The American Spectator : The 1966 Election's Warning to Obama

The Obama Watch

The 1966 Election's Warning to Obama

By Jeffrey Lord on 3.24.09 @ 6:08AM

It was a historic tidal wave of rejection. Symbolized by, of all things, housewives boycotting supermarkets. And the active participation of seven future presidents of the United States.

The 1966 "off year" or congressional elections should also serve as a political warning to the Obama White House as it pursues its strategy of pumping trillions of taxpayer dollars into the economy.

Only two years earlier, Lyndon Johnson had swept to a landslide victory promising a "Great Society" and a "war on poverty" funded by a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars. Intoxicated Democrats looked to an unlimited future of high tax, big spending, big government. Billions (then a big sum) were gushing out of Washington for everything from poverty programs to education, health care, the environment, transportation, consumer protection, and the arts and humanities, just for starters. But by November of 1966, with a tab for billions in hand, taxes rising and inflation swamping their everyday lives, the American people were staggered at the unlimited costs of it all. Angered, they had caught on to the end game of tax-and-spend economics.

The rebellion began, logically enough, at a grocery store.

Inflation had been on the rise throughout the year. By the early part of October, Denver housewives had had enough. "We don't like to feel we're being taken to the cleaners," said Mrs. Jay S. Threlkeld to the New York Times. Denver's "Housewives for Lower Food Prices," gaining 50,000 members almost overnight, was born. In Miami, a group of 20 housewives was threatening a house-to-house campaign for recruits to protest the rise in the price of milk. The idea took off, instantly garnering national media attention as supermarkets in Chicago, Portland, Detroit, and Phoenix came under scrutiny.

The Johnson administration, in an eerie foreshadowing of today's attempts by the Obama administration to blame private businesses for bad decisions pushed on them by government, lashed out at supermarket chains. The government's Bureau of Labor and Statistics was only too happy to add fuel to this sudden political bonfire by pointing a finger at the supposedly greedy grocery stores. Out tumbled the stats from LBJ's crew. The price of hamburger was up over 2 cents a pound in the last year, it said. Milk had risen 3 cents a half gallon. Butter was up an astonishing 11 cents a pound. Large grade A eggs cost more than 12 cents a dozen than they had in 1965.

In short, said LBJ as he played the greed card, this is about those rich SOB's running grocery stores. The greedy grocers.

A branch manager of a Red Owl Store, a small Midwest grocery chain, begged to differ, and didn't mind saying so to a Times reporter. Greedy grocers, said one Louis Hughes, were not the problem. In fact, grocers were doing everything they could to keep prices down. No, Mr. Hughes said, "the high costs of union and Government" were the culprits.

For a moment there was division in the ranks of the boycotters. Some wanted to pursue the idea that LBJ was pushing, blaming the grocers themselves. But others began to catch on to the argument voiced by Red Owl's Mr. Hughes. The state chairwoman of Arizona Housewives for Better Living spoke up, saying her group "doesn't think the fault lies with the supermarkets, but rather stems from hidden taxes and food shortages."

Suddenly, as if awakened from a philosophical coma, Republicans took note. The idea of connecting the massive billions in taxpayer dollars being spent by Washington directly to the rising price of groceries caught on.

In Memphis, Tennessee, the Republican congressional candidate entered a backyard political meeting pushing a cart of groceries, pointing out to his audience that as the bills for the Great Society came due, the cost of their food bills had gone up. In Washington the Republican National Committee armed its candidates with "tens of thousands of leaflets and stickers," according to the Times, connecting LBJ's spending with the increased cost of living. The country was awash in "Great Society funny money," bogus dollar bills that read: "Progress is a shrinking dollar." The "bill" came in the "Lyndon One" denomination bearing a picture of President Johnson beneath steer horns. Over 3,500 "LBJ supermarkets" sprang to life around the country from parades to county fairs, displaying food items alongside their skyrocketing prices. "Housewife brigades" were enlisted to pass out fliers on inflation, with one GOP Senate candidate in Michigan alone enlisting over 1,000 women to form "Operation Price Tag," the women targeting Michigan shopping centers and supermarkets with their leaflets. (The candidate, Robert Griffin, would win his race.) The Republican National Chairman brandished a new poll that showed a shocking 45% of the American people now blamed the government, not the grocers, for inflation.

IN RETROSPECT, 1966 TURNED OUT TO BE a rare moment in American political history. It was in fact the beginning of a realization by everyday Americans that massive government spending programs, the backbone of the New Deal, Truman's Fair Deal, JFK's New Frontier and LBJ's Great Society, must finally be paid for -- by them. In the cost of their groceries, their gas, their housing and everything else from clothes to college educations to steadily rising taxes.

They were furious.

The day after the election, shell-shocked Democrats looked around at the sight of what would become an ongoing political nightmare, a nightmare that, however momentarily suppressed, still haunts today. Serious damage had been done to the underlying political foundation of their party as it had existed since the 1930s. After three decades of campaigning successfully on the idea that government could be an endless cornucopia of programs with no visible negative economic consequence to average Americans, failure was abruptly at hand. No longer could Democrats simply assume success by campaigning with the famous strategy of FDR aide Harry Hopkins: "We shall tax and tax, and spend and spend, and elect and elect."

Across the board in 1966 Republicans were victorious. Forty-seven new House members were on their way to Washington, along with three new U.S. Senators. Eight new Republican governors were headed for state capitals, along with over 700 new GOP state legislators.

Page: 1 2 >

Letter to the Editor

Deborah| 3.24.09 @ 7:19AM

From your keyboard to God's ears, Mr. Lord.

As Milton Friedman said to Peter Robinson several years before he died. "The challenge for my generation," he said, "was to construct an intellectual defense for freedom. The challenge for your generation will be to keep it."

This can be found here: http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/19/taxes-unions-social-security-opinions-columnists-friedman-brooks.html

Let's hope the spirit of the Tea Parties is a revival of the spirit of the housewives of 1966. The silent majority is speaking up...let's see if Washington listens.

Thanks for the column, Mr. Lord. I love your historical perspective.

Pingback| 3.24.09 @ 8:07AM

1966=2010? | Babalú Blog: an island on the net without a bearded dictator links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

| Babalú Blog: an island on the net without a bearded

Siegfried X| 3.24.09 @ 8:24AM

Sitting around and waiting for backlash is a high risk strategy. It took Republicans 40 years last time, to get control of the House of Representatives after they lost it, and 72 years before Republicans were in the White House and majorities in both Houses of Congress.

Speaking of 1966 which this article is about, it took Republicans almost 30 years to get control of the House after 1966. It took around 40 years to get a Republican president & Congress.

