Political Hay
The Other CPAC
What critics of the giant conservative event missed.
(Page 2 of 2)
There is something else, too: Hostile media coverage of CPAC portrayed a distorted image of the event. One person involved in staging the conference told me that, if all you knew about CPAC was what you consumed from the mainstream media, you might be excused for believing that Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher and 13-year old Jonathan Krohn were the de facto leaders of conservatism.
Republicans out of power today are no more loud and angry than the Democrats of 2005 who, in the wake of Sen. John Kerry’s presidential defeat, installed Howard Dean as DNC chairman and demanded that the party fight more aggressively. However, liberal media coverage has a way of making loud, angry Republicans seem scarier than loud, angry Democrats.
Finally, most of the “energized” rank-and-file CPACers believed that the basic conservative message is sound, and believed that those like Coulter and Limbaugh who advocate the basic message are on the right track. The critics — Frum, Dreher, Moran, Meghan McCain and others — all want a conservatism that is somehow different from the basic message.
Given the small-“d” democratic nature of coalition politics, the basic-message conservative majority is in no danger of losing out to the disgruntled minority. But the disgruntled few remain disgruntled, spreading demoralization, despair and defeatism where confidence and good cheer might otherwise flourish.
If they can’t be winners, they don’t want you to win either.
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (98) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/13/the-other-cpac
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Deborah | 3.13.09 @ 7:40AM
Hear!Hear! Mr. (other) McCain.
I guess it must be a genetic thing in the John McCain family to hate their own party and stick their thumbs in the eyes of conservatives. I voted for that A$$hole (as I'm sure most conservatives did, begrudgingly).
All I want from the Republican Party is for them to stand up against the socialist, leftist insanity that is enveloping the country courtesy of the Obama Administration. Stop focusing on your party, Republicans, and focus on the party in power. You might learn to appreciate conservatives like Rush and Coulter, who are fighting for the country.
As Lee Iacocca said, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." And, don't try to lead unless your first priority is the country.
Bob| 3.13.09 @ 9:10AM
Rush and Ann Coulter are being criticized because they have the ability to espouse solid conservative values without throwing bombs like they do (ie the magic negro, 9/11 widows happy). This is very much a tug of war for the 1/3 of independent voters, and trying to get the base republican message delivered over the noise these two create is nearly impossible. If they would tone it down, there would be more of an opportunity to do this.
Deborah | 3.13.09 @ 9:35AM
Go Rush!
Ran| 3.13.09 @ 9:54AM
RSM,
Thanks for another solid article.
Rush in particular espouses an individualist political and philosophical approach entirely missing from McCain's platform. "Independents" and swing voters were thus denied a critical Manichaean choice at the pols, even as Rush's audience was increasing.
Voters "in the middle" do NOT hold to a predictable or reliable set of philosophies. It's far more Gaussian than the Moran and the Frums would have us believe. If denied a clear choice, they will statistically select for what's offered. Remove Conservatism, ergo, Librulism.
That Rush has increased the volume further and has gained audience to record levels is demonstrative of pent-up demand. Those who say that Conservative leaders should pander the message to "the middle" are simply ignorant of the empirical facts before them.
A few (ahem) are infamous liars. Just ask Quin.
Paul| 3.13.09 @ 10:28AM
With George Bush out of office, Conservatives have been unleashed. True conservatives accomodated a lot of crap over the last 8 years because they were supporting the only game in town - squishy Republicans. These squishes know in their hearts that they were the problem all along. Now that we no longer have to pretend we actually like them, they are upset when true Conservatism begins to reassert itself.
Let them whine. Its good to be free.
Bob| 3.13.09 @ 10:40AM
Ran-
The empirical fact that is most important is that there are not enough voters willing to overlook the verbal bombs of these two pundits and pull the republican lever in the voting booth. Votes from the middle are what wins elections and if the republicans can't deliver their message in a calm, moderate tone to these people, they are sunk. Note it is the tone of the message that must be toned down, not the underlying message itself.
Bram| 3.13.09 @ 11:06AM
The Republican Party can either be the main American conservative party, or go the way of the Whigs. Keep forcing big-government "moderates" down our throats, and the American Conservative Party or another third party will suddenly become the second party.
Bill Bailey| 3.13.09 @ 11:52AM
Meghan McCain is not only NOT a conservative, she's a retard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFd_TqAlEdA
Jack| 3.13.09 @ 11:55AM
Let me tell you, the way to build a winning conservative movement in this country does not lie in putting a large, sweaty, balding, thrice married , white male with a history of drug addiction. , dressed all in black like a minor Sopranos mobster, on C-SPAN and FOX for more than an hour to rave about how he and his audience in a DC ballroom have all the answers.
The Republicans (and, more largely, conservatives) must look at the demographics of this nation and realize that, if they remain the party of socially conservative white people over 50 in the south and midwest, they are doomed.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 11:58AM
JEREMIAH AND BOB: FYI - I haven't been posting here in over a month, since maybe Feb 2nd. There is a troll here who adopts other people's names and posts as them. I never called Bob "blow-bob" or whatever. I saw you also got into some scraps with him, Jeremiah. None of it was me. I don't use terms like "lib" or whatever else this clown said.
