The American Spectator

Robbins Mitchell| 11.24.08 @ 6:23AM

From your keyboard to God's eyes,Robert

in SoCal| 11.24.08 @ 6:37AM

Ditto...

Pecos Pete| 11.24.08 @ 7:46AM

I enjoy reading some of the leftist blogs for the sheer fun of it. The leftist bloggers are in fact becoming surly. They are losing their patience. Fun stuff to read.

Jason| 11.24.08 @ 7:48AM

I was barely old enough to vote or care at the time, but Clinton certainly helped transform me into a conservative.

James Kumatsu| 11.24.08 @ 7:54AM

Hi Robert
You are leaving out the hard work of rebuilding a seriously fractured Republican Party and taking the easy way out of assuming that the Dems will self-destruct.
Let's face it. We have no leader, no power and Americans rejected our two ideas: cutting taxes and deregulation.

saleboter| 11.24.08 @ 8:01AM

campaign slogan for 2010 -

"CHANGE IT BACK"

Barb| 11.24.08 @ 8:12AM

The race was too close. We can't say obama has a "mandate", but you are right about the lefties having to scour high schools and college campuses for their votes.

stu.b.con| 11.24.08 @ 8:26AM

Wow, count me as a former highly partisan dem driven from the party by the Clintonistas. Mr. Kumatsu--I beg to differ. Americans did not reject tax cuts and dereg, they 1) swallowed "hopenchange" hook, line, and sinker and 2) rejected the spend, spend, spend Republicans.
In RS McCains defense, I don't think he's putting all his eggs in this basket.

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 8:28AM

Actually, RSM, the reverse is already true. There are huge numbers of ex-Republicans because of George Bush. We know that the percentage of Republicans voting dropped from 37% four years ago to 29% this year. Democrats increased from 37% to 39%.

People, in general, being low information voters, vote for the person, not the policies. This was true for Reagan. Partisans always look for confirmation of their beliefs and, no matter which side you are on, you'll find something to prove your point.

It's interesting to note that you are trying to raise hope to all of the disillusioned conservatives -- and from a review of the responses, they want to drink your KoolAid. This is the path of losers, not winners.

Our country is in the worst financial crisis since the 30's. We are being cut off at the knees by the Iraqi parliament, and losing Afghanistan by miles. Our debt is growing by such proportions that our children -- and their children -- will never have a chance at the American dream. All of this occurred with Republicans holding Congress for 6 of the last 8 years and a Republican administration.

Whenever you have a repudiation of a group, it inevitably leads to finger pointing. We now have fiscal conservative libertarian leaning Republicans (like me), pointing fingers at social conservatives who are reactionary. Fiscal conservatives say the problem is that Republicans have not been conservative and social conservatives say that if we outlaw abortions all will be well in the world.

The fact of the matter is that neither of these are true. These are an outgrowth of a Reagan coalition that no longer works because of changing demographics and changing consumer needs.

Politics is the science of getting votes. Holding tightly to a minority view will not win elections -- and that is the goal. Hopefully, somewhere in the mix, principles will enter the picture. However, if you cannot convince a majority of voters that your principles are valid, then you will lose.

For that reason, I have a few suggestions:

1. Stop demonizing the other side. They won. People like them. It makes you look like sore losers. People hate negative attitudes.

2. Rally around commonalities of the voters, not of the party faithful. With only 29% of the voters, the party needs to appeal to a majority of independents. From this perspective, social conservatives are more of a hindrance than a help as independents are turned off by religion in politics.

3. Have a consistent policy that is not too detailed. Principles are far more powerful than program details. Obama understood this which is why he introduced principles at every juncture.

4. Broaden the reach of the party to include pro-choice people. There are good, moral people on both sides of this divisive issue. People like Tom Ridge should be embraced, not held back. This will allow us to concentrate on the basic message of fiscal responsibility, free markets and a non-interventionist conservative foreign policy.

If Republicans want to be a winner, they need to broaden their audience, not restrict it, and focus on a limited number of principles.

Brian| 11.24.08 @ 8:37AM

Bill Clinton was the last Democrat I'm sorry to say I voted for, in 1992.

I remember waking up in 1993 and realizing everything that the Democratic Party had ever told me was a complete lie.

That's going to happen this time as well. This guy is going to fall flat on his face, unfortunately for the country.

Stock up on guns and bibles, we'll need both.

stu.b.con| 11.24.08 @ 8:38AM

...1. Stop demonizing the other side. They won. People like them. It makes you look like sore losers. People hate negative attitudes...

Bob--Is this supposed to be irony?

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 8:57AM

stu.b.con -- I don't see social conservatives as "the other side", I see them as limiting. The abortion issue is highly divisive and political parties can't win independents with divisive points of view. Half of the self-described evangelicals this year voted for Obama. People don't like abortions, but they believe even more in choice. I don't have a problem with a platform that attempts to reduce abortions, but I do have a problem with and all or nothing position.

Jill| 11.24.08 @ 9:08AM

It's hard to imagine beginning adulthood so far to the left that you vote for Obama and accept "spread the wealth." The only way to grasp support for Obama is that the media withheld information, and the electorate was uninformed. But, the youth do not fit that general statement because of the internet.
I truly am concerned that the under thirties really prefer a socialist economy over a capitalist one. That preference shows deep ignorance of history and economics, as well as cruelty toward fellow Americans. I also think any disappointment with one Great Leader would only mean the leader is wrong, not the idea. It's taken decades for the electorates in Europe to learn socialism stinks. Unfortunately, once socialism takes root in a country, you cannot kill it. You have to wait until it destroys everything dear and collapses of its own weight, taking the country down with it. So, a few million in the USA become ex-Democrats. Will they suddenly know the difference between freedom and slavery? I doubt they will suddenly become enlightened because of the level of stupid they started with. Besides, a few million dumber than they are will come of age to vote and cancel out their better-informed vote. I may be a cynic. Being a cynic comes with the territory of taking your vote seriously and considering future generations while the under thirties cancel out your better informed vote. They must think voting is not an artistic expression of hope; it is closer in kinship to responsibility toward fellow Americans. I can honestly say that I have NEVER voted to increase anyone else's taxes in my life. I know that I'd be in poverty except for the risk takers, the founders, and the brightest among us. They create new wealth and then spend it. However, the youth who voted for Obama did not show respect for other people 's dreams or property. They think it is ok to make 5% pay for all the socialist programs. Nevermind how unrealistic that is. I hope Mr. McCain, the author of the article, is right. But, even so, the damage is already done. This election in my view overthrew the American Revolution, and the ones who voted for Obama possess all the opposite traits of our Founders and the generation who fought the British in the American Revolution.