Douglas Skinner| 3.24.09 @ 8:26AM

All articles like this one that try to draw parallels with the past forget that the fact that America isn't the same country today. Demographically today's America is totally different. It consists of a larger minority and foreign population that is more willing to accept the demogogic rantings of a "maximum leader" whom they perceive to be like themselves. Also, the media are much more fawning over the likes of Obama than it ever was over LBJ, even at the height of his popularity. Unlike Obama, LBJ never had a personality cult. People today are showing signs that they believe government manufactured statistics that blame every thing on "corrupt CEOs." This is even more the case, since today the connection between government policies and the financial crisis is even more clear and easy to understand than that between the big ticket costs of fledgling Great Society programs and the rise of food prices. Yet people are even more willing to "lynch" CEOs and suspected bonus takers. Again, the changes over last few months leading to where we are now are more precipitous and profound. Which leads to the additional difference that, unlike rising food prices, the effects of the last few months cut much deeper into people's sense of security, making them more desperate than they were in the mid-60's. Thus today they are more likely to be cast into a trance by the magic of a White House shaman who--as Obama so clearly has--has mastered his swayings, his rattles and his powders, than at anytime since FDR. Don't place your hopes in an electoral reversal, we're in this for the long haul. Besides, the electoral turn arounds that followed LBJ and Carter didn't, after all, get at the heart of the problem they only slowed its progress.

Pingback| 3.24.09 @ 8:51AM

Topics about Arts » The 1966 Election’s Warning to Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Topics about Arts » The 1966 Election’s Warning to Obama Topics about Arts Home About The 1966 Election’s Warning to Obama 24 Mar, 2009 Arts Topics All Bruce Springsteen created an interesting post today on The 1966 Election’s Warning to Obama Here’s a short outline …from poverty programs to education, health care, the environment,

Pingback| 3.24.09 @ 9:26AM

Topics about Economy » Archive » The 1966 Election’s Warning to Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Economy » Archive » The 1966 Election’s Warning to Obama Topics about Economy The 1966 Election’s Warning to Obama Posted in Economy Topics on March 24th, 2009 Kelso’s Corner created an interesting post today on The 1966 Election’s Warning to Obama Here’s a short outline Angered, they had caught on to the end game of tax-and-spend economics. Want to read…

Deborah| 3.24.09 @ 9:26AM

Just keep trying to dishearten conservatives. It won't work. "Something's happening here..."

Franklin's Locke| 3.24.09 @ 9:47AM

It is amazing how we are repeating history. You would think we would learn by now. The Dems are heading for huge loses in 2010. It is evident now with all the dissent all over the nation and we have over year to go. If the GOP sticks to Conservative principles and values, they will win. If they cave in, they will lose again and whole nation loses with them.

http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/

Bob| 3.24.09 @ 9:57AM

Lord, again, has used ideology in place of objective historical analysis. As someone has already pointed out, it took a long time after 1966 for Republicans to climb out of the doldrums led by a Hollywood movie star. Furthermore, as Lord rails against the spending of LBJ, he does not note that the largest creators of public debt have been Republican administrations.

But, perhaps the largest fault of his analysis is the demographic and generational changes of this last election. Not only are Hispanics and blacks a much larger percentage of the population, but the voting public is getting younger. The younger generation is much more socially liberal than you old folks. Meghan McCain is a good example of that generation. Even though they may be fiscally conservative, they see no problem with being pro-choice or in favor of gay marriage. With them, race is no longer an issue as well. They have grown up in the shadow of MTV, hip hop, rap, video games, etc. These are the types of beliefs that will not change over time. Older voters will die off. In fact, most older voters are Republican and younger voters are Democrats.

So Lord, Deborah, et. al., unless the Republican party adapts to the new demographics/generation, it will not win in the future. Lord doesn't address the social issues of the Republican party in his "analysis", which is another weakness in the comparison.

Pingback| 3.24.09 @ 9:57AM

Gumball Rally for a Tuesday | And Still I Persist links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…drums, triangle, whatever”) on them. ITEM: Political geeks (and Democrats themselves) usually point to the 1994 mid-term elections as a cautionary tale for Obama and Congress, but Jeffrey Lord goes back to 1966 . ITEM: As I recall, when Bush did this , it was decried as an attempt to snub the mainstream media and manipulate the news. Now it’s described as Obama seeking…

Kat| 3.24.09 @ 10:02AM

I'm attracted to this analysis but the flaw is that he doesn't explain what government regulations resulted in higher food prices. Nor does he address the fact that government subsidizes farmers quite heavily. I always understood this to mean that food prices are higher as a result but perhaps this is how government lowered them. I truly don't know but I wish he had explained this more - since republicans favored and continue to favor farm subsidies just as much as Democrats do, if not more.

Bob| 3.24.09 @ 10:07AM

Franklin, you can't substitute belief for reason. The 2010 election will ride on the state of the economy. If we have a turnaround at the end of this year or beginning of the next, Republicans will be routed. Remember, Republicans only represent about 30% of voters while Democrats represent 39% of voters. Given the current uptick in the market, an economic turnaround by the end of the year is highly probable. Remember that analytically, spending will not be seen on Main Street. Spending affects future generations, not the current one. That's why both Reagan and Bush did the immoral act of cutting taxes without cutting spending first.

For your information, as a fiscal conservative, I don't like the Obama budget at all. However, I refuse to play the three monkey game like all of you and recognize the pragmatic truth rather than ideological rantings. There are other ways of addressing this than just saying "no" all of the time.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 10:21AM

Kat...

Good point. The problem in 1966 was LBJ's spilling billions into the economy. This produced inflation, which, as discussed above, first hit home with the rising price of food at the neighborhood grocery store.

Today, the Federal Reserve has announced (last week) that it will print $300 billion of currency - this on top of the trillions we already have as a country in both brand new and old debt. Every dollar that is printed makes the dollars already in circulation - and you can begin with the dollars in your own wallet - worth a little less. In 1966 candidate Reagan in California, running for Governor, pointed out that if you had kept a five dollar bill in 1946, by 1966 it was worth just over $1.80. If you have any interest in this, look up the Weimar Republic that was the German government after World War I. You may even come across photos of German citizens with - literally - wheelbarrows full of German money being used to pay for basic items like meat, bread and milk. Reason: so much money had been printed that it made German currency essentially worthless. Some Germans even burned it for heat in the cold months. By the way, this was a contributing factor in the rise of Adolph Hitler.

