The American Spectator

whiterb| 3.5.09 @ 6:51AM

The democrats made a number of policy changes on key issues in order to win. The most glaring example is the second amendment. It is amazing how many red state voters dumped the conservatives and GOP, once they believed their guns were not threatened. The two Senators from Virginia are ample proof of this reality in action. The question is why was the GOP dumped so quickly ? Answer we were too conservative in other areas. A party that favors the rich will never win. A party that favors Scrooge before his Christmas eve transformation over Tiny Tim will never win. The women of America will not allow it. The gender gap has cometh. And Limbaugh, is the ultimate vote killer among the fairer sex. But, delude yourself all you want. Listen to Rush complain about CEO mistreatment in this climate. He actually had tears in his eyes , because this guy Thain was maligned for his expensive office renovation. You call this guy the key to winning ? A GOP majority comprised of conservatives, rinos( diverting from the Limbaugh litmus on just one issue test condemns one to that label), and just common sense folk, and too some quirky libertarians would stop the Obama, Pelosi, Reid Express cold. Things would be saner and safer. Has anyone really looked at their energy plan ? Has anyone studied it or questioned it from a common sense perspective ? A national securuty perspective ?Nope. The puny Republican minority is the 90 pound weakling getting sand kicked in its face by old lady bullies like Pelosi and Boxer. Oh yeah, and Bob Casey jr., who now is allowed to be pro life and run and win, and win he did against The Limbaugh , conservative dream candidate, Monsignor Santorum. And, did you notice North Carolina is adopting more modern and progressive sex education? North Carolina ? Remember it used to be a red state. Watch this guy Shuler take out Burr. It will be sad, as Burr is top notch in my book. His only hope is to move to the center on some issues ? Will Rush and the gang allow this ?What idiocy prevails in the GOP. Madness and delusion that breathes new life into the word flabbergasting.

Deborah| 3.5.09 @ 6:53AM

I think you said it all here, Mr. Neumayr: "The Democrats win on their unsound principles, but at least they grasp the concept of winning as more than mere victory. They win office and implement their platform unapologetically; Republicans win office and timidly nibble theirs apart."

Something happens to Republicans (and conservatives) when they are immersed in the liberal/leftist cultures of Washington, D.C. and New York City (note: any Republican congressman who's been there longer than a couple of years and David Brooks at the NY Times). As Rush says, liberalism is easy, conservatism takes thought and a tough hide to withstand the slings and arrows shot at them on a daily basis. It also takes the courage of actual convictions -- not some desire to go along just to get along or to be perceived as wise by the dominant media...(McCain and Grahamnesty are two who immediately pop into my head).

I get so tired of Republicans, instead of attacking Democrats (McCain and Grahamnesty again), point their guns at those in their own party. That's when you know they aren't for their party or their country, they're only for themselves. One reason in many that McCain didn't win. Republicans (and probably many others) didn't trust McCain, could never really get a feel for who he really is and what he's really for.

Hint to Republicans and conservatives -- stand for something! Like the Constitution, the American people, and bringing this country back from the brink of Socialism. That's our fight right now. Quit worrying about getting re-elected and do what's right. Guess what, that's what Americans expect you to do when they elect you.

Rocco| 3.5.09 @ 7:02AM

Any Republican with principles is now confronted with a real target-rich environment. Deborah hit the nail on the head. Time for these wimps to stand up and defend the principles which won that party election after election. Fight to win, or just go home and hide under the bed!

james23| 3.5.09 @ 7:20AM

great; well said

TennesseeVolunteer| 3.5.09 @ 7:44AM

Join the Conservative Movement by supporting companies that embrace conservative principles and ignoring those that don't! In a previous post, I suggested a boycott of liberal companies but that was not quite right. My wife (who is my hero and a very successful educator) always tells me that kids in her private school always thrive when rewarded for good behavior. Well, lets reward good behavior to companies that do things right.
Ford Motor Company did not take a bailout. If you are looking to buy a car, look at a Ford first! Lets reward good behavior! Others?

Peter Skurkiss| 3.5.09 @ 7:52AM

True, the GOP lacks backbone and the Democrats seem hyper-aggressive in pursuit of their agenda.

The control that the liberals has over the culture, the media, and the schools is the primary reason for this.

I know; there are exceptions to this rule like the success or Reagan and Rush. But the fact remains, it is terribly hard to swim against a cultural tide as strong as this one is.

I’m not saying that we can't succeed. What I’m saying is that we have to be tough as nails and be ready to strike out unapologically at opponents at the slightest provocation. People like Rush, Sean, and Ann Coulter are good examples, but GOP head Michael Steele is not; Sarah Palin should be copied-and-pasted while RINOs like John McCain, our pathethic presidential nominee, should be deleted.