Brian| 11.24.08 @ 9:10AM

The economy has not really been that bad. I think a lot of people think they are too good or too educated to take that job because of the low pay or the hours are not suitable. If I were to be layed off I would work two jobs that didn't pay much to feed my family. America needs to turn off the TV because it preaches doom and gloom between every commercial break. Live within your means people. Cut up your credit cards and pay cash. I have noticed the states being hardest hit are blue and that the top ten cities in financial trouble have not had a republican mayor in over a decade.

Jill| 11.24.08 @ 9:13AM

REVISION:

They must think voting is an artistic expression of hope; however, it is closer in kinship to responsibility toward fellow Americans.

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 9:36AM

Jill, it is also hard to believe that any rational individual believes that Obama will govern too far to the left. He has chosen a center left cabinet and knows that if he governs too far to the left he won't get reelected nor will be be a transitional President. As a Chicago pol, he needed to go to the left, and he did. As a presidential candidate, he needed to go left in the primaries and towards the center in the general. No one here wants to admit it, but he is proving that he is a pragmatist and not an ideologue like many here.

You are buying into the misinformation of those in the right wing that consider the progressive nature of income taxes all encompassing. The truth is that many other taxes, like FICA, medicare, real estate, and sales taxes are regressive. The key is to look at TOTAL taxation, and not just income taxes. Total taxation is not that progressive. You, and others here, are misinformed on this issue and are thus coming to the wrong conclusion.

Stop drinking the KoolAid and find out the truth. IMO, we need a center right position in our party. We should be looking at the truth rather than believing the less tax at all costs at any level morons. We should be looking at fairness in taxation as a goal. Government needs to be smaller and less intrusive. Our foreign policy should be less interventionalist. If we do our job in limiting government and foreign intervention, our taxes, in total, will be lower.

AuH20| 11.24.08 @ 9:53AM

Never vetted, long regretted !

Clayton in Mississippi| 11.24.08 @ 10:00AM

I, too, weas pushed away from the Democrats, by the Democrats.

I was raised Southern Baptist and Southern Democrat. Although my family were politically active, I was 12 years old before I found out that there was an "important" election in November -- I thought the only election that mattered was the Democrat Party primary earlier in the year because whoever won the primary WAS the presumed victor and new incumbent -- that contest in November was just a formality.

I achieved voting age after JFK's death -- naturally it was assumed I would vote for Lyndon Johnson. But the College Republican's earnestly recruited me, and Barry Goldwater's message made sense, and seemed much more reasonable in his vision of freedom through limited government and individual responsibility. But, LBJ convinced me that Goldwater would get us into war with the Asians, and then LBJ promised he would not send American boys to fight an Asian war. I voted with my family and my historical legacy. Then, LBJ and the Democrats drafted me and half-a-million of my friends and sent most to fight an Asian war.

My disillusionment congealed and I went Republican, for Nixon.

I was tempted by Governor Jimmy Carter to return to the fold. After all, he was a successfull leader and had the credentials so familiar to me -- Southern Democrat Southern Baptist. I foolishly believed he could set everything right.

Double-digit interest rates, double digit inflation, unemployment rates that rose faster than gasoline prices, gasoline that was rationed in quantity and only available every other day, and our diplomats held hostage by college students in a third-world county -- all convinced me to leave the Democrats and I have never returned.

For me, Jimmy Carter was the democrat who pushed me into the real world. I didn't vote for him a second time, nor have I voted for any other democrat at any level since then, but I am still grateful to Jimmy for "outing" me -- a closet conservative no more.

But I got even with the Dems -- my disillusionment didn't send me into hibernation. Instead I became active in conservative/republican politics and continue to be active to this day.

Which only goes to show that even Democrats can accomplish some good! ;-)

Agent Orange Peel| 11.24.08 @ 10:14AM

No one here wants to admit it, but he is proving that he is a pragmatist and not an ideologue like many here

Bob, assuming for the sake of debate "that he is proving he is a pragmatist", so what? The real test of how he will govern will come when he is President, not during his current status as President- elect.

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 10:17AM

RSM, why do you continue to make non-factual statements -- it doesn't help your case. For example:

"There was a reason, after all, that the Obama campaign pushed so hard to register first-time voters this year -- the Clinton years produced so many "once burned, twice shy" voters who now wouldn't vote for any Democrat under any circumstance."

According to the polls, there were as many Democrats in 2008 as there was in 1992. This number has been consistent over the years. The change is that Republicans have become independents because of their disillusionment with the Republican party.

The Obama campaign was successful in raising and capturing the youth, Hispanic, and black voters. These were not "disillusioned", but non-voters. The Republicans received less of the minority vote than in recent history and is rapidly becoming the old, white party. Obama got the growing demographic segments while Republicans are dying off.

Making statements with disregard for the facts will only hurt the party. Our message must appeal to the growing demographic segments. If Obama governs to the center as his first actions indicate, then Republicans will be in the doldrums for at least a generation. The only way out is to simplify and change direction. I'm afraid the older whites in the party as well as social conservatives will limit the party so much that there is little chance of future success.

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 10:21AM

Agent Orange -- he has chosen center left people for his cabinet so far. That's a good centrist start. Furthermore, he has angered many on the hard left with those choices and seems willing to do so. Given what I've read and analyzed, I think he'll govern to the center on fiscal and foreign policy issues and to the left on social issues. He'll won't make the same mistake as Clinton and put social issues up front -- they will come during the middle of his term. Then again, there are many libertarian Republicans like me who have no problem with that.

Agent Orange Peel| 11.24.08 @ 10:31AM

I think he'll govern to the center on fiscal and foreign policy issues and to the left on social issues.

Bob, I also think what you "think" in the sentence above. But one of the things I learned early in life is that what I think is going to happen doesn't necessarily happen.

Pat| 11.24.08 @ 10:58AM

Bob wants to blame the economy on GWB?? Have you read the Constitution? Who makes the laws Bob? Who apportions and levies taxes Bob??
You are a partisan miopic boob!!