Imagine doing that - being that pathetic? Logging on and pretending to be someone else you only know through the internet? It's sad and the sort of thing one would expect of a stalker.
Anyway, none of the posts under my name - S.L. Toddard - have actually been me since the first couple days of February. It's been that same, sad, lonely troll.
Hank Rearden| 3.13.09 @ 11:59AM
Jack,
If they are doomed because they will not compromise on small government and free markets then my friend, the country is doomed. Republicans have won by sticking to their core principals, if not they lose. If the country doesn't want to hear logic or reason than the country be damned.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 12:10PM
"Why would people identifying themselves as Republicans savage these two popular conservative celebrities in such terms?"
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I find them repulsive for being party sycophants more concerned with the party's acquisition of power than with conservatism per se. One simply cannot have supported George W Bush with gusto and claim to be a conservative any more than one could support Obama with the same enthusiasm and claim to be a conservative. And both Rush and Coulter did just that - they served as unswervingly loyal cheerleaders and defenders of the Bush administration, which was the most un-conservative one since LBJ's. This exposes them as what they are - loyal to a party, not a philosophy. And that makes them repugnant.
Ran| 3.13.09 @ 12:24PM
"One simply cannot have supported George W Bush with gusto" [except for those times, which I am deliberately ignoring, in which said supporter was a merciless critic of Bush's flirtations with socialism and his multiple failures to veto bad legislation]...
"Unswervingly loyal"!? [inhales] Man, [coughs smoke] where can I get some of that?
Bram| 3.13.09 @ 12:30PM
Jack - We conservatives listen to the words and process them through our brains. If Rush's words reflect what I believe - usually articulated better than I could - I support him.
SL whoever you are - You obviously don't listen to any of these people.
John| 3.13.09 @ 12:34PM
It is simple...
Conservatives aren't willing to be doormats. We don't carefully measure every statement so as not to arouse the anger of the dreaded Mau-Mau Left...
Like that term... We need to bring it back... Tom Wolfe hit the nail right on the old head, all those years ago.
I am Conservative, Proud of it, and I refused to be Mau-Mau'ed into silence by those who are NOT my betters...
Weren't there tons of westerns with this little sub theme? The cowardly shop keepers, printers, telegraphers... all whining and mewling at the bad guys shooting up the town.. while the guns sat cold and silent in the display case at the general store?
humm...
r/John
Thomas| 3.13.09 @ 12:40PM
It would be wise for people to forget about personalities in the Republican Party. There is a very basic cultural conflict going on in this country. It is largely liberal socialism vs. social and fiscal conservatism. Moderates are just collateral damage in this struggle. There can be no triangulation, because this is a head-to-head grassroots conflict from which moderates are standing apart. So moderates, Republican party, libertarians, et al figure out which world you would rather live in and join up with the side that represents that world. You no longer have the luxury of picking and choosing your position on individual issues.
Attempting to paint either Limbaugh or Coulter as Bush koolaid drinkers is either evidence of a lack of knowledge of the individuals in question, or a conscious attempt to marginalize them.
Seymour Kleerly| 3.13.09 @ 12:49PM
Conservative principles should not change at all. However if Rush, Ann, FoxNews, and other propagandists are still associated with the Republican Party, it is history. For the last eight years, they have tried mental gymnastics and hate to try to square a circle and to almost everyone, have been exposed.
Red Phillips | 3.13.09 @ 1:03PM
RSM, I have been saying at a lot of venues that rightward criticisms of CPAC, the movement, and Limbaugh need to be identifiably rightward lest they be mistaken as centrist or liberal and all lumped in together, which is what you just did. Frum's centrist screed is entirely different from Dreher’s rightward criticism that much of modern conservatism's goals, rhetoric, etc. is not really philosophically conservative historically speaking. This is a rather obvious and hard to dispute point. A lot of conservative rhetoric is classical liberalism or even not so classic liberalism. Is democracy, individualism, human rights, universalism, etc. the language of historic conservatism? Regarding that, Dreher was right on.
Also, while superficially the movement today may resemble the movement when Buckley was yelling “stop,” what, prey tell, has the movement actually stopped? Not to mention the fact that a proper conservative post FDR should not have been yelling “stop” but “go back.” Has the movement stopped cultural decline, baby killing, SS, Medicare, the Income Tax, the Fed, etc.?
I don't think it is helpful for the authentic right to dance on the grave of the movement, but we must be realistic here. The movement has moved (leftward), but it hasn't stopped a thing.
The movement needs to be wooed to convert to authentic conservatism, not called names. But let's not get carried away patting ourselves on the back because we have slowed ever so slightly the long march to social democracy.
Ran| 3.13.09 @ 1:09PM
RSM,
It's 1:08 EDT... Rush is re-playing his entire CPAC address.