Principle is a winner; accommodation is not.

frost| 3.5.09 @ 8:22AM

It's been said repeatedly: there's the stupid, wimpy party with goofy priorities -- and then there's the scary, dangerous, certifiable party. Personally, I can't stomach either, and the lesser-of-evils (or evil of lessers?) doesn't appeal either...
As an independent Independent with Libertarian leanings, I concur with the analysis and the comments which followed (except for that notorious Pingback), especially Deborah's.
Now, whether or not the GOP can ever recapture the essence-of-old (Goldwater, and maybe Reagan too?) and get some cojones? Doubtful, I fear. They've colored themselves "losers" and weak, they've become a sad joke, nothing less.
The idea that stem-cells, gay-crap and (lack of) "choice" are more important than Freedom of Speech and Gun Control (for starters), Illegal Aliens and run-away spending? Appalling!
So, I know not where we're headed, but, that light at the end-of-the-tunnel might be a gorilla with a flashlight.
We're in mighty deep trouble, gang...

ame| 3.5.09 @ 8:41AM

BRAVO! PLEASE LEAD MICHAEL STEELE OUT OF THE WILDERNESS OR TELL HIM TO RESIGN.

Big J| 3.5.09 @ 8:53AM

Your article hits the nail on the head. Watered-down conservatism fails every time. Let's face it. Democrat, Republican or Independant, the majority of Americans have conservative values. We don't value the same-sex marriage or abortion issues more than free speech or gun control, ALL are equally important to us (at least to me). The main struggle is articulating the message. That's what Reagan, Rush and Sarah all do. That is why they are demonized by the Left - because they are feared, and rightfully so. That is also why McCain failed. If you are truly conservative, articulating the message is easy.

Same sex marriage = breakdown of family values
Gun control = loss of freedom to defend ourselves
Wealth redistribution = rewarding failure
Higher taxes = less incentive for production

Anyway, you get the point. It seems pretty simple to me. Why is it so difficult for Republicans?

stmichrick | 3.5.09 @ 9:04AM

Any new Republican 'platform' should include a gallows with a noose for those RINOs commiting bipartisan crimes.

Now that the majority is is far from being reclaimed, 2010 is a good time to clean house.

We primaried one in Maryland's First District and, while the RINO in question threw his support to the Democrat who swept in on Barack's coattails, we (and Obama) have prepared the battlefield well for retaking it with a conservative Republican next time.

Obama Drools| 3.5.09 @ 9:22AM

Conservatives need a media plan. Right now the LSM controls the message with maybe one honest reporter left.

Without a plan to go around, above the media AND expose them for what they are, political hacks for the DNC, we won't win.

Howard| 3.5.09 @ 10:05AM

It is true that without principles you are nothing but John Kerry. Reagan won by building a big tent. He had traditional Country Club Republicans, Supply Siders, Catholics, The South, etc. Part of this success was due to his political skills. Part was due to the imbecile Jimmy Carter. I am confident once America truly sees Obama as the Socialist he really is; it will make our position stronger. My fear is that he will bring forth permanent liberal programs before the people see the folly of his way. We need to hammer the Dem's plans constantly.

frost| 3.5.09 @ 10:25AM

Oh, that it were true and you were right, Howard -- but I fear that because of Obama's agenda of Amnesty and the humungous influx of non-citizens inspired by ACORN and the "Something-for-Nothing" socialism of the current regime (plus Dubya's past monumental screw-ups concerning the border/Illegal Aliens), we're simply OUTNUMBERED, ALREADY. Doubt if we'll ever see the day when sanity in DC happens, much less overturning the gross neo-Mraxist policies of the present bunch.

Ran| 3.5.09 @ 10:34AM

"Reagan won by building a big tent." NO. NO.

Reagan won by convincing others to join him... in his ideas. He won by confidently selling the advantages of his principles. He did NOT win by building a big compromise.

We don't need to hammer the Dems, we need to sell the advantages of principled libertarian conservative policies. (The markets are hammering the Dems for us.)

That, and we need to CLOSE THE DAMNED PRIMARY SYSTEM TO LIBERALS.

Deborah| 3.5.09 @ 10:39AM

Amen, Ran!

Admr S.O.B. Buniontow VI| 3.5.09 @ 11:02AM

So, how different is the juvenile attempts to play up the "Big Tent" and the glee of MSM/Donk spokespersons to the dissing of Gov. Palin from within the McCain campaign?

As the Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) said, "this town needs an enema."

Admr S. O.B. Buniontow VI| 3.5.09 @ 11:05AM

The last primary was a sham. It gave us a moderate presidential candidate and look at the results.

Buck up, Comrades, the Obama regime needs dismantling in 2012.

Admr S.O.B. Buniontow VI| 3.5.09 @ 11:06AM

Flush the Steele turd before it stinks up the place.

Ran| 3.5.09 @ 11:59AM

"liberalism is easy, conservatism takes thought and a tough hide to withstand the slings and arrows shot at them on a daily basis. It also takes the courage of actual convictions -- not some desire to go along just to get along or to be perceived as wise "

Amen to that, Deb!