Article 1
Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Anthony| 11.24.08 @ 11:02AM

Don't hold your breath waiting for the Obama drones to revolt. As Mr. Lawler points out in his article, the Left will be too stupid to notice that they've been had, or for that matter, too unclear as to why they should be mad at Obama, because they can't identify what aspect of change they voted for in the first place. Between their basic stupidity/ ignorance and pure emotion, Obama voters will go with the flow, unless and until they are torn away from their protective cocoons by an economic depression. Besides, even if those 15 watt light bulbs in their heads do manage to flicker and thoughts of betrayal seep into their pea brains, the MSM will be there to assure the drones that all is well in Obama-land. As to the rest of us thinkers, Obama is now stuck between his hard core leftist hegemony and the fact that one false move on his part can cause an economic depression that he'll be unable to solve, unless he abandons his socialistic utopia. For the first time in his life, Obama will actually have to do something instead of talk. As Truman said, "the buck stops here" and Obama will not be able to pass the buck . To borrow a phrase from the movie Top Gun, Obama's ego is not going to be enough to cash all those fluffy checks he wrote during the campaign.

Steve in MN| 11.24.08 @ 11:05AM

Bob, I think your comment regarding total taxation is misleading. Lets look at the taxes the federal government has control over since I doubt a president has much say over state sales taxes or real estate taxes.

FICA was not sold as a tax, but as a retirement savings plan, those who put in are supposedly to get back an amount based on what they put in to a certain maximum. To extend this out to a system that is progressive would essentially make social security a welfare program. I don't think there's many politicians wanting the word welfare connected to social security and medicare.

Howard| 11.24.08 @ 11:17AM

Wow, some of these people have far too much time on their hands. How about getting a job or doing volunteer work. For me, Jimmy Carter was my ex-Democrat catalyst. His weak vacillating, and constant revelations, were the tipping point. After the ill-fated "Desert One" fiasco, I turned away from the Democrats. I am a GOP leaning Independent. Good article.

posterior_sling| 11.24.08 @ 11:26AM

Very good. Usually I have something to say about any given story, but I find I can add nothing to your words. I Hope now. Hope the disallusionment is sufficient effect the change(s) this country now needs. Congressional changes in 2010! I, too, am ex-Democrat. Only Republican action pulled me over, rather than Demo(lition)crat procedure or lack thereof. After 4 years of Ronald Reagan, he got my vote for his second term and I've voted, and do not regret voting, Republican ever since. By the way, I vote straight Republican ticket, but just may have to make an exception next term of California Governor. Arny seems so advisor-prone I think everything he does comes out of a can. Knowing the source of the authoritative half . . . . Maybe it's just me, but if ever there were a Democrat in Republican clothing . . . . I'd rather vote for accurate representation, even if I don't like it. The best that could happen is he'd be a man and put on his favorite suit, then a Republican could run against him.

In any case, let's keep the "I told you so"s to a minimum and welcome the new members aboard as they come. Better we provide a shoulder to cry on than a(nother) whipping. Oh, allow me to politically correct myself, spanking. What, still too shallow? How's moderate reprimand sound? Hmm. Doesn't get the point across, nor accruately describe what they(were)'re in for. Let me go back to whipping. Get your shoulder towels out.

ds80| 11.24.08 @ 11:32AM

The Bob-ster sez: "social conservatives say that if we outlaw abortions all will be well in the world."

Nope. Social conservatives say we should be a nation that defends the most vulnerable in our society, regardless of how **inconvenient** it is for some.

And it is not an issue that can just be set aside. The rancor and soul-wrenching associated with abortion is no less than that we faced as a nation in addressing slavery. Yet we did not abandon that issue because of "other priorities".

posterior_sling| 11.24.08 @ 11:46AM

Reading comments, I am reminded, it's accurate to say the USS Pueblo may very well be our initial step on the mud mountain downslope, isn't it? The real downer is, what have we learned from that disgrace? It seems nothing at all. Most of you, even, probably ask, what's he talking about? That should be there in our memory banks very close to 9/11. Move over, Kent State.

posterior_sling| 11.24.08 @ 11:56AM

Pat, "defence" is de thing in my back yard.

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 1:01PM

Pat -- you need to read more of the constitution. The Congress can't levy taxes if the President doesn't sign the bill. Furthermore, the Republicans have been in charge of the Congress for 6 of the past 8 years.

ds80 -- if you really want to address the most vulnerable in society, you'd insure that there was no poverty and that 47 million Americans wouldn't be without healthcare. Admit it, it is not about vulnerability, it is about a religious belief in abortion.

Steve in MN -- My bank account does not care where the taxes come from. It is intellectually dishonest to just look at income taxes. If the federal government reduces taxes and the state government increases taxes you are in the same hole. For example, most people think that we have the highest taxation rates, but we don't -- not even close:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdp

Actually, tax policy is used primarily for political reasons to bolster special interest groups. I'm much more amenable to doing away with all types of federal taxation, including cap gains tax, FICA, etc., and just going to a simple, overall flat tax which, by definition, is very fair. By the way, I don't care how FICA was sold, it is clearly no longer an "insurance" program since there is no capital backing it up.

Agent Orange -- He has acted centrist so far as President-elect. That's all we know for now. We'll see what comes, but given his predilection towards strategy and history, I wouldn't bet against him.

To all -- Isn't it interesting that most of your stories about coming of age as Republicans show that you are older, probably white, voters. Think about it.

Americano| 11.24.08 @ 1:46PM

No matter how many converts Obama produces for the GOP, which doesn't deserve them BTW, Peggy Joseph won't be one. She is a slave on the Liberal plantation, and destined to stay a slave until her dying day. If Blacks haven't figured it out by now (They 95% who are Dem's I mean) , they never will.

Scott| 11.24.08 @ 1:48PM

To Bob: "To all -- Isn't it interesting that most of your stories about coming of age as Republicans show that you are older, probably white, voters. Think about it. " Done. What does race have to do with any of this? Your prescription against "koolaid" shows a need for self-medication by the following comment to ds80 -- if you really want to address the most vulnerable in society, you'd insure that there was no poverty and that 47 million Americans wouldn't be without healthcare. Admit it, it is not about vulnerability, it is about a religious belief in abortion.
My opposition to abortion is twofold: first, the Constitutional underpinnings are specious at best; created out of whole-cloth and second, "killing" a human being is not in the same category of the equally specious argument you advanced about eliminating poverty. We poured several trillion dollars down that rat-role, and the poor are still with.
I must admit, you're one of the the more prolific propagandists I've seen, and I'm guessing paid to peddle your nonsense. Libertarian: any self-respecting libertarian would be concerned about the Constitutional ramifications of Roe v Wade and would hope the "poor" made their way absent gov't action.
Congratulations are in order, as Obama will make all of this poverty go away. There are people who are not fit to govern themselves, and you make a great cheerleader.