John M| 3.13.09 @ 1:34PM
I must admit that I cringed when I read the phrase “progressive conservative”, since it seemed to be an oxymoron. The socialists (aka democrats) have co-opted the term “progressive” to mask their socialism and totally corrupted it. Like the term “liberal”, “progressive” will in time become a pejorative slur. If someone has to qualify conservative with a modifying adjective, such “compassionate”, then it is possible that they are posing as conservatives, not proud of being conservatives, and are actually something else, such as believers in big government, which in my opinion would automatically disqualify them from being conservative.
What I don’t quite understand is whether the critics of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter disagree with them on philosophy or implementation, or is it just their tone and style that upsets them? Both have a great talent of making liberals appear foolish in an entertaining way, which might hurt some feelings. But if one doesn’t want Obama to completely fail in his attempt to re-make the country into a socialist paradise, then how could one still qualify as a conservative?
thirteen28| 3.13.09 @ 1:40PM
Oh, like .... whatevs.
Sincerely,
Megan McCain
Mike| 3.13.09 @ 1:54PM
Why all the fuss about Rush and Coulter? They're both multi-millionaires due to their unmatched abilities to espouse core conservative principles in an entertaining way. Are we supposed to support the "fairness doctrine" now to shut down our most effective spokesmen?
I think I'll pass.
Frank Natoli| 3.13.09 @ 2:00PM
"I voted for Obama."
"Oh really, why?"
"I really liked what he said."
"Oh really, what policies did he articulate that you thought would be best for America?"
Dead air. It became painfully obvious that my companion in conversation was seduced by how Obama said what he said, although she believed she liked what Obama said.
Rush and Ann [and not mentioned but IMHO the very best of the very brightest Mark Levin] not only thoroughly articulate the positive implications of conservative policies and the negative implications of liberal policies, but they say it in ways that antagonize those who are seduced by sweet talk.
Since the majority of the electorate only hear the sweet talk, and never worry themselves with the policy issues, conservatives have little hope until they can convince the electorate to think.
Red Phillips | 3.13.09 @ 2:01PM
"What I don’t quite understand is whether the critics of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter disagree with them on philosophy or implementation, or is it just their tone and style that upsets them?"
John M, all of the above. On philosophy read Dreher's article which has flaws but makes a good point. It can not be conservative to have rhetoric that sounds like Rousseau. Also, much of the paleo/alternative/far right criticism of Rush and Coulter has to do with their wholesale embrace of the War and foreign policy interventionism. Crusading around the world in the name of democracy and universal human rights sounds like Robespierre, not Burke. Until Rush and Coulter and the movement they represent get right on non-interventionism, there will remain a cavernous gulf no matter what other issues we may share in common.
Also, there is virtue in being plain spoken. There is no virtue in being crass. This too is a conservative sentiment.
Red Phillips | 3.13.09 @ 2:07PM
"due to their unmatched abilities to espouse core conservative principles"
But Mike, what is being disputed by the rightward critics of both is that what they are espousing are not actually conservative principles.
ruth| 3.13.09 @ 2:09PM
Meghan McCain is a spoiled trust-fund baby, and she's never worked a day in her life; who cares what the brat bleats to the world? The rest of the naysayers just prove what we already know; the GOP is the Stupid Party. Nothing new here.
Al Adab| 3.13.09 @ 2:31PM
Why do people keep confusing The Conservative Movement with the GOP? They are not synonomous. The Movement selected the GOP as its vehicle and twice, in 1980 and 1996, brought success to the GOP. Both times the movement was betrayed by the GOP which chose business as usual over comitment to the American Cause. Limbaugh is simply a modern Tom Paine. It is clearly about time Conservatives, having lost (?) the war of words begin to look toward the next step and what vehicle to use to reestablish a free republic in this continent.
whiterb| 3.13.09 @ 2:50PM
Jack, you see how conservative patriotism works. The " country be damned" if it does not agree with the oh so cherished principles of a distinct and dwindling minority, so says Hank. These people are ideology addicts. They need medication and a 12 step program. The voters of the mighty middle know this, and thus the
GOP is doomed.
CH| 3.13.09 @ 3:08PM
Mighty middle, my a$$. More like the mushy middle.
Angel| 3.13.09 @ 3:12PM
We ran a RINO in 2008, whiterb, did you happen to catch the beating we got? We have a democrat party--we don't need democrat-lite. If you don't have principles, fine, but don't attack those of us who do.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 3:17PM
Ignore my previous comments. I deeply regret my vote for Obama last November. His handling of the economy is nothing short of treasonous; thank God his favorables are tanking (sadly, along with the DOW). 2012 can't come soon enough!
Mike| 3.13.09 @ 3:25PM
Red, I'm not sure which rightward critics you're talking about, but Frum's criticism was primarily from the left (gay marriage, stem cells, abortion, etc.).
If your refering to foreign policy (Iraq), I think the mainstream conservative view is to do whatever it takes to defend American interests abroad. We're all neos now, give or take.
Rush is about as doctrinaire a conservative as there is right now IMO.
Marc Jeric| 3.13.09 @ 3:41PM
George Bush was a typical wimp - compassionate conservative indeed! That is socialist light that brought us Abu Hussein from Kenya with his commie cohorts to finish the process. We have now the Community Organizer-in Chief to lead us into the socialist paradise (the "Soviet" in the defunct USSR translates as "community organization"). ACORN brownshirts will make sure of that. That is why we need Ann and Rush to wake us up.
