printed up which amounts to the same thing.

The key to turning this thing around is to stop zipping our lips when friends and family spout off progressive pablum and speak up. Let them know (calmly, respectfully) that you don't agree and why. Try to change their minds. The "liberal" numbers need to be beaten back, one brain at a time. Only then can we truly put the country back to rights.

Contrary to popular belief, we conservatives are the polite ones who don't want to cause a scene and tend to let things we disagree with slide -- in public. It gives the opposition the illusion of concensus. Speak up!