Pat| 11.24.08 @ 1:58PM

You took the words from my keyboard... Bob is a paid propagandist!! (I would add misery monger) Likely Bob Beckel!!

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 1:59PM

Scott -- actually I agree with you on the Constitution and Roe. But notice that your true love, Palin, said that she agreed there was a privacy right to be found in the Constitution. She is an idiot.

Secondly, having grown up in a poor community it is clear that just giving money to the poor will not solve the problem. The key issue is jobs and taking a pragmatic approach to growing the job base. Republicans concentrate too much on taxes and trickle down which no longer has a significant impact on job growth. I think we ought to empower several governors and mayors to put together job programs and fund the best of these no matter what ideology is behind it. Test marketing is good.

Being more libertarian, I think the decision on abortion should be left up the the individual and you should butt out of their lives.

Pat| 11.24.08 @ 2:12PM

BTW Bob... You are correct; the Dems have only controlled congress for 2 years. And what a fine job they have done... er, not done!! They did, however, successfully pass innumerate “symbolic bills” to the tune of a 9% approval rating!! In the mean time maybe somebody in this highly astute Democrat controlled congress maybe should have reeled in Fanny/Freddy, AIG, etc. before we plummeted into this economy. You Dems have worked at nothing but encapsulating your power at the expense of the foolish American public who ate it up with a side of “Change” and “Hope”.

I guess we’ll see where it all goes… I’m sure we’ll see you here in a few months saying, “I didn’t vote for him!”

Tennwriter| 11.24.08 @ 2:15PM

We can't outbid the Dems for gov't goodies to Blacks, Hispanics, and any other group.

We're a pizza shoppe. Next door is an ice cream shoppe. We can offer cinnammon apple covered with white icing pizza as a dessert, but thats after a meal of Meat, Cheese, and Veggies on the top of the pizza slice.

If all the voters want is Sugar, then we really can't beat the Ice Cream Shoppe. They can offer a triple ice cream sundae with with alternating layers of chocolate and caramel and a dozen maraschino cherries on top of the whipped cream.

Another point....we're not a Coalition. Coalition Politics are bad for forming governing majorities, and we're not one anyways. There is a huge mass of voters who are Standard Conservative (values, defense, and fiscally sound), and then there are the small winglets off this huge mass who are unsound on values, but good on money, and other variations.

There is indeed a limiting factor. We have a speed governor on our Party, on our motorboat. And for some reason, no one's that enthused about buying a speedboat that can barely make a wake. Its time to inform the Dessert Pizzas that they don't run the Pizza Shoppe.

Alan Brooks| 11.24.08 @ 2:36PM

"...the small winglets off this huge mass who are unsound on values...".
Yeah, like say libertarians who want to take all controls away from drugs, porn, prostitution.
Boy O' BOY, legalized prostitution-- just like Amsterdam! Which neighborhood would you like the District to be in?

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 2:53PM

Pat -- first of all, neither the Republicans or Democrats have done a good job in Congress. That's because social conservatives vote in anti-intellectual idiots and Democrats don't understand the concept of fiscal responsibility. I'd get rid of them all. Pelosi and Reid make me want to vomit. But then, Boehner and McConnell don't do much more for me. These are leaders? Give me a break.

Secondly, I'm not a Democrat, and never have been. I'm from the Frum, Brooks, Parker, Powell wing of the party.

Tennwriter, you don't have to give people goodies to get their vote. Listen to them and bring jobs to their communities and they will vote for you. But don't count on trickle down or regressive taxation -- it will never reach them.

pat| 11.24.08 @ 3:13PM

first of all, neither the Republicans or Democrats have done a good job in Congress. That's because social conservatives vote in anti-intellectual idiots and Democrats don't understand the concept of fiscal responsibility. I'd get rid of them all. Pelosi and Reid make me want to vomit. But then, Boehner and McConnell don't do much more for me. These are leaders? Give me a break.

That Sir... I can agree with!!

However, in regard to your comet regarding jobs... there will never be a Utopia, no matter how long you tap your heals together. I believe the GWB years had a very good record possible as far as unemployment went.... and still does. historically. Granted, it shot up oner the past few months, but that is to be expected. Even Clinton's record never got below 4.3% (best)

Bottom line... there will always be the unemployed... There will always be poverty.

posterior_sling| 11.24.08 @ 3:18PM

It seems everyone here is either Black, White, Left, Right, Rich, Poor, Pregnant, Male or Female. KNOCK, KNOCK, ARE THERE ANY people HERE? Is anybody home? Are we the house or the person inside? Oh, the deep thoughts of the superficial mind! No wonder we're in so deep, we think we can fix it by scratching the surface. 1776 to 2008 and we still blame and accuse one another. Who in the world has the right idea? -- and why aren't YOU President? When our own porches are swept, we may invite someone in to try our own hospitality. In the meantime we may as well just get over it and stand in line. Otherwise there may be no rations for us at all.

PEACE IS WHERE THE TEMPESTS BLOW
1937
VALENTINE KATAEV

Read it and weep.

Rachel| 11.24.08 @ 3:29PM

I was never a democrat. I'm currently a registered republican but only out of force. My party is the libertarian party. But, we don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning and I don't like the democrat platform or ideals. So, I vote republican as the closet party to being conservative. I would much rather see republican embrace the libertarian stance on less government and more freedom. But, the party seems to be going more towards democrat to be honest.

As far as the housing crises: Freddie and Fannie was a long time brewing. Bush and the republicans tried to put in place much needed regulations for years and it was the democrats that stopped it at every turn. The democrats really are to blame for the current mess that Bush is trying to fix. Of course Bush be blamed for it as well--no matter what he does.

And there is a new crises brewing. Islamic banking and introducing Islamic law through our banking system. Again, wall street's greed has trumped any common sense.

LJM| 11.24.08 @ 3:55PM

On the reputed libertarian vs so-con divide, the Republicans' problem has been that they have not effectively argued their points since 1994. Libertarians are correct in that free markets are the best way to make an economy work for everyone, and that any government interference damages free markets, whether to prop up real monopolies (such as utility companies) or to punish successful companies (such as so-called monopolies like microsoft) or to bail out failed companies that should go through bankruptcy to rescue them. So-cons are right that abortion is a horrible genocide especially that has killed as many people in America since 1972 as were killed everywhere in the world during WW2. Abortion has hit blacks especially hard, killing one out of three black babies before they have a chance to be born. Just think, there would be 50% more black people in America if not for widely available abortions. That is both a strong anti-abortion argument, and should blow away accusations of racism against Republicans generally, and so-cons specifically. It's true that arguing positions requires access to the media. FNC exists. There have got to be some mainstream news programs that don't edit interviews to clean up Dem mistakes and make Reps look incoherent. What is the problem, Republicans?