MT| 3.13.09 @ 3:44PM
Right on, Marc! As usual, you hit the nail on the head. The left fears Rush and Ann , it's why they try to destroy them.
Red Phillips | 3.13.09 @ 3:47PM
I have a few issues with the Dreher article, but the general thrust is correct. Some of you conservatives who seem to be defending the status quo please read the linked to Dreher article and tell me what Dreher gets wrong from a philosophical conservative perspective? His points seem to me hardly debatable. To debate them you would really have to argue that you just like what Rush is selling and how he is selling it and give up the pretense that they are conservative in any meaningful historical sense. If rosy cheeked optimism as policy and babble about unleashing human potential is conservatism then I’m the Queen of England.
The criticism that the conservatism movement does not hear criticism even from its right is dead on.
Now there were positive aspects of Limbaugh’s speech. In fact, the general gestalt was positive. The idea that people who talk conservative go to Washington and get corrupted and sell out is right on. To the extent that the speech was seen as a call to arms for true believers vs. moderate and pragmatists then that is a good thing. The problem is that what today’s true believers are true believing in is yesterday’s liberalism and in some cases yesterday’s radicalism. (There are a few exceptions such as defending traditional moral values, but even this is often cloaked ashamedly in liberal rhetoric [a right to life] and represents an exception to liberalism.) The modern conservative movement is rhetorically closer to Robespierre than Burke or Heaven forbid de Maistre.
Sam Gallo | 3.13.09 @ 3:54PM
It has already happened; Conservative Party. See:www.conservativepartyusa.org
whiterb| 3.13.09 @ 3:55PM
Angel, the list of losing conservatives in the house and senate is a long one. Every dream candidate of the right thrashed-Santorum, Allen, Pearce, on and on. A man who is pro life, as McCain is, and has Palin as his veep choice is not a ticket of the mighty middle. That is not the dream ticket for me and the tens of millions like me. Do not speak for me and tell me what my desired ticket would have been. Let me tell you-Giuliani/Ridge. We'd have won with them and the country would be better off. So shove the right wing McCain/Palin ticket up your a$$, as a rino dream ticket. They were too conservative for us. Plus McCain was too old, and her life was way too messy.
Red Phillips | 3.13.09 @ 4:10PM
Mike, the rightward criticism I am referring to is the Dreher article, Daniel Larison at American Conservative Magazine, several posts at TakiMag, etc. Click on my name and you will see some criticism as well. Criticism was all over the paleo and alternative right bloggosphere.
"If you're referring to foreign policy (Iraq), I think the mainstream conservative view is to do whatever it takes to defend American interests abroad. We're all neos now, give or take."
You are right that this is the mainstream view. That is part of the problem. But it is not the conservative view. First, it is a stretch to argue that force should be used to protect American "interests" except in very limited circumstances. The purpose of the American military is to protect the homeland and our vital proximate national interests. If Canada invades Maine then it would be conservative to repel them. However, it is not conservative to topple dictators half-way around the world in the name of universal democracy. (Not to mention that invading Iraq was not in our interests and has hurt us.)
And you are missing the trend. Non-interventionism is a growing force on the right and the large presence of non-interventionists at CPAC and our growing presence on our own and mainstream conservative sites is evidence of this. The universalist rhetoric so often heard coming from neocons prior to and early in the War is almost nonexistent now. Going broke at home, whether the interventionist like it or not, is going to force a scaling back of our expensive commitments around the world and is already tempering the rhetoric.
Mark| 3.13.09 @ 4:34PM
All criticism of Ann Coulter and Rush arise from envy? It can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that both are obnoxious, and Coulter in particular, by all appearances, has no soul?
You, sir, are a moron.
Angel| 3.13.09 @ 4:49PM
Whiterb, you're full of crap. Giulliani ran a brain-dead campaign; he had his chance and blew it. You are a mushy-middle-moderate, and you are the reason we lost. You belong with the other democrats--don't let the door hit you on your a$$ on your way out.
Al Adab| 3.13.09 @ 4:59PM
Whiterb, Admittedly the Constitution is more observed in the breach these days but you might want to read it through to see what Limited Government and Enumerated Powers mean. Those are the cherished principles which you so cavalierly deride.
Dustoff| 3.13.09 @ 5:09PM
Right one MARK.
When our side follows the left.. like we did during 2000 till 2006. We got killed. RINO's and crooks are the last thing we need. The left has crooks galore, but they still love them... I wish to be no part of that.
Let 's say we follow these middle rep's like say McCain. Look how the left went after him during the election... They were his buddies until there was blood in the water.