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 12:10PM

Lots of revisionist history here. And as usual, all belief and little fact. Reagan won because of the coalition of social conservatives, military hawks, and fiscal conservatives including Blue Dog Dems. He obtained 50.7% of the vote which, by the way, was less than Obama. He was running against an incumbent who had the highest marginal income tax rate and inflation was high. In addition, he was an actor which allowed him to communicate exceptionally well.

So get this through your thick heads -- it wasn't his ideas, it was the disastrous performance of his opponent and the "big tent" he was able to form because of that.

Since Reagan, the demographics of the U.S. have changed significantly. If you just take demographics and party affiliation, he would only have achieved 45% with today's country breakout. Republicans then accounted for about 38% of the electorate and today they are about 29% of the electorate. Democrats were about 37% then and are about 39% today.

You cannot win elections with the conservative base. Besides, George Bush has done huge damage to the Republican party and a majority of people do not believe Republicans are fiscally responsible.

So the political question is how to garner the votes of moderate Republicans (RINO's like me) and independents who have fled from the Republican party. The demographic challenge is even greater. The Republican party is comprised of a significantly older voter group and has very few minorities. It is the younger voters, Hispanics, and blacks that are the growing base. The "conservative" message does not appeal to these groups according to the polling done in this last election.

Rush Limbaugh's audience represents only 4.7% of the population and his positive rating among voters under 35 is only 11%. He is also extremely weak among women voters.

There is no mathematical way of winning a national election without appealing to RINO's and independents. Social conservatives only represent 18% of voters. That makes a nice audience for Rush, but a terrible voter base.

So the question is how to appeal to the middle who are primarily pro-choice and liberal on social issues. A fiscal conservative message may appeal to these people if someone is able to articulate some conservative programs specifically in the areas of health care, education, and energy. Health care will be the number one issue and just complaining about Obama's policy is a losing proposition as is support for the current system which is costly and doesn't cover a quarter of the population.

This is reality. Deal with it.

Nick| 3.5.09 @ 12:26PM

Ran,

Bravo, bravo!!
Leaders get people to follow them because they inspire and elevate. A leader persuades people to believe they can achieve goals they imagine they could not possibly reach themselves.
Going to different groups of people and saying I'll do this and that for you is called pandering. And it is practiced by cowards to frightened or lazy to fight.

Nora| 3.5.09 @ 12:31PM

Stop repeating the big lie that the majority of Americans are 'pro-choice'. This is false. The majority of Americans sanction many abortion restrictions and do not even know (due to the intentional misinformation campaign in major media) that abortion is legal in all states up to the moment of birth. Most Americans do not favor minors obtaining abortion w/o parental consent. If you ask the questions about whether abortion should ever be legal, you will get more 'yes' votes than 'no' votes. If you ask whether we should keep the whole industry unregulated (as now) with taxpayer funded abortions (as now) at all ages (as now) during all of pregnancy (as now) you will not see the 'yes' vote in majority. We need a candidate who will force the national debate on what an abortion really is -- why can't PBS film and show a real abortion? Why can't women be shown 3D ultrasounds?

The reality is that the sewers of our nations run red with the blood of the unborn and it is a HUGE for-profit industry. Planned Parenthood is now receiving millions more dollars thanks to our bonehead-in-chief and his abortion industry overlords. So, rather than dismiss this as a single issue debacle, maybe we can educate the population about what the reality is. This is reality. Let's deal with it.

NIck| 3.5.09 @ 12:46PM

Bob,

I notice you just happened to leave out the '84 election. What liberal/moderate excuses will you make for that landslide?
Here's what you RINO's have to deal with: You can't win without social conservatives. And unlike you mushy moderates, we have core principles we will NEVER compromise on.
Did you sleep through the last election? Or 1996? Or 1992? You just had the epitome of compromise and moderation lose to a neophyte. He pandered to hispanics. He certainly didn't make abortion an isssue. And as he was catching up to B.O. (thanks to Gov. Palin), he went along with the TARP compromise. You RINO's can't win national elections.

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 1:22PM

Nora -- in the last CNN/Opinion Research poll I saw in 2008 53% of the respondents were pro-choice and 44% were pro-life. There has been a trend towards pro-choice in recent years as younger voters enter the electorate. Do most respondents think there should be some restrictions? Yes, but they still consider themselves to be pro-choice.

So my point remains that most independents are pro-choice and are libertarian leaning.

Nick, to compare the re-election of Reagan to the first election of Obama is just plain dumb. If the economy improves, Obama will have a hugh landslide in four years. Then you can compare apples to apples.

Furthermore, George Bush won twice running as a "compassionate conservative" -- i.e., a RINO. There goes your argument.