Better explained?

ame| 3.24.09 @ 10:27AM

The problem today is that we have no one with courage and backbone such as the branch manager of the Red Owl Store. CEOs sit like lambs to slaughter and let Congress berate and embarrass them and they never fight back! Our media are Obama obsequious sycophants. Our leaders are "fraddy cat" weenies. Business leaders are spineless. Americans are idiots - Obama's popularity rating is high even though the man is a crass empty styrofoam cutout.
The people of the 1966 had chutzpah, were mad a shell, and weren't going to take it anymore.
The people of 2009 have liberal victim hood and handouts and class warfare madness, stoked by Obama. American are whiny spoiled brats who will not face reality and who do not understand that they are the luckiest people in the entire world and the best - WE HAVE NO LEADERS, just a bunch of greedy politicians with no moral or ethical center and no mettle - and voters who elected POTUS Socialist Thief-in-Chief are just the same.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 10:36AM

Interloper...

That's partisan silliness. Safety of the food supply was never an issue in 2004 or 2008. The peanut butter guys simply lied. They were in fact regulated. As, for that matter, was Bernie Madoff. But if people deliberately disobey the law...true with both the peanut people and Madoff....no law can stop that. It is, you know, against the law to murder someone. People still murder. At a certain point as a society we rely on ethics and morality. Your side created all those federal sexual harrassment laws and special prosecutors yet...Bill Clinton still harrassed Paula Jones and lied about it under oath. Unless you want a federal minder to follow the president in his personal life, as with the peanut nuts, the rest of us have to rely on the individual's ethics in following the law. And the peanut people broke not only federal regs but state regs. If the Bush administration put out orders not to inspect peanut plants, please cite a reference.

Trurl| 3.24.09 @ 10:47AM

If history has taught us anything, it is that if there is a backlash it will be squandered electing chuckleheads like Nixon and the Bush famiily, or failing to elect doofuses like Ford, Bob Dole or McCain. There's only been one decent president, by my count, since I've been alive (I'm 45).

Bob| 3.24.09 @ 10:56AM

Again, Lord, you are using rhetoric rather than facts to make a point. Here is a chart from the Financial Times that shows the value of the dollar over time.

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2007/11/07/8713/the-dollars-slide-13-down-and-falling-faster/

The largest decreases in modern history in the value of the dollar came from the Reagan and Bush administrations because of the high debt created.

If you knew anything about economics, you'd know that we are now in a period of deflation/near deflation. In fact, the value of the dollar is holding quite nicely because all countries are facing economic problems, not just the U.S. Ever since Volcker, there has been a priority on holding down inflation. Bernanke comes from the same school. While there is a risk of inflation if the Obama budget passes as it is, it is diminished by the current state of the world economy. Furthermore, there are significant advantages to this country of inflation -- i.e., we will be repaying the current debt at inflated dollars. Thus, from an economics standpoint, if we eventually get our spending in order (that is a big "if"), then we actually want some inflation for a period of time -- let's say for 4-5 years -- in order for us to get our books in order. The Chinese are worried about this and economists actually want to see some but will not speak out because most people don't understand.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 10:56AM

Bob...

You are playing a demographics game that never pans out. Why? Let me start by saying I am not...definitely not...accusing you of racism. What I am saying is that your party has a horrific background (slavery, segregation, racial quotas) of judging people by race. Hence the business about hispanics and blacks and youth. They bean count relentlessly and can't seem to help themselves, which in turn has them attributing beliefs to entire races or genders instead of the individuals that in fact make up those races and genders. As 9/11 and Pearl Harbor or the Great Depression proved, if people perceive something is wrong neither their race, gender or age will matter. It is a false choice to worry about that.

As to the youth and social policy, Ms. McCain has already (unknowingly) shown the mistake made in assuming the younger generation has a different view of social policy. How? In one of her blogs she went on about some creepy guy she dated who had a thing for her mother, Cindy. If young people and Ms. McCain are so tolerant, what was wrong with the guy? Why could he not have a fling with Meghan and Cindy both (other than perhaps, that even at 72 John McCain might beat the living hell out of the guy)? The reason, of course, is that Meghan McCain, quite properly and naturally, drew a boundary line as to what is good social policy (a girl having a date with a guy) and bad (the guy having a thing for her and for Mom.) So it turns out Ms. McCain, by her own admission, is not so tolerant after all. It is abundantly clear that if the law recognizes gay marriage, there will at some point be no legal bar to polygamy or group marriage or guys marrying both the girl and her Mom. As a legal matter only - putting aside the morality of it - this would be inevitable. And I promise you, as Meghan McCain has instinctively demonstrated, you will never see a young person become an "old fogey" faster than when some third - or fourth and fifth - person believes they can properly ask in to their relationship. In the words of Princess Diana..."There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded." She was pretty cool and pretty young...but not that cool.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 11:00AM

"Ever since Volcker..."

Gee, Bob, although a Carter appointee, it is generally acknowledge that the reagan-Volcker partnership is what got the economy moving...

Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 11:05AM

Removing vending and soda machines from schools? Yow! First, I agree (don't fall over) that these machines shouldn't be there in the first place. I recall making it through high school with just a water fountain in the hall. But truly, this is a decision for a local school board. Not the President of the United States. The federal government has no business regulating vending machines in schools. Talk about dropping a nuclear weapon on an ant! If you don't want them there, you'll get my vote for school board. Vote Interloper for Healthy Schools!

Siegfried X| 3.24.09 @ 11:09AM

The Greenspan / Bernanke focus was on creating bubbles (growth), not stopping inflation. Greenspan stepped on the gas and took us into bubble land in 1995, and we didn't come of it until the bubble finally popped in 2007. That's the exact root cause of our current situation, that the Fed created the biggest set of bubbles in history.

Bob| 3.24.09 @ 11:26AM

Jeffrey -- my party? I'm a Republican and have always been one. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian. By making statements about the economy as you do without the support of real data will not help Republicans regain power. Being anti-intellectual has its limitations.

Regarding demographics, my background is being a businessman. I always try to look at data objectively. Just the fact that you see mentioning Hispanics and blacks as a racial issue shows your bias, not mine.

Hispanics and blacks have a voting pattern. In business, you slice and dice the data in order to put together a business plan. When you see a defined group addressable through some targeted means -- i.e., zip codes, cable, publications, etc. -- you calculate the return you can get against the defined target. I could have used suburban or metro breakdowns, but they are not quite as defining. I could have used population movement, but they also favor Democrats.

Again, racism is your issue. Winning elections for Republicans is mine. You cannot win an election today without some type of microtargeting.

With regard to Ms. McCain, I couldn't care less about her personal life. I used her as an example of Gen Y populations and used her name to "tweak" you a bit -- but I'm sure you know that.