MT| 3.13.09 @ 5:15PM
Moderates are weak, and weak never wins. Morons don't understand this basic principle, and our party will suck as long as we let them dictate republican policy.
whiterb| 3.13.09 @ 5:38PM
Angel. I am a Vietnam Vet and a stone mason you little brainwashed puke. I gave money to and voted for your dopey right wing ticket, as a lesser of two evils. But now, I am sitting it out. You own the GOP Angel. Now go win one for the Gipper. Of course, the Gipper was smart enough to make sure he had eleven guys on his team to match his opponent. You will be playing four or five against eleven; the democrats always field a full team- liberals, blue dogs, marxist, yellow dogs, union types, society swells, whatever it takes. Now you few, you conservative heroes, let's see how you do without me. I'll really be watching the Pa. senate race ? Will Toomey crack 30 per cent against his democrat opposition,once you political wonderboys of the right knock off old Arlen ? You will get your wish, We moderates will sit it out and make sure Toomey gets his chance. You will have a chance to show us you know it all. Al Adab how does believing Rudy and Ridge would have done better than the right wing McCain/Palin ticket make me anti constitution ? Who said your principles tower above all others ? Who made you such an ultimate authority ? Not the voters, ask all the losers who ran on your platform. You're addicted to an ideology. You need help. Conservatism is the drug and Rush Inc. are the pushers. We need an earmark to help you poor souls.
Ran| 3.13.09 @ 6:40PM
Angel,
I'm with you. We ran a RINO in 2000, 2004 AND 2008. We barely won against a jackass called Gore something. Things got 'progressively' worse.
BTW, ever noticed that when conservatives hold to a principled line, libruls start screaming "extremist" or "addicted to ideology"? When was the last time anyone on the Demo side screamed "addicted" to Obama, or tried to push the Demos back to the center?
RINO's had their dream candidates in Giulliani and McCain. They selected McCain for us. They lost fricking big-time. OH JOY! He was not "moderate enough"!! Sorry, but I'm just not buying it. That fake anger stuff is getting just a bit worn-out.
What CPAC demonstrated was a huge supply-gap and pent-up demand for real conservative leadership and real conservative candidates.
Kevin| 3.13.09 @ 7:26PM
Dump hip hop off the hook Steele! Put one of our own kind head of RNC like Rush. REALLY! Dems fear Rush! Let him have at em!
Angel| 3.13.09 @ 7:36PM
I don't give a damn who you are, whiterb. If you're a vet, especially a Vietnam War vet, you should have the sense to know that weakness never prevails. Weakness got us the Vietnam debacle, remember?
stmichrick| 3.13.09 @ 7:37PM
Considering where we are now, stoking conflict between Rush/Ann (my people) and the McCain wing is a fools errand.
We all know how we will vote when the chips are down. And they are down now.
Let's remember that we non-Obamists have a few values in common; more so than the powers-that-be who will make it clear by 2010 they come from the Planet Trotsky. If anyone still has retirement savings by then we will allow them to vote Obamist...all others will support something else.
Teaching moments are happening.
Angel| 3.13.09 @ 7:41PM
I already know that Conservatives own the Republican party. You had your chance in 2008--we've had it with you RINOs. Go ahead, sit it out, we don't need more mushy middle repubs.
Angel| 3.13.09 @ 7:45PM
Yeah, but who are the teachers? I hope running RINOs has taught us a big enough lesson that we don't have to repeat it.
CH| 3.13.09 @ 7:47PM
Whiterb, you've taken too many blows to the head.
CM | 3.13.09 @ 7:55PM
I'm for trying to get us to unite as conservatives too. I came up with what I think is a good symbol that represents most of us! Check it out at www.NoLeftTurnAmerica.com and let me know what you think!!!
Hank Rearden| 3.13.09 @ 8:37PM
whiterb,
You'd better believe it is all about ideology. Without that what do you have? Why even get involved in politics? And yes, the country be damned, if people willingly choose to turn the country into a bunch of moochers and looters I will not help them do it.
CH| 3.13.09 @ 8:47PM
Lead, follow or get out of the way. I won't get out of the way, and I'll be damned if I will follow the mushy middle! We need Conservative leaders now!!
Jeff| 3.13.09 @ 9:16PM
There is a split between the conservative republicans and the non-conservative republicans. Every time we follow the game plan of the second group we lose, but it is easier to hang out in Washington if you are in the second group.
I shall continue my policy of not supporting non-conservative republicans. Lower taxes, cut spending, support defense, and promote freedom. How hard is that to practice?
And we still have room for those that oppose baby murder.
Denise-Mary| 3.13.09 @ 10:44PM
"Votes from the middle are what wins elections ..."
With respect, I must disagree. I understand that about ten million Republicans did NOT vote at all on November 4 because McCain was not "conservative enough." Had these ten million voted, the probability is that we would not now have a "President" Obama.
I am 56 and voted a straight Democratic ticket all of my life - until Obama came along. There was no way I could endorse his candidacy. I therefore voted for McCain-Palin, BUT I would have voted for ANY Republican candidate for president, no matter how conservative. And I intend to do so again in 2012.
I'm still put out, to say the least, at those ten million ultra-conservatives who let this election just go right on by. I fault them for the current president's "win" as much as I fault those who actually voted for him.