Tom Bruner| 11.24.08 @ 4:04PM

My first vote for a presidential candidate was for Jimmy Carter. He won, America lost. I have not voted for a Democrat since (though I don't necessarily vote for the Republican either). I'm sure that I'm not the only one who can say that, and I'm also sure that in thirty years or so there will be many saying the same thing only substituting Obama for Carter.

Alan Brooks| 11.24.08 @ 4:29PM

i cant see how anybody could be a libertarian, they think freedom is everything, practically. freedom is nothing at all without morals. Better to be poor and moral than to be rich and libertarian.
Libertarians want to legalize drugs and porn?? sickening.
legalize Prostitution? disgusting. NIMBY you wont..

Tennwriter| 11.24.08 @ 5:08PM

Libertarians and social conservatives to a very great degree agree with each other. And of course, the Robot's Dilemna illustrates that Libertarians should be profoundly supportive (okay, rabid mongoose level intensity) of pro-life positions.

How many of you have seen a SF movie, or read a novel where the human hero is faced with a robot who claims to be sentient? The hero is doubtful, but in the end, he realizes that he can't be sure, and so he can't 'kill' the robot. This is the correct Libertarian logic.

As to Bob, you're a Dessert Pizza Republican. Maybe a Blueberry or a Cinnamon Apple variety, and despite arguements against them, I'll still claim dessert pizzas as pizza, but Pepperoni and Extra Cheese is the Platonic Ideal.

As to 'anti-intellectual' consider this...you might not be bright enough to understand. It doesn't neccessarily mean we're dumb if you have blinders on.

I want Libertarian and Fiscal Conservative support. But the Party is Conservative. It is not a Coalition. You can be a dessert pizza if you want, but you have to be a pizza first, and understand you're in a pizza shoppe.

And lastly, Bob, I do agree that 'goodies' aren't neccessary. This is sorta my point. Pizza joints do very well despite the attraction of sugar because people know that a diet of pure chocolate alternated with bouts of marshmallows isn't healthy. Voting Democrat is choosing marshmallows for lunch, and most people are smart enough to avoid that if there is a good pizza shoppe to win them over.

Dai Alanye| 11.24.08 @ 5:15PM

Bob's problem seems to be his apparent ability to read minds. He knows what independent voters want, he knows what turned off Republicans, and he knows how Obama is going to govern. All these assumptions of his are questionable, not to say faulty.

We ought to remember with regard to questions of profound human rights that the founders of the GOP took a big chance in opposing slavery, but they educated the voters and won them over. We need to continue to do this with regard to the right to life. In matters of fiscal and foreign policy the historic GOP stances are good for the nation, and perfectly acceptable to the great majority of values voters--no problem there.

We have but one other major issue--immigration. I hold that a consistent stance on rigid enforcement of the law would have won more votes than it cost. Law and order, of which this is a subset, has always been a popular Republican policy.

And insofar as what attracts independents. let's remember that we *nominated* one this year, and it didn't seem to work. Until McCain chose Palin he was flailing badly, while after her debut he was on track for victory. Then came the housing meltdown, and the fatal decision to back the bailout.

Alan Brooks| 11.24.08 @ 5:20PM

I dont care how close positions are between cons and libertarians, the positiions of a fox and the positions of chickens in a coop can be very close right up until it's lunchtime for the fox.
I like solid consrvatives like Reagan (who was no real libertarian) and hate libertarians like i hate commies.

Alan Brooks| 11.24.08 @ 5:22PM

BTW Dai, the GOP didnt win over voters on slavery in the 1850s, -- they had a CIVIL WAR.

Pierre| 11.24.08 @ 5:33PM

Hmmm, Obama won by how many points? 7%. If 29% identify themselves as Republican, then, why didn't Obama get 71% of the vote?

How much of Obama's win was due to people of all races wanting to support the first black president? That had to count for a few percentage points. Next, how many people were influenced by the near constant media support for Obama? Another 1-2% (at least)? Additionally, the economic mess was blamed on the Republicans, even though it can be shown that bad housing loans was a "gift" of the Democrats. How many percent did that cost the Republicans? Finally, who was in charge of regulation when mark-to-market was imposed on the financial system? What percent would still have voted Democratic had that information been widely known?

Add it all up, and maybe conservatism isn't as dead as some would like to proclaim.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.24.08 @ 5:42PM

"Every Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson has driven millions of his erstwhile supporters into the GOP ranks, and there is no reason to expect that Obama will break this precedent. "

I'm not sure that's true. Bill Clinton got 49.2 percent of the vote in 1996, yet Al Gore got 48.4 percent in 2000 (plus the 2.7 percent that went to Nader, most of which has since returned to the Democratic fold). Obama got 52.7 percent a mere eight years later (the highest percentage of any Democrat since 1964). I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, not by a long shot (although he probably did less to harm this nation than George W. Bush), but the allegation he greatly weakened the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party doesn't seem to hold much water.

aware| 11.24.08 @ 5:50PM

Bob, if you are still there. I understand what you are saying but you are missing the real problem some of us have with moderates, and it's not "social" issues. It's about your inability to see the State as the enemy of freedom. Based on your comments about taking care of uninsured and others, all these "good" ideas take money from from those who earned it, requires more power and control at the Federal level, and in short is no better than the welfare state that the Democrats feed.
You don't see the massive State as a problem only who's running it. We started down this road a long time ago with a lot of "good" intentions and just look where we are.
My problem is not that you don't see abortion or gay or anything else my way, it's that you are willing to be friends with an already bloated and getting bigger Federal government that is way out of control.
I'm sick of globe trotting Presidents, Congressional posers, judicial activists, petty bureaucrats, boot licking corporations, good ideas or bad ideas that require my money and freedom, but most of all I'm sick of big government because it takes our liberty and turns us from citizens into dependents and consumers.

Tennwriter| 11.24.08 @ 5:59PM

Alan,

I'm willing to accept Libertarian votes. I don't want to drive people out of the party unless they try to drive out the Standard Conservatives. However, I will say that progress depends on unreasonable people, and that confronting the Libertarians on a philosophical level is a very good idea. However, as a practical matter, we agree most of the time, and so if they want my occasional support for an initiative of theirs they need to offer the coin of the realm in trade (votes and public support).