Republicans cannot win on a ideology based hope. There is a pragmatism to voting populations and getting votes. That's why I'm here, on this board, fighting the type of ideology you are selling so Republicans can win again by large margins. The Republican party is shrinking because of the social agenda perpetuated by you and your ilk. I believe in fiscal restraint, but we will not see fiscal restraint unless our party expands. That means broadening the message and reducing the impact of social conservatives in the party.

I would encourage you and your friends here to start looking at data and fact before posting your Democrat hate mail. I would also encourage you and your friends to concentrate on solutions rather than complaints. People get tired of complainers.

By the way, it was Volcker reducing the fed funds rate that was the major factor in helping economic growth -- not Reagan tax cuts that only succeeded in increasing the debt. I've posted those charts several times here.

Teleprompter Messiah| 3.24.09 @ 11:42AM

Lightworker is trying to repeal Reagan. However, it appears that his efforts, once given some introspection, are not meeting with public acceptance.

2010 will be the year of the fiscal conservative. With the rampant inflation being unleashed by Lightworker and his reckless spending, it will be glaringly obvious to all that you can't pay for all of his social engineering on the wealth of the top 5%.

I also predict that Mr. Judgement will have more managerial foibles under his belt by then that he will be bleeding support from several cuts.

Seigfried X| 3.24.09 @ 11:42AM

"The Republican party is shrinking because of the social agenda"

This is hard to believe since the Republicans never do anything than talk about social issues. And as a matter of fact, the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy came from Bill Clinton. He also signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, something which passed with strong Democratic support.

The calculation is also very complex. For example, if the Republican party became "pro-choice" over night, there is no guarantee that lots of pro-choice voters would switch. But they would be risking the loss of lots of pro-life voters, who currently have no choice but to vote Republican.

If social issues decided elections, then Republicans would always lose or always win. Positions don't change that much from election to election.

Hank Rearden| 3.24.09 @ 11:58AM

The author makes some very interesting comparisons, however, as many have pointed out the US has undergone a major demographic shift since 1966. That being said, should Republicans change their message to appeal to other demographics or improve the manner in which their platform is presented? Hispanics and blacks are culturally conservative but continue to vote otherwise. The Republican party for quite some time has either mismanaged or outright ignored PR.

Nevertheless, until the Repubs can agree on core principles, effectively transmit those principals, and find an eloquent spokesperson to do so they will continue to lose.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 12:31PM

Bob....

Apologies if I mis-read your ideology. The fact that I did so says something though, no? I have a political background and certainly have spent vast quantities of times reading polls, demographics etc. I understand the data. My point is that people - like you, for example - generally like to be seen as "Bob who is a businessman" than, say "Bob the Latino or Bob the white guy" or "Bobbie the woman" etc etc. To make an appeal that way is clumsy if not bad politics altogether. As someone with friends who are neither my color or gender I listen to what's in their heads and hearts, not the stereotypes of their color or their gender.

"Pragmatism" is an ideology, and a liberal one at that. The moment I hear someone say that X (me! me!) is too "ideological" I know instantly that I am listening to someone who is an ideologue. They just have different ideas than I do. Senator McCain was a "pragmatist." He lost. Bob Dole ran as a pragmatist. He lost. President Bush 41 ran as a Reaganite and won, then ran a presidency as a pragmatist and lost what should have been a sure-thing re-election. Ronald Reagan ran on conservative ideology and won. Twice and big. Very big. The closest we have had in terms of someone who understood that is George W., and I would argue that it was his "compassionate conservatism" that accounted for his narrow wins. Expanding the government with a huge Medicare program is decidedly not Reaganesque. Still, on national security and tax cuts he was there in spades. People noticed and voted accordingly, particularly the second time around.

Your perception, Bob, and I say this respectfully, is skewed. There is nothing libertarian about letting judges dictate abortion policy or gay marriage. Give people a choice. Let them vote. Give them liberty to choose. There is nothing vote-losing about choice. Supporting social policy that says judges get to ram their personal beliefs down the throats of the rest of us is a surefire loser. Everybody wants a voice. You seem to think that line of thinking is ...what..extremist? Radical? I think it's as mainstream as apple pie.

I happen to come out of the economic and national security wing of the GOP. But I read my social conservative friends clearly. Without them on board we lose elections.

Bob| 3.24.09 @ 12:42PM

"This is hard to believe since the Republicans never do anything than talk about social issues."

A relatively small percentage of voters ever understand the issues. It is clear, for example, that people who post on this blog have little understanding of economics from a data perspective and they are the activists!

The optics of Republicans show a strong social agenda. Not only are about 60% of Republicans social conservatives, but they make a lot of noise during elections. Being pro-life/anti-abortion and anti-gay is strongly communicated. If you add to that the fact that it is primarily a party of white older people and the stand on immigration, there is no reason for minorities would believe there is anything in the party for them. If you saw a group of young hip-hop fanatics, would you feel comfortable joining them?

Basically, Republicans are thus seen as intolerant as transmitted by the optics -- and beliefs -- of the party. Social conservatives -- again, 60% of the party -- are seen as very closed minded -- which they are. Besides, voting for conservative judges does have a huge effect on social issues. Besides, by executive order, Bush put many elements of the social conservative agenda in practice.

So, in point of fact, Siegfried, you are clearly wrong.

True Conservative| 3.24.09 @ 12:44PM

Bob, you expose your true identity by the statement "Reagan tax cuts that only succeeded in increasing the debt." Will you mind when your income is taxed at 90%? It might help to reduce the debt, after all.

Trackback| 3.24.09 @ 12:54PM

The American Spectator : The 1966 Election's Warning to Obama, on PunditKix, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Trackback from PunditKix.com

Bob| 3.24.09 @ 1:05PM

Jeffrey --

I don't know how long ago you were involved in political targeting, but it is quite different today than in was even 5 years ago. Microtargeting and segmentation is clearly prevalent.

The fact that you misread my ideology tells us more about you and the orientation of AmSpec, than it does about me. I am the swing voter who decides elections. YOU don't decide elections, but you have a large part in deciding who will represent the party.

Your simplistic analysis of presidential wins is another example of how ideology clouds your view. Typically, polling indicates that the vast majority of people vote on their pocketbook, not on ideology. Reagan won because he was a nice guy who communicated well at a time when inflation was rampant. Bush41 won because the economy was still strong. He lost to Clinton because of a downturn in the economy. Bush43 won because he promised people even more money in their pockets and said we were not going to get involved in interventionist policies. The internal polling validates this point of view and does not support your ideological perspective. Please show me the numbers and polling internals if you believe I'm wrong about this. But, being trained in mathematics, I follow this stuff very closely.