Red Phillips | 3.13.09 @ 11:09PM
"Al Adab how does believing Rudy and Ridge would have done better than the right wing McCain/Palin ticket make me anti constitution?”
whiterb, probably somewhere between 80-90% of what the Fed Gov does/spends is not authorized by the Constitution and hence is unconstitutional. Please provide me with the Article and Section that authorizes Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, the Fed, any of it. So unless you are for phasing these things out you are anti-Constitution by definition.
The obvious problem is that those who call themselves conservatives and express fidelity to the Constitution don't want them to be phased out either. In fact, they call those of us who do "fringe," "wing-nuts," "moon bats," etc.
How many of the folks now beating their chests for a return to conservatism and against RINOs supported Ron Paul in the primary? How many refused to vote for McCain and voted for Chuck Baldwin instead. If you didn't, you are just beating your gums.
CH| 3.14.09 @ 12:10AM
Red, it's too easy to just blame us that Ron Paul didn't catch on. Perhaps he just wasn't the right messenger.
Rick Josey | 3.14.09 @ 9:08AM
It was a pleasant surprise to discover that Limbaugh, Coulter and Savage are NOT radicals. They are right on target. They all adhere to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of the Founding Fathers that made this country great.
So why do some conservatives and most liberals paint them with a radical brush?
Because Limbaugh, Coulter and Savage have the INTESTINAL FORTITUDE (GUTS) to take a stand and speak up. They are not afraid, and they do not cower to the liberal loons who bully most people. These conservatives have guts.
Let's hear some applause.
Conservatives will NEVER make a difference in this country if they COMPROMISE their position in order to "get elected." Take a stand and sell, sell, sell your message. If your message is better, prove it.
We need to serve our country, not snooker it with rhetoric. Half-baked rhetoric, at that. We need some real patriots in the Republican party, men and women of integrity who will take a stand. And if we don't get those unflinching leaders, we will NOT vote Republican.
www.PatriotHangout.com
stmichrick| 3.14.09 @ 9:40AM
Primary 'em.
Again, it is not about throwing bombs at RINOs now. Then the tactic becomes the issue.
Promote what's positive about conservatism.
We'll be back.
whiterb| 3.14.09 @ 11:47AM
Angel, we ran McCain Palin, the most conservative ticket in recent times. They totally pro life and anti stem cell, the two biggies that kill votes in 80 per cent of America. McCain was against the prescription drug benefit, and by the way Bush was for it. McCain Palin is more proof that conservatism fails every time you try it. Actually an unrealistic plan is what got us in a jam in Nam. An unrealistic plan kills the GOP in elections, like just cater to the beliefs of 18 per cent of all voters. The democrats have crushed conservatism-jump on those rescue choppers and beat it. Let the real hard guys with street fight smarts take on the DNC . The namby pampby conservatives need to step aside. Your plan is to just keep charging bare ass into the fortified enemey positions. The more we loose, the greater our loses the happier you righties seem to get. " Thinning the herd " is the latest Limbaugh strategy. Our corpses keep piling up. We are in close combat, and you don't want some comrade in arms who may be pro life or pro minimum wage watching your back. So fight with your smaller army. Engage in " magical thinking" that you can win with less. Your next big test in the Pa. senate race of Toomey vs. the democrat of the day. Let's see how that works out for you.
Angel| 3.14.09 @ 11:48AM
As the great Rodney King once said, "Can't we all just get along?"
Angel| 3.14.09 @ 11:56AM
Sorry, whiterb, I'm not into fear. Conservative principles are immutable, and I will fight for them. God bless you, sir, and thank you for your service; but I love my country, too, and I have to do what I believe is right. Have a lovely weekend.
Pat| 3.14.09 @ 12:40PM
Religious schisms are never pretty, look at the Reformation for some truly ugly times; burnings, torture, hangings and other forms of sectarian violence. But watching the Republican Party wither on the vine after they chose to abandon Conservatism hasn't really been that distressing. I mean when you watch a political party commit suicide through slow, self-strangulation by means of their favorite necktie, it lacks the emotional punch of seeing your former political allies tied to a stake and burned alive.
And it's not hard to realize that Republicans are voluntarily leaving behind their long friendship with Conservatives - it sure looks that way and, by now, the only virtue the Republican Party sees in Conservatives is their willingness to make generous campaign contributions. As in historical times, perhaps the Republicans will gather up their kids, their dogs, their Hispanic nannys and gardeners and direct their U-Hauls to those states with low populations, there to practice, in harmonious isolation, Republican Partyism or whatever it is they actually believe in. Montana and Wyoming citizens wouldn't be thrilled with the idea of Republicans flocking into their states as political refugees, disrupting the neighborhood, lowering property values, but they may have no choice in the end.
Meanwhile, Conservatives need to wave a cordial goodbye and good luck to the suicidal Republicans and get about forming and nourishing a political party that will actually represent their interests. Ann, Rush and anyone else who sees political reality for what it is should be encouraged to stay behind and help build the Conservative Party. Maybe someday if those isolated Republicans in Wyoming or Montana intermarry with their cousins long enough, they'll rediscover a genetic dominance for integrity and common sense and be warmly welcomed back from their long sojourn in the political wilderness.