Also, if they choose not to be reasonable, I suspect we can do far better on our own than they can do on their own. And in that case, practiaclity and philosophy will merge, and I will happily join you in clobbering Libertarians.

However, I cannot equate Libertarians with Communists. One is simplistic, but grasps much of the truth. The other is terrifyingly awful.

Let me also add that you remind me somewhat of Ayn Rand. A truly ferocious and uncompromising woman who perhaps saved America from the Communists. Perhaps one day there will be a political movement that you created.

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 6:12PM

Aware -- I am for limited government, not an over arching State. I was just showing the inconsistency of the social conservative argument. I do believe that conservative principles, executed in a pragmatic manner, can address poverty and healthcare. There are a number of federal government functions that should be disbanded. If the Republican party does not address jobs, poverty, and healthcare in a coherent fashion, they will lose every election.

Pierre, I see you don't understand statistics. Any political scientist will tell you that a 7% win in a national election is a landslide. It ended up with Obama getting 365 electoral votes and the largest win of any Democrat since 1964. The fact is that if Democrats vote for Democrats and Republicans vote for Republicans, and Independents split down the middle, Democrats now win every time. In 2000 and 2004, the number of Republicans and Democrats were about equal and so were the elections. Social conservatives, and their actions in forcing Palin on the ticket, now makes it impossible to have the same coalition that Bush received. That's the problem.

Dai -- your problem is that you are indeed anti-intellectual as are most social conservatives. Winning elections is about numbers -- getting votes. If you actually reviewed the exit polls as I did, you'd know that most of what I have stated is fact. We know the primary reason independents did not vote for McCain was Palin. That was fact. Second was Bush. Those who think that Palin helped the ticket because the polls rose right after she was picked, conveniently did not analyze what occurred afterwards. If you look at the RCP average, you'll see two major drops afterwards which coincided directly with the Gibson and Couric interviews. The drop DID NOT occur at the time of the economic falter by McCain. You guys need to go to college and learn how to do analysis.

Regarding how Obama will govern, as I've said, he is a hard nosed, pragmatic, politician. Ideologues like we find here can't understand a pragmatic guy. We can only judge by his actions. He has chosen a center-left cabinet and even conservatives here at AmSpec have recognized that. He is strategic and odds are he will govern in the same way because he wants to get elected. In fact, the only ones currently angry at Obama beyond the anti-intellectuals, are the people on the hard left.

Tennwriter -- actually I'm just a plain cheese pizza. You are a white cheese pizza with a double topping of anchovies.

Steve Beren| 11.24.08 @ 6:18PM

James Kumatsu writes: “Let's face it. We have no leader, no power and Americans rejected our two ideas: cutting taxes and deregulation.” However, with regard to cutting taxes, this is not true. Obama lied better than McCain told the truth. Some politicians lie, and when they do, it is often to get more votes. Obama lied about “cutting taxes” for 95% of Americans in order to get more votes; this alone is an acknowledgment of the voters’ support for cutting taxes. Obama was lying; McCain actually would have proposed tax cuts to congress.

Bob at 7:28 am writes: “social conservatives are more of a hindrance than a help as independents are turned off by religion in politics.” However, the results of marriage referenda in three states show that the American people – including those who favor cutting taxes and were fooled by Obama’s promises in that regard – support traditional marriage. Between now and 2012, one of the biggest battles between conservatives and the Obama administration will be over judicial appointments. Obama will nominate judges who would disregard the constitution and who would oppose the will of the people; conservatives will stand with the American people. Dropping social conservative issues would derail any battle against judicial activist nominations. It would amount to the Republicans agreeing to take this issue off the table

Speaking of “derailing” battles and taking important issues “off the table,” unfortunately that’s what McCain did by supporting the bailout. Instead of suspending his campaign and working “across the aisle” to support the bailout, he could have kept campaigning, announced he would be voting against the bailout, and (in the September 26 debate with Obama) destroy the “McCain is just a third Bush term” argument by opposing the “Obama-Bush bailout” and accusing Obama of supporting Bush’s economic policies (the bailout) just when it was most necessary to oppose the bailout.

Keep in mind that prior to the bailout controversy and McCain’s “suspension” of his campaign, he had finally pulled (slightly) ahead in the polls. This was due to his great performance at the Saddleback Church forum (where he strongly advanced a pro-life position) and his selection of the strongly pro-life Governor Palin as his running mate.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.24.08 @ 6:24PM

"The race was too close. We can't say obama has a 'mandate'"

In fairness, Obama did only very slightly worse than George H.W. Bush did against Dukakis in 1988, yet no one in the GOP ever questioned his mandate.

Pierre| 11.24.08 @ 6:26PM

Bob, thanks for the feedback, but, I fear you missed my point. This election was not won based on a turn to the left in the electorate. There were a number of additional factors other than left vs right ideology.

I admit, I find it interesting that you attack me, saying I don't understand statistics, yet totally ignore the point I was making.

What percentages would you apply to the factors in my original posting?

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 6:34PM

Pierre, I did not ignore the point you were making, you just didn't understand the response. You said that 7% difference was not significant, and in political terms it was a landslide. There was a turn from right to left in the election if you measure that by party registration. I agree that the cause of that change included multiple factors. I believe that ideology entered the picture through the pick of Palin versus Romney or Lieberman. Polls are not accurate enough to give that a specific percentage, however.

Pierre| 11.24.08 @ 6:56PM

Oh Bob,

So, now I "don't understand"?

And you state that I said "7% was not significant". That is not what I said.

Party registration is an important metric. What percentage of the change in percentages can be attributed to things like "Operation Chaos" and other efforts to affect the Democratic primary?

Would ANYONE here care to answer the original question...

What percentages would YOU apply to the factors in my original posting? (4:33 PM)

Agent Orange Peel| 11.24.08 @ 6:58PM

Steve, I see that Fox News has quoted you 'as saying that Republicans should "... wave the Republican flag boldly; wave fiscal conservatism, social conservatism..."' I found that out by clicking your link then doing some research.

I would be more than curious to know from a Republican, who actually ran for office this year, what you think of the Republican fiscal conservative issue I deal with in my last post, which can be seen by clicking on my link. But of course, I leave the choice to you and won't think any less of you if you choose not to respond.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.24.08 @ 7:09PM

All this talk about how we have to go after moderates/independents, at the expense of social conservatives, is just silly. We need both groups to win; that was just as true in 1980 (and 1976) as it is today.