Your definition of pragmatism is also superficial and wrong. Pragmatism does NOT mean the same as compromise. Pragmatism means looking at data objectively and then being realistic -- or just beyond -- in finding ways to accomplish these goals. So, since I believe in fiscal restraint and limited government (as a way to reduce costs and not an ideology), I will look for solutions that move us to that goal that would appeal to a broader demographic. Things like a flat tax with limited or no deductions and no industry subsidies would accomplish that goal. It would keep government out of the incentive business while would appeal to "fairness" and thus bring in independents/swing voters. There are lots of solutions like that which would be both fiscally conservative and pragmatic.

You said there is nothing libertarian about judges deciding abortion policy or gay marriage. You and I both know this is intellectually dishonest. Have you ever read the Libertarian party platform? Being libertarian means that government should not be involved in the decision whether it is by a judge or by a public vote. Besides, the purpose of the judicial branch is precisely to uphold the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. If most people voted to segregate blacks, then, you would be in favor of that act. If most people voted to put gays in colonies, you would be in favor of that. If California voted to allow gay marriage, would you also favor that? This whole positioning of you right wing adherents on the double negative of judges deciding against the people who are against something else is hilarious -- and wrong. If you had any intellectual honesty, you'd admit to this.

Bob| 3.24.09 @ 1:14PM

Hey, True, you said this:

I guess you haven't looked at the data:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Furthermore, I would suggest you read a review of Reaganomics by one of Reagan's own chief economists:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html

I would also suggest you study effective tax rates vis-a-vis marginal tax rates. Effective tax rates have held study between 20-22% for a very long time. As I've said many times, I am a proponent of a flat tax without deductions on either the high end or low end and that includes social security and medicare which in no way resembles insurance anymore. What is not fair about that?

theadmiral| 3.24.09 @ 1:21PM

This article assumes that this country will survive in it's traditional form to 2010. The biggest difference is that the 1964 Democrats are today's RINOs and today's Democrats are Marxists. Worse, LBJ was not a red diaper baby as is Obama. We have today as POTUS someone born and raised a Marxist, socialist and Communist being handled by forces desiring the destruction of traditional America and the construction of a New World Order. Any gains for Republicans in 2010 in Congress is predicated on this country surviving the first two years of an Obama regime. Between the bankrupting budget proposed by Obama, the continued vilification of capitalism and assaults on the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 10th amendments and now Obama asking Congress for additional over-reaching authority for Treasury to seize companies beyond traditional banks, we are experiencing a bloodless (for now) Marxist coup right before our eyes. I pray to God that we survive until 2010 so we can show these Marxists the door.

Jeremiah| 3.24.09 @ 1:30PM

Are you serious in claiming that today's economic disaster is NOT the result of bad business decisions but is instead the result of decisions "forced" upon business by government?

If so, you are completely ill-informed about what is actually happening in the country today.

Decisions "forced" on business by government have steadily decreased since the 80s, but more importantly, the idea that the disaster that just hit our markets could have been "forced" upon them by the government is almost childish.

At some point you have to be willing to set ideological expectations aside long enough to let some information in.

Your reasoning would find Madoff's crimes something forced upon him by regulators.

The fact is, banks and investors made a series of completely bogus deals over the course of 20 years -- but especially in the last 8 -- that left lenders insolvent.

Government's only role in this was that it had no role and didn't fulfill its responsibilities to oversee and regulate the markets.

Capitalism, left to itself, is a Blatant Beast that eventually gores its own hide. We learned this lesson in the 19th century; we're learning it again today.

Dai Alanye| 3.24.09 @ 1:33PM

Bob tells us, "A relatively small percentage of voters ever understand the issues." And he also tells us, "…as a fiscal conservative, I don't like the Obama budget at all."

This from a man who boasts of having voted for Obama. Yet Bob's statements are true enough in the proper context—he didn't understand the issues of the election, nor should he or anyone like Obama's budget.

I believe many more RINOs will soon, if they haven't already, start explaining their differences with BO. We knew in advance that The One knew nothing about foreign policy, and those of us with eyes and ears open knew his fiscal ideas had Marxist roots. Now we are in the process of learning just how ignorant he is about economics in general.

And yet Bob voted for Obama, mainly because the Republican VP candidate had a womb. Brilliant reasoning, and fully in line with Bob's scintillating fiscal and historical reasoning in this thread.

But I fully expect Obama to go on flailing around without regard to the tremendous inflation his policies might be setting us up for, and I expect Bob to continue flailing around in an attempt to justify his profound foolishness in having voted for Obama.

Bob| 3.24.09 @ 2:16PM

Dai, from a review of your posts I certainly understand the issues much more than you, especially when it comes to economics.

But your "facts" are wrong as usual. During the Bush years we suffered from intellectual weakness and incompetence. It wasn't the fact that "Palin had a womb", it was because she proved to most of us that she didn't know much. I supported Jane Kirkpatrick years ago long before it became fashionable to support a woman, but we couldn't convince her to run. Besides, McCain graduated 5th from the bottom of his class. I refuse to vote for anyone without a substantial brain.

Besides, being socially libertarian, I am in agreement with Obama on social issues. Besides, McCain voted for the same bailouts as Obama and his budget would not have addressed health care, education, or the middle class which must be addressed. In addition to the stupid pick of Palin, his actions during the economic crisis showed the same incompetence as Bush in handling these types of things.

Furthermore, you really don't seem to understand the positive economic impact of inflation. Please learn something about economics before you complain about budgets. There is no question that McCain would have continued Bush's economic policy of low taxes and high spending -- the worst of all alternatives.

True Conservative| 3.24.09 @ 3:03PM

Bob, could you please explain how inflation has positive economic impacts? Also, could you please let us know how you obtained your education in economic theory?

Osamas Pajamas| 3.24.09 @ 3:44PM

If Republicans regain control of Congress, the Republican leadership had better call the whole bunch together and inform them that if any one of them snatches a @#&*+|! dime he'll get hung out to dry five minutes later and if any one of them gets hooked up to a Jack Abramof [or whatever his name is], he'll get thrown to the wolves five minutes later --- by the Republican leadership. "Leadership" is exactly that and any skunk who doesn't want to deal with it should be thrown out of the party on his butt, publicly. If Republicans are going to behave like Democrats and whiz in the soup, then they need to get it chopped off, real quick.

Melvin| 3.24.09 @ 3:46PM

Rule number #1 for a revolution... People have to show up.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 3:48PM

"I am the swing voter who decides elections."

Friend Bob.....If you are a "swing voter" as you say, you are NOT a Republican, as you self-identified earlier. My point here is not "gotcha." The point is that the GOP is the conservative party. Not the liberal party. When it tries to be something it is not, it loses. Liberals and serious Democrats want...liberals and serious Democrats. They will not vote for what they will view as an imitation. As to swing voters, it is the job of conservatives to unswing you by making our case. But if in fact you are a swing voter, what this really says is that you are not of the conservative party - you are a liberal, whether you yourself understand that or not.