Can't any of you analyze objective data?

thirteen28| 3.5.09 @ 1:24PM

A-freakin'-men, Mr. Neumayr. Every last word of it.

whiterb| 3.5.09 @ 1:25PM

Bob, you see the problem with Nick's posting. They will never give people like you and I an ounce of respect, and they will go down in flames every time rather than navigate a sound course. Your smart and clear statement about the math of winning means nothing to these folks. Even worse, they think they are the only ones with principles and morality. The sad truth is that conservatives and moderates could easily forge a union and produce better ideas on health care, education, and energy. Fiscal policy based on conservative,free enterprise solutions is a winner, since economic growth is the only way out. But, then we have Nora, and sewers running red with blood. Nora people do not want unbridled abortion, any more than unbridled capitalism. But, I remind you Alito , and Roberts both said Roe was settled law. Why must the GOP keep beating its head against the wall on overthrowing it ? Even pro life South Dakota threw out a too strict abortion law. The most pro life president in history gave us Alito and Roberts. He said it would take a change of heart by the vast majority of Americans to overturn it. He was telling you , all of us that using politics to make abortion illegal was a waste of time. And, guaranteed minority status.

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 1:33PM

Whiterb -- I totally agree. Social conservative lack any shred of tolerance. That's too bad because there are great conservative solutions if the hard right only learned to reason. Could you imagine a tax system that was neither progressive or regressive? Could you imagine a party that calls for fiscal responsibility and then says spending cuts come first and then we will find a way to pay for what we spend? Could you imagine an approach to health care that uses pragmatism and productivity to solve the issues rather than homage to an ideology that causes the highest health care costs in the world?

These are true fiscal conservative positions that the far right think are not principled. Personally, I don't think their position is principled because they lack reason and objective analysis.

Too bad. They are making the Dems a permanent majority.

BD57| 3.5.09 @ 1:48PM

While their styles are different, Reagan & Limbaugh succeeded for the same reason - neither one of them felt/feel any need whatsoever to apologize for conservatism.

If these so-called Republican leaders & self-proclaimed "prophets of the way back to power" want Limbaugh off the stage, they might try a full-throated defense of conservative ideas.

It isn't that hard, really....

There's an analogy to be made to the modern church in America.

It seems that, some time ago, so-called church leaders became more concerned about what "turned people off" to church than they were about preaching the Word. In an effort to become more "seeker-friendly", they started trimming .... talking about sin, man's fallen nature, his need for a Savior, etc. was too accusatory and judgmental, etc. So they set about building a "big tent" where people could pick and choose what they wished to believe about God (because there are no absolutes, etc.).

The churches who do that sort of thing get smaller - the ones that don't, grow.

If there's nothing to believe in, there's no reason to join.

Cap'n Aubrey| 3.5.09 @ 2:28PM

"They will never give people like you and [me] an ounce of respect"

Laddie, respect must be earned by first telling truth. Grammar wouldn't hurt.

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 2:33PM

Cap'n

"Laddie, respect must be earned by first telling truth. Grammar wouldn't hurt."

Perhaps that's why I have a problem with most of you TAS posters -- lack of truth due to a lack of intelligence. Hmmm...

whiterb| 3.5.09 @ 2:37PM

Big J, wake up. Many democrats are now pro second amendment. Two of them are now Senators in Virginia, a formally red state. And, most democrats believe marriage is between man and woman, so said Obama himself. As for taxing the rich a bit more to help the poor, strengthen the social safety net ,well many voters, a majority agree with that. At least they perceive Republicans truly don't care much or enough about the poor, and middle class. Women in particular want people to get the health care they need. You and Rush can insist health care is not a right listed in the Constitution, but they, women, want it treated as one. That is reality, plain and simple. The gender gap has got us. Rush always scoffed at this being possible, but once again, as he is so often about politics, Rush was wrong. So you conservative tough guys who call Rinos mushy and squishy, how do you like being bitch slapped by all these little liberal ladies of the democrat party these days. That senile little dwarf Mikulski , that loud mouthed midget Boxer, geriatric DiFi, skinny San Fran Nan all of them are the bullies now , and kicking sand in your faces. You are 90 pound weaklings of politics today.You can't do it alone. Let me help you before these mean, tough ladies do you even more harm. I can help you. Just call 1-800-RINO. We you save, dear conservative chums. Let us form a " special relationship " that can lead to victory.

whiterb| 3.5.09 @ 2:38PM

Big J, wake up. Many democrats are now pro second amendment. Two of them are now Senators in Virginia, a formally red state. And, most democrats believe marriage is between man and woman, so said Obama himself. As for taxing the rich a bit more to help the poor, strengthen the social safety net ,well many voters, a majority agree with that. At least they perceive Republicans truly don't care much or enough about the poor, and middle class. Women in particular want people to get the health care they need. You and Rush can insist health care is not a right listed in the Constitution, but they, women, want it treated as one. That is reality, plain and simple. The gender gap has got us. Rush always scoffed at this being possible, but once again, as he is so often about politics, Rush was wrong. So you conservative tough guys who call Rinos mushy and squishy, how do you like being bitch slapped by all these little liberal ladies of the democrat party these days. That senile little dwarf Mikulski , that loud mouthed midget Boxer, geriatric DiFi, skinny San Fran Nan all of them are the bullies now , and kicking sand in your faces. You are 90 pound weaklings of politics today.You can't do it alone. Let me help you before these mean, tough ladies do you even more harm. I can help you. Just call 1-800-RINO. We you save, dear conservative chums. Let us form a " special relationship " that can lead to victory.

aware| 3.5.09 @ 3:12PM

As I've said before, Bob, your great ideas require the big State just like the Leftists. So what's the difference if we end up with the same monster in the end? You fall into the trap of believing that the "good" ends you advocate justifies the big government means of achieving them. In other words, the same thing that leftists believe.