We don't need to abandon social conservatism (that fact that only 37% of the people here in California voted Republican for President, yet over 52% of them voted "Yes" to rid our state of homosexual "marriage" is proof positive of that; social conservatism still sells in one of the Bluest of states), but we do need to learn to present it differently. Neocon imbeciles like Bush and Palin always promoted social conservatism as if it were an adjunct of Evangelical Protestantism, that other people could support too, if they wanted to. I'm a social conservative (very much so), and I'm essentially an Atheist. Ronald Reagan could speak to people like me, because he didn't make social conservatism seem so sectarian. Social conservatism needs to be reclaimed as common sense policy, and not as theological dogma.

Its interesting to note that the one GOP candidate who had, by far, the most appeal to young voters, college students, gays, and even among Blacks and Hispanics, was the most right-wing of them all, Rep. Ron Paul. There's a lesson in there somewhere. One of those lessons is that the GOP needs to move away from the Fascism Lite of the neo-"conservatives," and towards a more robust, pro-liberty stance of people like Paul, Reagan, and Goldwater. I'm not saying the GOP needs to become the Libertarian Party, but it needs to stop being the Police State and Endless Foreign War Party.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.24.08 @ 7:15PM

" I was tempted by Governor Jimmy Carter to return to the fold. After all, he was a successfull leader and had the credentials so familiar to me -- Southern Democrat Southern Baptist. I foolishly believed he could set everything right.

Double-digit interest rates, double digit inflation, unemployment rates that rose faster than gasoline prices, gasoline that was rationed in quantity and only available every other day, and our diplomats held hostage by college students in a third-world county -- all convinced me to leave the Democrats and I have never returned."

Would it really have been any different had Gerald Ford won the election? I suspect the late 1970s were going to be a tough time for America, irrespective of who won in '76 (although if the GOP had nominated Reagan, perhaps things might have turned out better).

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.24.08 @ 7:20PM

"I'm afraid the older whites in the party as well as social conservatives will limit the party so much that there is little chance of future success. "

If we have to change our principles too much, who cares whether or not we win, however. If we can only win by becoming quasi-liberals, then lets just resign ourselves to being the opposition. I don't think that's necessary, and I also don't think that nominating moderates is a certain path to victory. McCain just lost pretty big, in case you hadn't noticed. Please don't suggest what's wrong with McCain is he was too right-wing.

Steve Beren| 11.24.08 @ 7:26PM

Agent Orange Peel, you asked me to comment on your latest blog post. Rather than go off topic and respond in depth in the middle of this thread, I would simply refer you to my campaign website issues page, and specifically to the first three links on that page, all of which deal with fiscal and economic policy.

Louis Jenkins| 11.24.08 @ 7:28PM

As George Carlin said when speaking about our government leaders, "If our elected leaders are the brightest and the best, then we must be a bunch of @#!^&? idiots."

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.24.08 @ 7:29PM

"Don't hold your breath waiting for the Obama drones to revolt. As Mr. Lawler points out in his article, the Left will be too stupid to notice that they've been had"

I can't believe there are still people out there who think everyone who voted for Obama is part of "the Left." No one wins a U.S. Presidential election on the strength of the leftist vote. There are probably millions of people who voted for Obama who previously voted for Reagan. Twenty years of the two Georges Bush, Dan Quayle, Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Sarah Palin have given them no particular reason NOT to reject the GOP. Nominate someone who's an actual conservative for President, for the first time since 1984, and then see what happens.

HINT: Neocons aren't conservatives.

I'll bet a Ron Paul/Chuck Hagel ticket would have scored more than 173 Electoral Votes (although after eight years of that neocon stooge from Crawford in the White House, I doubt ANY Republican could have won in 2008).

Bob A| 11.24.08 @ 8:08PM

The ex-Democrats won't matter. They will be replaced with the 20 million illegals who will become new Democrats when Obama and congress get their way.

Tennwriter| 11.24.08 @ 8:25PM

Plain cheese pizza....that would be a minimalist committment to social values, national defense, and fiscal responsibility.

You want to stop defending abortion, and you want to mess up the fiscal issues. I think someone forgot to put the cheese and the tomato sauce on this pizza.

This is more of the 'speed governor' stuff. Milquetoast Republicans lose gallantly, win poorly.

You do strengthen the case for "Socially Liberal and Fiscally "Conservative" is Weak on Finances: Strong Conservative is Strong All the Way Around."

I remember GB, Sr. and his talk of Voodoo Economics. I also remember him losing a campaign that was his to take. Scorning trickle-down economics is weakness.

Operating without economic ideology might be nice if the person were really practical. Unfortunately, what it tends to mean is to operate with the ideology of the airheads on the news, but with an elitist bent even they can't reach.

However, feel free to explicate what this mysterious non-ideological magic is, and how it differentiates from Democrat-lite. What coherent principles should the Conservative movement use to address Poverty, healthcare, and that one other thing?

At this point, I'm reasonably sure you're not even a fiscal conservative. I'm thinking you're likely not even a Republican.

And thanks for calling me stinky.

Colin Foy| 11.24.08 @ 9:21PM

Pointless artical and somewhat naive! What about constitutional conservatives like me who've become so disgusted with Republocrats that , short of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan rising from the dead, will never ever vote for them again. Especially after watching the sniveling quisling John MaCain go down with a whimper as The Hollow Men creater T.S Eliot predicted? This past weekend I watched with chagrined bemusement as the yelping short skirts on FOX were talking about all the Pirate shenannagins. They had a world map with little red boxes indicating all the places were piracy had occurred this past year. All except for one, there was no little red box over Washington D.C. were the greatest piracy took place with the ripoff bank bailout perpetrated by Shifty Paulson and the idiotic poltroons from both parties. Anyone who thinks that the answer to the problems facing this country will be resolved by Republocrats or Demarxistcrats, the same people who've created them, is living in a dream world and, quite frankly, you deserve what's coming to you.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.24.08 @ 10:39PM

All this talk of socially liberal & fiscally conservative Republicans make me think of the fact that such people are almost never really fiscally conservative. Other than for ex-U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R)-California, I can't think of anyone who ever managed to actually BE fiscally conservative at the same time they were socially liberal. Campbell was actually alright, because even though he was pro-Choice, he took a strong stand in support of California's 1996 Proposition 209, to end affirmative action (having him on board really lent the movement credibility; I doubt my own father would have voted for 209 if he hadn't heard Campbell was one of its backers, and so knew it wasn't really sponsored by David Duke, the way the No on 209 people were claiming). Also, Campbell was against foreign intervention, and was arguably the single strongest Congressional opponent of the 1999 Kosovo War. I'm willing to forgive a guy for being pro-Choice and pro-gay "rights," IF he'll work with me on other issues, like Campbell did. But guys like Campbell are a very rare breed; most social liberals are just plain liberals, no matter how good a game they talk on fiscal issues during campaign season.