Look at your post:

* "Reagan won because he was a nice guy who communicated well at a time when inflation was rampant." Decidedly not true. He was a conservative who made no bones about his philosophy and was, in fact, famous for it. He made a very clear case for conservatism and never shrank from the label. He opposed abortion and said so. He opposed liberal judges who made the law up as they went along and said so. He supported tax cuts, budget cuts and beating the "evil empire" and said so. Having been there, I can tell you with certainty this was the reason for his support. Being a nice guy, which he was -and humble, I might add - was icing on the cake.

* "Pragmatism means looking at data objectively and then being realistic..." Reagan didn't win on data....he ran on principles. Running on "data" means you twist and turn to get a vote here and a vote there. A bad thing.

* "Flat tax." I'm amenable. We surely agree that the tax system is crazy. If the Secretary of the Treasury screws it up...(I'll let you finish that sentence!)

* "Besides, the purpose of the judicial branch is precisely to uphold the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority."..Oh my goodness! Bob! Snap out of it! The purpose of the judicial branch is to ...follow the law! As written! Period! You, my friend, are in fact a liberal if you believe otherwise.

* "If California voted to allow gay marriage, would you also favor that?"...Yes! Now you have it! Exactly! Blacks are free today because of the 13th Amendment. Women have the right to vote today because of the 19th Amendment. There is nothing disingenuous here. Conservatives believe these matters should be settled by voters and not courts, which have this serious tendency to make up the law based on their own personal political views. It is critical that serious public policy have the support of the people. The reason we are still arguing over abortion is because of the WAY it was decided. If, as with, say, civil rights, it had been allowed to work its way through the electoral process...by states or by constitutional amendment, and carried the day....I can assure you the battle would be over. Vanished, for all practical purposes. No one argues about segregation anymore (thank God!)

Interestingly, in the California fight over gay marriage, when a Constitutional amendment to the state constitution was put to a vote, polls showed that 70 per cent of the black vote...voters who simultaneously pulled the lever for Obama...voted against gay marriage. Which is to say, on a major social issue, people you insist hate Republicans because of their stance on things like gay marriage, voted by 70-30 in favor of the conservative position. And by the way, the Kelo decision, the New London property case, had nothing to do with a social issue but exemplifies the point that the idea of judges applying their personal opinions to cases instead of the law is seriously out of control. (And yes...sigh..I know Anthony Kennedy is a Reagan appointee. He, apparently, forgets.) The issue here is very much judges, whether applied to abortion, gay marriage or anything else.

Bob..go pick up a copy of Mark Levin's new book. He's a serious guy, a smart guy and has written a serious book that should give you lots to chew on.

We're here to help you work through your liberal addiction, buddy...I used to be there myself. :)
You'll be OK. Promise.

Jeremiah| 3.24.09 @ 3:52PM

Can we at long last get over the idea that not supporting Palin was somehow sexist?

It is true that sexist things were said about her. But you have to understand that the cable news / talk radio / blabosphere generates millions of comments, many of which are unfair.

But the reason Palin turned off many conservatives is that she was intellectually deficient. There's just no question about it. Bob says "she didn't know much," and I don't suppose I could improve on that.

But try this thought experiment:

Dial up Couric's interview on youtube and extract ANY question she asked and imagine what Ronald Reagan would have done with it.

Do you think Reagan would have babbled incoherently if asked what he thought about the government's role in stimulating the economy? What do you think he would have said if Couric asked her to discuss a Supreme Court decision other than Roe that he disagreed with?

He would have knocked it out of the damn park.

The whole modern conservative movement (beginning in the 30s) is BUILT on disagreements with the Supreme Court. To not have an answer to that question is to not be a conservative.

Sorry to be Mr Change the Subject, but defenses of Palin have grown wearisome because they rely exclusively on absurd reasoning and ad hominem attack.

Basil Plumley| 3.24.09 @ 4:13PM

@ Jeffrey Lord

I do believe that you have figured out the fraud that is Bob.
Bob is way too strident. He hates many things, especially Social Conservatives. Bob claims to know much, yet, always trips over his facts. Bob claims to be open-minded and enlightened, yet, in the face of his untenable position, resorts to bragging about his education and name-calling.

Bob is no more a "RINO" than my dog is a cat.

Oh, BTW, another great effort Mr. Lord.

Ammo Guy| 3.24.09 @ 4:14PM

Dear Mr. Lord, you have got to stop wasting Bob's valuable time by arguing with him...you cannot win because he has the most brilliant mind to exist in this country since Thomas Jefferson dined alone in the White House. I tried matching wits with him a couple of months ago and was soundly thrashed…I still whimper at the recollection. My ongoing 35 years of bureaucratic toil were no match for his 40 years of legendary business swashbuckling. That he even deigns to occasionally visit this modest website and favor us with his wisdom is an act of kindness for which I am ever grateful. Bob is super smart (as is Jeremiah above) and my friend RET should be thankful they condescend to post here. Thank you Bob, can I have another? (Darn it, I just broke my Lenten vow to forego posting for the duration)

Basil Plumley| 3.24.09 @ 4:26PM

@ Jeremiah
Wooosh!!

That sound should be quite familiar to you. It is the sound of something going over your head.

Palin was a real person. She had a life that many regular folks could identify with. Her crowds were larger than Obama's; all without an opening act.
You on the Left, demeaned her and subjected her to lies and innuendos. The irony here is you did the same thing with Reagan. It's funny how dead conservatives earn your respect and live ones do not.

No, the only thing that has gotten wearisome around here Jeremiah, is reading posts from colossal jewels of ignorance like you.

Truth to Power| 3.24.09 @ 4:28PM

I'm with Basil. The whole idea of Bob doesn't make sense. He can't keep from displaying those liberal traits that make it such an easy call. I would add that it is not complemetary to Bob's intelligence that this is the best faking he could do.

amccoy| 3.24.09 @ 4:34PM

To Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 10:36AM
You said ". And the peanut people broke not only federal regs but state regs. If the Bush administration put out orders not to inspect peanut plants, please cite a reference. "

I don't know about peanuts. I do know about cattle and mad cow disease. Bush's people DID PROHIBIT a US beef producer from testing every cow. To be able to export their beef into several other countries (Japan, Korea, etc.) the beef producer wanted to test every cow so that his beef would meet the same standards used in those other countries. Bush's people forbid them from testing every cow on the grounds that consumers might PREFER to purchase beef from a manufacturer that tests every cow and be willing to pay more for tested beef. This would then provide a competitive advantage in the marketplace for those companies that elect to test their beef.
and just FYI, not only was the beef producer an american company whose exports were curtailed by the ruling, the company that sells the most mad cow disease tests is ALSO an american company.