Smaller and Constitutional government is not possible with your policies. Spending cuts? Spending is the key to the professional politician buying their way to power and convincing you that you would not survive without them, so they ain't about to say good bye to that voluntarily.

You are chasing smoke like those on the Right that think the Left is the enemy. If you take away the State, as we now know it, the Left has no power to destroy your lives. If the Right(whatever that means) gets power again it had better use the chance to destroy the State before it destroys us. Out with the Dept of Education, Federal Reserve, Dept. of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and at least 85% of all that it does.

You want to "tame" the beast, which is impossible, and I want the mad dog destroyed.

Nick| 3.5.09 @ 3:14PM

Bob,

So you admit it is RINO's like yourselves that gave us higher spending. That's progress. GWB barely squeaked by running as a moderate in both elections. In fact he lost the popular vote running against a doofus. And what about McLame? No answer of course.
Every election is unique, so you just pick the elections you think prove your points. Nixon ran as a social conservative and won big twice. Ford ran as a moderate and lost. Reagan ran as a soc con and won big twice. GHWB ran as a somewhat social conservative and won. He governed like a mushy moderate and lost to a draft dodging, dope smoking , perverted hippie. Dole, another war hero, ran as a moderate and lost to bubba. McShamnesty did eveything you say the GOP has to do and lost to an incompetent state senator. Your moderate track record sucks.

whiterb| 3.5.09 @ 3:15PM

Cap'n you want truth ? Your ship is sinking . A bunch of little ladies in row boats have torpedoed the Mighty Battleship " Conservatism". Pass the Grog, and sing " Barack the Magic Negro", as you go down, down, down.

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 3:33PM

Aware, actually my ideas would make government smaller, not larger. Both Reagan and Bush grew the size of government. Simplifying the tax code, lowering health care costs, using pragmatism and analysis for budgeting, etc., would cost a lot less and use many fewer federal employees. Furthermore, I would reduce a number of the federal functions since I would promote regulation but not incentives. The administration of incentives is huge. Furthermore, I would get rid of wasteful programs like the office of faith based initiatives.

In addition, I would make the government pay for its programs. I believe that once people have to pay for what they get, they will want less. That is called individual responsibility and something that tax cuts ignore.

aware| 3.5.09 @ 4:23PM

Bob, I agree about not just the two mentioned, but all Republican and Democratic Admins. Which is why I don't get fooled again by "smaller" government talk. I'm sick of the bad ideas and the good ideas if it involves one dime more of my money or one ounce more government, period.

I don't mean to sound demeaning or patronizing but I still think you are being a little naive about the possibility of reforming this drunken sailor of a State(remember drunken sailors can do more mischief than just spend money). Standard State practice would quickly make mincemeat out of your ideas.

For instance, simplifying the tax code...tax money would first be spent to impanel a "blue ribbon" commission to "study" the proposal, then Congress would hold "hearings" about the negative impact on the permanent dependent class(really just a chance for lobbyists to marshal funds for the payoffs). These always consist of current or former(and future?) government employees who hate the idea "testifying" to corrupt congressman who also hate the idea which is then "reported" to the public by the Press who also hate the idea. Of course if it's popular they can't be seen to oppose it so they add amendments to the bill so that by the time it is signed it barely even resembles what it started as. Then the bureaucrats get to go to work administering, implementing, policing, and reporting back to their elected masters...on and on in mind numbing detail.
Similar fates await all intelligent ideas when the mass corruption know as the State is involved. I have occasionally known the State to do the right thing, but not because it was the right thing.

aware| 3.5.09 @ 4:32PM

Some rail against the Left. Some the Right. Some the moderates. For me the State is the 800 lb. mad dog lose in the house. It's the one holding a gun to our heads and has shown before it doesn't mind pulling the trigger. It is dangerous and unpredictable and should be defanged before it's too late, if it's not already.

J.A. Davis| 3.5.09 @ 4:39PM

This analysis is so wrong, it's hard to know where to begin. It first makes sense to point out that "compassionate conservatism" worked just fine. It won two elections. If George wants an ideologically pure, but impotent Republican party that is fine. But, you can be sure that we will get policies that are slow-growth and pro-trial attorney. Far better, in my view, would be too return to the Reagan "big tent". That means general agreement on smaller government, strong defense and personal responsibility, with disagreement on small issues. George and I may not like it, but the American people want a pretty big government. Even Reagan did little to shrink it, but at least Republicans will muck things up less than the Dems.

jr| 3.5.09 @ 4:57PM

The article:"Republican leaders should either pull the Big Tent down and start taking their platform seriously, not just on one issue or two issues but on every issue, or they should just get out of politics and stop wasting people's time and money. " Jorge Bush blew 8 years during which he and the corrupt politicians spent the country into huge debt. His unprovoked war on Iraq turned much of the country against him and the Republicans. That is large part of the reason we will suffer forever as a result of Obama.