Red Phillips | 3.14.09 @ 7:53PM
"Red, it's too easy to just blame us that Ron Paul didn't catch on. Perhaps he just wasn't the right messenger."
CH, perhaps it would have helped if people who call themselves conservatives weren't calling him names for being too authentically what they claim to be.
CH| 3.14.09 @ 8:31PM
Throw verbal bombs all you want, Red--it won't get you anywhere. I don't know why more Conservatives didn't resonate with Paul--but I would like to figure it out. I just don't see the point of blaming millions of Conservatives.
Phillip| 3.14.09 @ 8:46PM
I think a basic tenet for conservatives should be if the Media likes you, then you are probably not conservative enough. This incessant screed against Ann and Rush for standing for something and not caring if Couric likes them is the outward symptom of our self-hate. We have to stand for something, against all criticism, we must stand.
MT| 3.14.09 @ 9:34PM
The media loved John McCain until.....he ran against a real democrat. RINO fool.
PCP Smoker| 3.15.09 @ 12:17AM
Nailed it. I was converted to conservatism after by a confident, funny, energetic man on the radio who called women who wanted to kill babies "femenazis". I was a soft core and annoying leftist, but after the required six weeks, I came to realize the greatness of the this country.
So I ask, can Frum, Drudat or that jerk Dreher say they have converted anyone?
Sweet Thing| 3.15.09 @ 12:34AM
My brother smoked PCP once; freaked him out so bad he never did it again. Cooked his brains on other kinds of dope,though, and now he's a big-time Obumbler fan. Dumbass.
Bob| 3.15.09 @ 1:40AM
Dreher may be a sucker for the latest Oprah fad, but he most certainly is not calling for a watered down conservatism. What he denounces is the dumbed down capitalism, which often is the unthinking lackey of non-conservative big business, present in much of the Republican Party that neglects the spiritual and moral aspects of society. While flawed, the characterization of Dreher is wrong.
The Reformers do believe in a me-too conservatism, but this is mainly because they reject the insights by the libertarian conservatives like Hayek who show the limits of human knowledge and intended actions. At least though, they are trying to grapple with a changed reality.
John McCain is an honorable man who has deeply conservative instincts, but he relies upon sentiment and not rigorously examined first principles. This leads to a deeply flawed but admirable approach to politics.
The inability to deal with these phenomena intelligently and chalking them instead up to envy and the desire to be liked is a major reason conservatives are in the position they are now.
MT| 3.15.09 @ 4:15AM
No, Bob, the reason repubs have problems is because we run brain-dead RINO's like you. Did you smoke PCP when you were young, too? You probably still do. Crazy old coot.
N. P. West | 3.15.09 @ 9:48AM
Rod Dreher is what they call a traditionalist conservative. He is in the vein of Robert Nisbet and Russell Kirk (two conservative intellectuals who have been pushed aside so that unintelligent blowhards like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh can be the face of conservatism). Any good traditionalist knows that environmentalism, sense of place, ordered liberty, tradition, the natural family, and a humane scale for economics typify real conservatism. This is what Dreher represents. The knee-jerk loyalty to the GOP, a neocon foreign policy, libertarian economics, and the immature chest pounding of the CPAC conference is reflective of how the conservative movement has degenerated into a hollow shell of its original creation. Most conservatives would rather watch some idiot on Fox News rather than read Whittaker Chambers or Richard Weaver. That says more about conservatives today than anything else.
jeffk| 3.15.09 @ 10:05AM
The mentioned critics......in a word are 'jelous'....not of others success, because their words resonate. Today and since Rush addressed the Nation (with-out a tele-prompter) and since the back stabbers came to the front of the line....His listening audiance has grown in leaps and bounds....We need those voices, Rush, Mark Levin and all the others......I have heard Mr. Frum and he sounds like the 40 year minority Republicans of day gone past....I do NOT want my daughter growing up knowing she will be told how to live her life by the government.....That is my job
jeffk| 3.15.09 @ 10:05AM
The mentioned critics......in a word are 'jelous'....not of others success, because their words resonate. Today and since Rush addressed the Nation (with-out a tele-prompter) and since the back stabbers came to the front of the line....His listening audiance has grown in leaps and bounds....We need those voices, Rush, Mark Levin and all the others......I have heard Mr. Frum and he sounds like the 40 year minority Republicans of day gone past....I do NOT want my daughter growing up knowing she will be told how to live her life by the government.....That is my job
Ran| 3.15.09 @ 10:18AM
In reverse order: Fox is NOT a Conservative newssource. It's owned by a Democrat liberal and operates in a confused centrist mode. That is is the "most" conservative of the media is only a relative status, not a normative one.
Two: Chambers, Weaver, Kirk et al. were not then all of Conservatism. It was then and remains now a broad spectrum of philosophical viewpoints, including Libertarian philosophies at odds with others.
If your panties are twisted by what you saw at CPAC, then get in and actually make arguments for your viewpoints. Whining here ain't gonna help your cause, lad.
"Knee-jerk loyalty" What, commensurate to the "knee-jerk loyalty" the GOP has displayed to Conservatism? I smell a LIBERAL. No conservative alive today would make the claim.