Dolmance| 3.24.09 @ 4:36PM

Why on earth are the Republicans trying to get people to support a Herbert Hoover approach to what could easily become another Great Depression. The rube voters might buy into that nonsense, but surely the Republicans in the Senate know better.

R.J. Taylor| 3.24.09 @ 4:42PM

BOB-
One could understand how you must be growing weary of this blog and the stupidity found therein, but I wanted to encourage you. Keep it up, and don't give up on the Truth. I couldn't say it better than you, so I'll just sit back and read, admiringly.
And thank you!

geek| 3.24.09 @ 4:48PM

1966 is not relevant to the country of today. We have a better informed public. What I would look at is why George H Bush lost as relevant. He was out of touch with the American people and had a sarah plain type (Dan Quayle) as VP. The combination was deadly.
As long as Obama continues to articulate his policies clearly and explains what he is doing and why, although there may be policy differences he will enjoy the support of the majority of the population.

A.J.Nolte| 3.24.09 @ 4:54PM

Bob, do you actually read demographic surveys of Latino voters? I sincerely doubt it, because they almost unanimously agree that Latinos are fiscally liberal and socially conservative, the precise opposite of the up-scale whites you and the "pragmatists" want to court. Look up the Pugh Forum's studies of Hispanic demographics for a good picture. There's anecdotal evidence of this as well. As I recall, one of the factors in the near party switch of some Latino state senators in New York (can't remember if it was two or three), was their unwillingness to be held hostage to party orthodoxy on gay marriage. I suspect that, were you to look up the voting records of Latino Republican legislators from the past ten years, you'd find them following the party more on socially conservative votes than fiscally conservative ones.
The masive shift in Latino vote from Republicans to Democrats from 2004 to 2008 is most explicable by the hard-core anti-immigration stance of some GOP politicians and activists. It has nothing to do with abortion or gay marriage. In fact, these two issues were emphasized far less by the McCain campaign than they were by Bush. This shift is also not necessarily permanent. Bob Dole lost huge shares of the Latino vote in 1996, probably because of his support for prop 187, but Bush won it all back in 2000 and posted the best numbers of any Republican presidential candidate among Hispanics in 2004.
Oh, and I love how you blithely assume that blacks and Latinos are going to vote the same way. In my opinion it's completely unsustainable for the Democrats to think they can hold both constituencies permanently, as Texera suggests High levels of immigration aren't really in the interests of African-Americans are they?
If you think fiscal conservatism and social liberalism is the way for the GOP to go, feel free to make that case, but don't kid yourself that it'll win you the Latino vote, or that cosmopolitan libertarianism is demographic destiny.
One more note: the gen Y picture is more complicated than you let on. On abortion, gen Y leans pro-life. On gay marriage, it leans in favor of gay marriage. The latter is more pronounced, but both trends are real.

Siegfried Xanten| 3.24.09 @ 5:06PM

Democrat Lite, like taking their positions on social issues doesn't work. John McCain's loss proves that. McCain was such a rebel and so far left that John Kerrey offered him the DEMOCRATIC VP spot. Yet McCain lost.

Give the voters a choice between a Democrat-lite Republican and a real Democrat, and they'll take the Democrat every time.

Bob| 3.24.09 @ 5:06PM

TrueC -- inflation lowers the cost of repayment of interest on the debt. I received my education in econ as a secondary major in my master's degree. I worked with economic data in developing new longer term business in Fortune 100 companies for the last 35 years.

Jeffrey -- where do I start....

"The point is that the GOP is the conservative party." -- Actually, you know this is not true and an oversimplification. I am a solidly fiscal conservative. I voted solidly Republican until Bush43. I could not bring myself to vote for a person who failed at every business he attempted. He proved that he was incompetent before he ran for President and fulfilled that goal upon achieving the presidency. If you social conservative valued competency above ideology, you would have come to the same decision.

"He (Reagan) was a conservative who made no bones about his philosophy and was, in fact, famous for it." -- this is not the reason he was elected. He was elected because of the economic "malaise". I was there and followed the polls. Didn't you? The fact that he was a conservative was incidental. Please show me some evidence of the contrary. All historians I've read will back this up.

Reagan did not run on "principles". He ran on disparaging Carter. Please review the ads he ran and tell me differently. This "principles" discussion is clearly revisionist history. Please provide some factual evidence in terms of polling data, the ads run, the debate, or anything else that had WIDE distribution.

"The purpose of the judicial branch is to ...follow the law! As written! Period! You, my friend, are in fact a liberal if you believe otherwise." -- wrong again. If the law was entirely clear, there would be no need for a Supreme Court and we would have no 5-4 decisions. All jurists believe they are following the law and not making law. The fact is that the Constitution can be interpreted in many ways. With regard to slavery, I suppose you believe that Dred Scott was correctly decided. That would be consistent with your belief system, right? If you were correct in your beliefs, then all Supreme Court decisions would be 9-0. You are quite funny on this one.

By the way Jeffrey, I encourage you to follow Frum and Brooks lead in making the Republican party a winning entity again. Your disease of not using data to make decisions can be solved through further education in an Ivy League school.

W.S.| 3.24.09 @ 5:11PM

Ah well, at least civility and bipartisanship are making a comeback.

Bob| 3.24.09 @ 5:23PM

Siegfried -- McCain ran as a social conservative. Look here for all of his policy positions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain

His positions certainly were not liberal in virtually any sense. Please, Siegfried, show me you have some level of intellect.

Henry| 3.24.09 @ 5:29PM

Bob:

I am with you all the way. I am a democrat but I am like Bob in my perspective. If there were republicans who thought like Bob does, I would vote for him or her. But it so happens that such republicans, or even democrats for that matter, are an endengered species.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 5:35PM

Bob..

"Your disease of not using data to make decisions can be solved through further education in an Ivy League school. "

My Ivy League professors who smothered me in data would be so pleased!

Frum! Brooks! Geez...I like the Davids...but Ed Rollins or Lee Atwater they are not...Frum redeems himself (kinda sorta) because he at least spearheaded resistance to Harriet Miers in favor of...gasp!...a conservative Justice Alito! I'm glad you approve! You are already evolving!

Bee| 3.24.09 @ 5:41PM

In certain circles, conservatives are referred to as "reactionaries". I don't think the strategy of reacting to something is a winning plan, especially dealing with groups consisting of "activists", "organizers" and the like. Like it or not, conservatives need to become more active themselves.