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 5:19PM

Aware, I agree that the chances of sitting on the 800 pound gorilla successfully are small. The only chance is if Republicans stop their ideological "tax cut" strategies and concentrate on cutting spending. But I see no evidence Republicans have the stones to cut military spending, social security and medicare. Do you?

aware| 3.5.09 @ 5:54PM

No and I don't see this ending well. It's gone too far and we the people have not been vigilant in guarding our freedoms. I see a future of fire and blood. And I think it may be closer than it now appears. Hope I'm wrong.

aware| 3.5.09 @ 6:59PM

The main difference seems to be that the Republican big government State is hostile to other nations and the Democratic big government State is hostile to this nation. Rs chasing empires and Ds chasing utopias and both are bankrupting all of us.

frost| 3.5.09 @ 7:06PM

"Idiological" tax cuts? Surely you jest -- NO NATION HAS EVER TAXED ITS WAY INTO PROSPERITY, Bob...... read y'r history.....

Ran| 3.5.09 @ 7:26PM

"It first makes sense to point out that "compassionate conservatism" worked just fine. It won two elections."

NO , "compassionate conservatism" did no such thing. It barely won the first election... damn near lost the Administration to an Eco-Prophet named "Gore". Then in 2004 it LOST the House and the Senate shrank. In '08, IT TANKED ALL THREE.

It worked fine, so well in fact that under Bush the Lesser we saw the credit markets freeze, thanks to the Administration's failure over eight years to deal with Clinton's Community Reinvestment Aid Program. It worked... just fine.

Nick| 3.5.09 @ 7:54PM

Bob,

Still won't defend McLame, huh? What a shock.

DaveinPhoenix| 3.5.09 @ 9:48PM

Compassionate Conservatism: Silence in the face of a failed welfare state which enslaves it's victims into a lifetime of existence rather than living. Silence in the face of drug abuse, dependency, mediocrity, and failure. Silence in the face of lobbyists, deficit spending and pork. I hope to never hear another "compassionate conservative speak another word

Len| 3.5.09 @ 10:53PM

How unfair! Does the writer not realize that Republicans too have dreams? Should they be forced to be leaders with principles when it's so easy to obtain and wield power by appealing to the baser instincts of man. Would they then be able say what great work they are doing and be able to point to their great cooperative spirit? No! I say, Pooh, how wrong of us to want them to do as little as possible, why anyone knows that GREAT leaders are those "who get something done". I mean if it ain't broke, well go ahead and fix it anyway. Nuf' said.

Len| 3.5.09 @ 11:08PM

Bob we'll do without your vote, fine thanks anyway. Too bad you weren't around to give Jefferson and Washington advice, I mean come on "unalienable rights"? Guys what were you thinking? And this whole Creator thing, wouldn't the Big Accountant in the sky be more appealing?

Lillith| 3.5.09 @ 11:36PM

News Flash: Fox News poll had Obama (44%) more popular than Reagan (40%)!

E tu Bruti?

John M| 3.6.09 @ 8:50AM

Conservatives should concede once and for all that they have lost the national debate on abortion. The country will never return to the time before Roe vs. Wade. It’s time to move on and not allow the left to use this issue as a hammer to drive a wedge between otherwise sensible moderates and the Republican party. There is a need to build a coalition to tackle the current pressing issues because the country has been hijacked by a radical neo-Marxist who threatens to destroy the economy and bankrupt the nation in the name of creating some sort of socialist paradise. Like Jim Cramer, I have to believe that quite a few of the electorate who wanted to feel good about themselves by voting for hope and change are starting to wake up to realize that this was not exactly the change they had in mind.

Nick| 3.6.09 @ 9:44AM

John M,

Not gonna happen! One cannot compromise with evil.

Ran| 3.6.09 @ 10:12AM

"Conservatives should concede once and for all that they have lost the national debate on abortion.

John M., with respect, why?

I can think of only one strategic cause to abandon debate, and it's a pathetically ugly and sinful one: Liberals have been aborting themselves towards an electoral minority. The practice is specifically eugenic on Liberals... No culture can sustain a replacement rate of less than 2.0 unless in imports converts. Liberals instinctively know this. (This Administration is their last-ditch scramble to skew the population. It looks bad now, but in the long-term it can't work.) Even though the opposition is literally killing-off its future, we have a moral reason to object.

That sick reality aside, anyone may lose debates pro-tem, but populations and situations continually shift. Since RvW commenced, the slaughter has proceeded beyond one generation. There is a whole new generation of Conservative parents' kids in the wings ready to stand for the human rights of the unborn person. Because my parents lost the debate in their generation is no reason for me to walk away in permanent defeat.

The moral imperatives of a culture that believes in God-given rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness transcend any single generation. We, as Conservatives, have a duty to future generations never to yield on debate or principle.