Lastly, your first point: "Rod Dreher is what they call a traditionalist conservative." "They". Not "we". Even if the statement contained a grain of truth, it would stink. It doesn't and it does anyway. I smell a liberal sockie. Kirk isn't "pushed aside", laddie. Kirk tendered his celestial resignation some time ago.
Larry Cannon| 3.15.09 @ 11:12AM
the GOP is truly the RETARDED PARTY. In mid-term congressional elections, it's the side with the most energized partisans who win the most seats. GOP, good luck getting Muffy and Biff to cut into their Country Club Tennis and Mimosa time, to go out campaigning for some congressional candidate.
Thomas| 3.15.09 @ 12:22PM
I revisited this post just to see how thing have turned out. Interesting. Let me through in another two cents worth and then I'll leave you again.
First of all, people get caught up in labeling. Social conservative, fiscal conservative, paleo-conservative, neo-conservative, compassionate conservative, traditional conservative, etc. The point concerning Limbaugh and Coulter is that they resonate with the vast majority of those that call themselves conservatives. And, let me state this once again, conservatives are not Republicans, even when they vote for Republican candidates. Just remember, CPAC stands for the Conservative Political Action Committee, so it shouldn't be surprising if conservative speakers are well received.
Now Ron Paul is an interesting person. Now strictly in my own opinion, he seems to have two major problems. First, he is not really a campaigner. Most candidates drop everything to run a campaign for national office. Paul runs his Presidential campaigns more as a second job, devoting the bulk of his time to his legislative duties. And second, his seemingly isolationist foreign policy positions lose rightist support, just as Pat Buchanan's similar positions cost him. And, of course, without conservative support, Paul doesn't have a chance, because moderates and liberals sure aren't going to vote for him.
CH| 3.15.09 @ 2:17PM
Larry Cannon calls repubs elitist; what a joke with Marie Antoinette Pelosi using and abusing The US Air Force as her private airline. Let them eat cake, indeed.
Roy| 3.15.09 @ 3:02PM
Re: Dreher - the particular article I dunno about, but in his book he argued as if all that mattered was social conservatism(OK) and that that was similar to social liberalism(??? ROFL!!!)
That's why, even if I agreed with the substance I couldn't possibly agree with the tone. Democrats may want to prevent economic progress in the name of the environment, but that has nothing to do with them wanting to preserve tradition. Democrats are, and have always been, the party of "f***ing is an entitlement", and they always will be.
So basically, unless every assertion that there is something wrong with libertarians is surrounded by declarations that liberals are just as bad if not worse, even if I agreed with the substance, in terms of actual realistic practical practice, I see him as knowingly trying to stress the fault lines of the conservative coalition to the roaring cheers of the liberal media which hates all parts of it.
Michael Tomlinson| 3.15.09 @ 3:41PM
Obama's personal popularity is below President Bush's at this same time in his administration. It would be nice if so-called conservative writers would quit fawning over the Obamanation. It is as reprehensible as those who trash Coulter and Limbaugh (both authors of the conservative crack-up, but representative of a school of conservative thinking) and their trashing of President Bush (a conservative based on the Reagan model) and other Republicans. The enemy is Obama and Democrats and that should be our main focus of criticism.
Angel| 3.15.09 @ 5:42PM
I agree. I keep hearing about Obama's 'widespread popularity'; baloney. His favorables are at 56% and his highly negatives are 43%--that's a disaster for the brand new 'hope and change' president.
Dylan Hales | 3.15.09 @ 11:31PM
One quick note. Someone mentioned above that McCain/Palin was "the most conservative ticket in recent times." I assume of course that this person was speaking of the two major parties, and maybe he is right. I have no opinion on that matter in fact, because the GOP is so un-conservative that the Socialist Party is regularly to its right on a number of issues. In fact in 04 the SP ran a highly decorated war veteran, who is fiercely pro-life, opposed to internationalism, and supported dismantling the federal government in a far more extreme way than anything favored by McCain/Palin.
Doctor Right| 3.16.09 @ 11:01AM
When dealing with the Left, especially what they say, I operate under a simple axiom:
1. When discussing their own ideas, they always lie.
2. When discussing Republicans, the truth is exactly the opposite of what they say.
So when the left tells me that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are "bad for the Republican Party", what they're really saying is:
"Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are effective critics of our policies and our intentions, so they MUST be ridiculed, and they MUST be silenced".
Think about it...If you were a Lib (shudder!), and you REALLY thought that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter were bad for your opponents, then WHY would you criticize them?? Far from it, you should ENCOURAGE them! But, alas, that's not what's happening.
As for the cowards on our side who are always quick to criticize conservatives - what more can you say?? Most of them are only marginally relevant posers (Hi, Mr. Frum!!) who are jealous of people like Coulter and Limbaugh and who gain attention from the media by criticizing them. Best to ignore the fools...
Ken Street| 3.16.09 @ 7:19PM
Rush and Ann for President in 2012.
As far as the critics like McCain's daughter they have no standing for they have done nothing.
hgfh| 11.26.09 @ 9:40PM
Mac TOD Converter,
TOD Converter for Windows