Dai Alanye| 11.24.08 @ 11:46PM

Gee, Bob, I suppose I should feel complimented that you now think you can read MY mind as well as all those others, attempting to categorize someone you've never met or spoken to, and whose writings you have almost certainly not read. I am not, I fear, impressed by your intellect; your sophistry, on the other hand, is of a high order.

Note that the major problem Palin ran into was the way the campaign handled her, choosing CBS interviews to get her feet wet, rather than starting her out in friendly venues. The stupidity of this almost passes belief.

They misused their tremendous asset--a popular personality who had an actual record of worthwhile accomplishment in contrast to all other parties on either ticket. And all possibly because John McCain doesn't like Fox News and bloggers. Face facts-- the independent lost this election largely on his own, as Republicans generally tend to when failing to present themselves as conservatives.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.25.08 @ 8:32AM

Well I can see after reading to this point that, as a libertarian, I might as well succor myself with the love of a good prostitute, fire up a doobie, and wait for my government check (financed by the new tax levied on the churches) to show up in the mail.

Bob| 11.25.08 @ 9:08AM

Again Tennwriter, so-cons make the party smaller, not larger. Perhaps more importantly, they make the party dumber and anti-intellectual. There are some exceptions like Romney and Jindal. But if you notice Jindal in Iowa this week, he did not talk about abortion and gays in any of his comments to social conservatives. He talked about decency and the coarseness of society -- something that is broader in appeal. He knows he can't get elected with a strict anti-abortion position.

Tennwriter| 11.25.08 @ 11:28AM

Bob,

You're striking me as a 'hardcore'. In Ringo's latest book, the Last Centurion, he talked about hardcores. He explained how after a man completely beats the pulp out of you, you don't glare at him....unless you're a hardcore.

Your guy lost. And big time. This continues a string of RINO losses....GB,Sr., Dole, and now McCain.

Socons are the standard conservative who believes in values, defense, and fiscal responsibility. This is a broad viewpoint of positions that are generally more popular than their opposite positions. So au contraire.

I find the notion that fiscons are smarter than socons to be amusing. A simplistic understanding of a few points does not make for a smarter man than one who is broadly educated.

Anti-intellectual. We need to define things a bit. I'm in favor of knowledge, and wisdom, and sound scholarship, and good logic, but I'm not certain that many of our so-called intellectuals are in favor of these things. Much of the Great Conversation is a lie and a pretty obvious one at that. As Cicero said, a philosopher will believe anything, no matter how stupid.

I think we need to consider destroying much of the Intellectual Class as irreparably rotted, and replace them with Scholars and Logicians.

I may be talking deeper and broader than you. I suspect that your real complaint is more along the lines of classism. "He sounds smart, and he has a tweed suit and a pipe." I am anti-intellectual to the extend that intellectualism reflects anti-Americanism, and supports the lifestyle of poseurs.

Smartest guy I know looks like a gorilla and has a strong Southern accent. He also has an IQ north of 180. And he told me that intelligence is only somewhat useful. Second smartest guy I know, Harvard Law Degree, seconded that viewpoint.

First you have to prove that extreme intelligence is needed for rulership. The historical model of Camelot (King--clever, noble-hearted jock Arthur, and very smart advisor--Merlin) suggests otherwise. I don't want Gingrich to be president, but I do want him to be listened to when he's using that creative mind of his (not when he's wimping out).

Perhaps Jindal knew that hitting the old retreads to an audience that well knew them was not neccessary. Instead, he would choose to discuss something slightly more advanced.

And then after proving that extreme intelligence is neccessary, you have to prove that socons are less so that fiscons. Both propositions are of doubtful rigor.

I do appreciate the greater clarity you've put forth in your last post. However, you make a number of unsupported statements, except for the one supported by your analysis of Jindal's speech (an analysis I find uncertain.).

Ask yourself this, given the choice, do I prefer someone with correct viewpoints, or do I prefer someone with extreme high intelligence? Keep in mind that Alexander the Great and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin were no doubt both extremely bright.

I'm also curious as to why you don't like Boehner and McConnell. I don't like them either, and I would have thought they were your guys.

MaskedMan| 11.25.08 @ 12:38PM

Bob,

Firstly, you don't believe in "trickle down" economics anymore? So that means you believe in Obamas trickle up economics then?

Do you have any idea why it works and has worked everywhere it is put in place? see Ireland

Do you wonder why Putin is calling for reduced taxes in Russia right now for businesses during this world wide recession?

I you get a chance there's this guy named Milton Freidman who you might want to read up on. It is the benchmark of what fiscal conservatives believe.

Daphne Kenward| 11.25.08 @ 6:19PM

Ron Paul was the only person who was being honest with the American people.

But honesty in politics, does not work. People like to be lied to, it's all about whose lies sounds the best. I feel sorry for the people in America, and at the same time I feel sorry for myself too, but that is a problem that must be addressed, get the hell out of the SATANIC system. 33 degree Freemasons who don't believe in God, the Pope who don't believe in God, have one set of rules for the Masses, hence the name MASS, then they are speaking about the Black Pope, when that happens, it signify the end of the World, I am not sure if it's the world as we know it or the actual end.

Clytemnestra| 11.27.08 @ 1:39AM

The Republicans need to stop competing with the Democrats for the dubious honor of who gets to suck up the most to the La Raza and NAACP types while selling out their White voters, confident that they'll vote for them, because the alternative is only worse. The reason why the Republicans lost is that many White Americans looked at the dismal prospect of either voting for a Black Racist Marxist like Barak Hussein Obama OR White Race Traitor, John "Amnesty" McCain, decided, "to hell with it, we're screwed either way," and stayed home.

The only hope Republicans have for ever gaining power again is to go further back than Reagan to Goldwater Libertarian-Conservatism.

The whole 2012 Republican platform should be about abolishing the Nanny State. Citizens should be adults and not require a nanny whether she is a womb-to-tomb security Marxist or the Church Lady determined to save us from ourselves.

Ms. Know| 11.29.08 @ 2:46PM

He changed his promises and original guidelines a bunch of times. That's the change he and the liberal illuminati were talking about I guess, what they will do, vs. what they originally promised.

Doug. C| 5.31.09 @ 2:46PM

Hope does NOT trump competency. Ever, under any circumstances.

Or the higher the pedestal, the further the fall.