We also have a duty to those "in the middle" seeking facts and guidance on issues. Some of these people will agree with us, and without our voices? Our parents did lose the debate. Given. Our children will yet win the debate.

Mr Neumayr, if ever there was a d*mn good reason to fold-up the Big Tent, this was it.

Bob| 3.6.09 @ 11:20AM

Ran, you may be surprised to hear this from me, but I believe you should continue to fight for what you believe is moral. Keeping morality in the public square is important for our nation. You and I may differ on the issue of abortion, but the argument is worth having.

Furthermore, I would hope you extend the debate on "life" further. Having fought in a war, I've seen people die on the battlefield, and I have a very high hurdle to cross before I would support an armed conflict. That's why going into Iraq was such an issue for me and why I could not support a president who would do such a thing. On the other had, I fully supported going into Afghanistan because you must fight back when you are attacked. I would also hope that you extend your commitment to "life" with health care. If you really believe in the sanctity of life then you would consider it immoral for poor people with curable illness to die because they cannot pay for a doctor or a middle class family not to do preventative care for their children because they are strapped for cash. The debate on the sanctity of life is wider than just abortion. If you are not committed to the wider battle, then I question your morality.

From a political perspective, however, your views are crippling the Republican party and the fight for individual liberty. There is a high correlation between church attendance and Republican leaning states which means that this religious argument is affecting the composition of the Republican party and making the party smaller. Independents are the fastest growing political segment as we RINO's move from being Republican to independent. The younger generation is even more pro-choice than older voters.

Call it the law of unintended consequences, but the closed mindedness of your position on abortion is causing the fight for individual liberties and responsibilities to implode.

Personally, I don't see a solution to this because you social conservatives are unwilling to compromise. Therefore, we are relegated to Democrat rule for the next couple of decades. Thank you....

Nick| 3.6.09 @ 1:02PM

Bob,

I question your sanity sometimes. You equate the deliberate crushing of skulls, ripping off of limbs, sucking up of brains with an inability to go the doctor? Talk about apples and oranges.

And I guess you were just pretending to be for individual responsibility, huh? Medical care is a service, not a right. You pay for what you can afford. And if you can't afford the service, that is what insurance and charity are for. LBJ and Splash Kennedy ruined this system with Medicare and HMO's, respectively. If I want to help someone pay their medical bills, that's a decision for me to make freely, not be forced to by society.

Also, abortion is intrinsically evil and always wrong. It is never justifiable. States always have a right to defend themselves by waging war and capital punishment, and so is justified under certain conditions. More apples and oranges, you could make fruit punch.

When are you going to defend McLame The Ultimate Moderate who lost to a state senator? He was everything you say the GOP has to be, and lost big-time. You moderates can't win.

Bob| 3.6.09 @ 1:40PM

So let me get this straight, Nick. You think abortion is wrong because it kills a baby but saving kid from dying from malaria is wrong if the kid's parents couldn't afford a doctor. If that is what you call "the sanctity of life", then I question your morality.

Furthermore, pre-emptive war is a wholly different animal than fighting back. If you believe in pre-emptive war, perhaps you'd also like to put poor black kids into jail since they will inevitably become criminals. And perhaps you don't value the million or so Iraqis killed. Your morality needs adjustment Nick.

With regard to McCain/Palin. As you have seen me say many times, they both lack the intellectual competence for the office. I would have voted for Romney, however.

Marie| 3.6.09 @ 2:18PM

I want to know what I, one person, and a Massachusetts voter (unfortunately that is where my ancestors settled) can do? I feel betrayed and defeated thanks to the spinelessness of the Republican party - like I am spitting into the wind. I fear for my country and regularly apologize to my 20-something children for bringing them into this quagmire. The fact that Michael Steele apologized for Rush’s remarks leads me to believe that he is as spineless as the rest of them. Given the evidence of the last election, the days for McCain's bi-partisanship should be gone.

Nick| 3.6.09 @ 3:49PM

Bob,

First, I don't "think", I KNOW abortion is wrong.
Second, no straw men. How many kids are dying of malaria in the U.S.? But for every one who is dying, they can go to any emergency room in the country, didn't you know that? And then they can pay the bill. If not, didn't you read the part about insurance and charities?
Third, why would you make a prejudiced statement like that?
Fourth, less than 100,000 have been killed, almost all by each other and AQ. Another straw man, Scarecrow.
Fifth, I know you question McLame's intellect, that doesn't change the fact (which you ducked, by the way) that he did everything you say the GOP has to do to win, AND LOST! To a neophyte to boot. The moderate record for winning the presidency sucks.

Bob| 3.6.09 @ 4:03PM

Nick, I chose malaria off hand. But we could have talked about any number of maladies that poor people would not address with a doctor until it became serious. We could talk about early detection of cancer. Your response doesn't make sense and I still question your morality.

You didn't grow up in a poor neighborhood, did you? We didn't go to a doctor when my dad was laid off from the aerospace industry. He died of a heart attack because we couldn't afford health insurance and the emergency wouldn't look at him unless he was actually dying. There was no stress test and being short of breath was not considered an emergency. You've got a lot to learn, Nick.

Regarding Iraq. Estimates of Iraqis dying ranges from about 500,000 to a million. If we had not started the conflict, would this have occurred?

McCain lost because he chose a know nothing like Sarah Palin and her right wing agenda lost McCain a lot of votes. In addition, McCain did a terrible job responding to the economic crisis. Being moderate had nothing to do with his loss. Besides, he was never very bright or else he would have responded better and chose a knowledgeable running mate who actually knew something about policy and economics.

Bush ran as a moderate and won.

You lose.

Ran| 3.6.09 @ 4:26PM

Nick,
Yeah. 'Tis interesting that some still feel that "intellect" is a necessary prerequisite for successful political leadership. Is it necessary? Or is the concern a projection of a personal insecurity?

In my opinion our finest leaders are typically mortals who reflect our values and in whom we may safely place our trust. It's about protecting values and the Constitution, not power; about communicating principles, not status. "Smarts" as a bonus is fine, but we seek no gods, we simply want to be left alone. Maybe I'm missing something?

Ran| 3.6.09 @ 4:54PM

Marie,
I'm reading Michael Ledeen's Tocqueville on American Character: Why Tocqueville's Brilliant Exploration of the American Spirit is as Vital and Important Today as It Was Nearly Two Hundred Years Ago.

Hey, I'm up-beat: Our kids - with our leadership - are turning the tide. I think we're seeing a "statist bubble".

Cheers!

Nick| 3.6.09 @ 5:12PM

Bob,

If health care operated in a free market, costs would be lower, alot lower. Ever wonder why plastic surgery and dentistry are so affordable? Because they're not covered by insurance or medicare. The market has driven costs down.

My condolences on the loss of your father. But when was this, 40 years ago? Emergency rooms can't turn anyone away. People go there for the flu for crying out loud.

Those "estimates" are from left-wing loons. The actual data culled from all reports is about 90,000. Who knows how many Saddam would have killed in the last 6 years? Do you?

McShamnesty's response to the crisis is what sunk him, not Gov. Palin. And his response was the moderate, Keynesian one.

GWB, again, BARELY sqeaked by trying to merge his dad with Reagan. Social Conservatives were hoping he was lying about all that moderate garbage to get elected. We're not going anywhere, Bob, and we're not going to compromise on the Culture War either.

p.s. Nothing wrong with my morality, it comes straight from the Roman Catholic Church. And I wasn't the one who asked the prejudiced question, you were.

whiterb| 3.7.09 @ 4:29PM

Nick, health care is a right. The female majority demand it be treated as such, so end of story, case closed. The only debate is how to provide health care to all. So please, quit demanding the GOP bang its head against the wall with this one. Also, if the country is so pro life let us see what will happen when with the stroke of a pen he over rules Bush policy on embryonic stem cell research( the issue that did in Talent and Allen). Why can't you absolutist just leave the GOP, and form your own party. Like Bob, I defend you right to speak out in the public square. Do so, and change hearts and minds on abortion, but quit demanding the GOP pursue a course of action that equals political suicide. By the way Nick, your Roman Catholic Church agrees with Pelosi and Kennedy on health care, not Rush Limbaugh.You can learn a few things from Bob. But, I repeat the women want health care for all. The gender gap has come, seen, and conquered. She's the boss Nick. Submit. You can't win. I do agree with you on the war Nick. Bob has a soft spot for lefty data and analysis. I also wonder how far along Saddam would on his UN funded Oil for Food cash fund to reconstitute WMD ?

Brian| 3.9.09 @ 3:13AM

Great column. As for the repub party I've always said, any party thats stupid enough to fund the propaganda of the other party (NPR,PBS) deserves to lose.

bnjknjk| 8.19.09 @ 11:47PM

Always leading the avant-garde of fashion without compromising traditional craftsmanship of luxury leather goods
Louis Vuitton
Louis Vuitton Replica
Louis Vuitton outlet is also active in other ...

CheapLouis VuittonReplica Handbags,Purses,Wallets Outlet and
Louis Vuitton Replica
Designer Bags,Shoes Outlet Store - discount price is our special offer, ...
Louis Vuitton Outlet

Tiffany| 8.30.09 @ 10:30PM

good post,I think so!abercrombie & fitch on

Sale, Hoodies, Jeans, T-Shirts, Pants, Polos abercrombie and fitch
abercrombie fitch fitch abercrombie cheap

abercrombie fitch Abercrombie Men Tee abercrombie womens polos Abercrombie & Fitch Men,

women, and children's clothing and accessories edhardylife a famous ed hardy store which sell

directly ed hardy clothing, shoes, boots, swim suit and other cheap ed hardy Ed Hardy cheap Ed Hardy, ed hardy clothing,Providing authentic Ed Hardy Clothing with competitive price and fast,secure

delivery.The famous brand by Don Ed Hardy 's Vintage Ed Hardy.