The Other Bob| 3.24.09 @ 5:44PM

Bob the businessman,

Thanks for sharing your resume with us. Just to keep the standards for the Bobs, I have a bachelor's degree in economics, a master's in finance, and I'm a CPA and a practicing tax professional. Nyeh.

I could post pages on correcting all your errors or misstatements, but I'll limt myself to a few:

1. The fed funds rate is a very short-term rate, which banks charge each other for borrowings to meet their reserve requirements. Business do not (at least not before the age of the bailout) finance expansion with these very short-term loans. In fact, it's not an issue for them. They do this through mid- and long-term debt and equity.
2. Volcker moved to crush inflation in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which prior to Reaganomics had always produced deep recessions. You 'pragmatists' had a term for it: the Phillips curve. We could only cure inflation with unemployment. The Reagan tax cuts smashed that paradigm by letting profitable businesses keep more of their income, thus providing higher internal cash flow. Volcker's anti-inflationary actions reduced the interest premiums on long-term debt and paved the way for the great drop in interest rates in the mid-1980s.
3. The total revenues of the Federal government from income tax collections doubled during the years 1983 to 1991. That's a compound annual growth rate of about 9% a year, in spite of the lower tax rates? WHAT could explain this, Bob? Easy...it's called the supply-side effect.
4. WHO is Jane Kirkpatrick? Jean's sister? Jean was the one who coined the term "San Francisco Democrat", you know, the ones from your party who are running this country into the ground.
5. Bob, social liberals are the ones who have no problem with allowing one person to end another person's life when that person's existence is inconvenient to them. They just can't say no to someone who thinks they have the right to kill someone else. You think they'll be able to say no to someone who wants to put their hand into your pocket and take the rewards of your efforts?

L. Ross| 3.24.09 @ 6:24PM

Wow, what a fun set of posts. I just love the give and take between Republicans, and people who claim to be independants, but obviously are Democrats. I especially like Henry up a couple. Basically, if more Republicans thought like Bob the Democrat, Henry would vote for them. Heck, Henry, if more Democrats thought like Bill Bennet or Sarah Palin, I would vote for them.

Speaking of Sarah Palin (and I just love to), has anyone else noticed that tingling sensation up their leg when she puts on those sexy librarian glasses, flashes that Pepsodent smile, and gives you a wink? Sarah. . . .

Jeremiah| 3.24.09 @ 6:35PM

Basil --

I don't have any clever sound effects to offer, but I do think you missed the point of my post.

Maybe Sarah Palin, and her great chums, Joe Sixpack and Joe the Plumber, are like everyday people.

So what? Does that mean they should be given the launch codes to our nuclear arsenol?

American narcissism goes to a weird, bad extreme when it programs people to vote for those who are most "like" themselves.

As for Palin drawing "larger crowds than Obama." Even if that were true, it doesn't constitute an argument against any of my claims. It's a shabby, supercilious way to argue.

Conservatives have good arguments to make, but when they fall into the trap of claiming to lose because of media bias or because Katie Couric is mean, they just sound ridiculous.

Anyway, Basil, nice try. Keep the aspidistra flying.

Marc Jeric| 3.24.09 @ 6:46PM

1) You remember War on Poverty? Who will define victory? What is the Exit Strategy?
2) Paul Krugman as usual with "liberals" blames the saving & loan fiasco on Reagan - imagine! Another falsification of history by the far left; it is the inflation and unemployment caused by Carter policies that caused that meltdown that Reagan cured.
3) Abu Hussein from Kenya reintroduced welfare as profession; a state gets more money the more people it has on welfare. You get what you pay for!
4) Our far left now in power calls us normal people fascists and nazis! While the most far left in power was exactly fascists and nazis - their parties were called Italian Socialist Party and German National-Socialist Workers Party. And let us not forget the USSR - one S in there stands for socialist and the other for soviet; the latter means community organization like ACORN brownshirts.

Bill| 3.24.09 @ 6:57PM

The Other Bob,

I'm a CPA as well. With the compound growth in receipts you mentioned, how did the debt continue to grow? My guess would be that spending was growing even faster. This article seems to about the problems created by government spending.

The Republicans of today lack the spine to take on spending so, we seem to be headed toward bankruptcy as nation regardless of the party in control in D.C.

I take it from your fifth point that you're against capital punishment, or do you favor someone deciding to kill someone in this case?

Magic Dog| 3.24.09 @ 7:04PM

Maybe 2010 will be like 1966. Of course, maybe it won't. Maybe it will be like 1934, which boosted the Democrats from 59 Senate seats to 69 seats. In the House they gained only nine seats, but of course they had already held 313, up from 216 in 1930.

And guess what 1934 was followed by? 1936, when the Literary Digest assured everyone that Alf Landon was going to be the next president. So goes Maine, goes the nation, was the prevailing wisdom before that election. That one got changed to something else: So goes Maine, goes Vermont.

Two can play the history game, wingnuts.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 7:10PM

Bill...

You are correct. Both Dems and R's have been hooked on spending. Cutting taxes brings in more revenue always. But one could triple revenue and still have a huge debt if you spend ten times as much....The point is to do both, cut taxes AND spending. Republicans, it must be said, have failed badly on this score. Which is why lots of conservatives abandoned them...with cause.

Magic Dog....

The New Deal was continuing apace in 1936...and onl;y began to struggle 30 years later, in 1966. It still lives.

Lars| 3.24.09 @ 7:15PM

I'm with Douglas Skinner.....' LBJ and Carter didn't, after all, get at the heart of the problem they only slowed its progress'.

The progressives, liberals, 'I care more than you do', callthemwhatyouwill, always move left and NEVER move right. They only stop for a breather before continuing their inexorable march towards the Utopia (some would say 'lemmings to the sea') that they know is just around the corner AND more importantly THEY know the answer to everything wrong with human nature. Ah, and this thing called human nature they are sure they have figured out. You CAN change it merely with legislation or by force if necessary. All you need to do is jiggy this and jaggy that and you got the new improved 'I feel good', 'We are now better than others cause we care', 'Correct talk values' new human nature on display. TaaaDaaa.

Meanwhile the conservatives, the right, some would say stogy antiques, callthemwhatyouwill, attempt to compromise for the good of all and usually come out somehow looking like villans as they aren't all that into 'free' milk programs and 'free' this and 'free' that, as they know that free never works out the way it is supposed to work.

We are headed left one baby step or one large step at a time. If you understand history and can look back and if you can project forward, I think you can mostly understand where and how this ends. Yes we are once again on that happy trail to Utopia which has failed time and again and that many of us thought had gone away. Enjoy the ride, albeit I will fight the best I can all the way down the slope. Won't you join me?

Thanks

Jeremiah| 3.24.09 @ 7:16PM

What makes any of you think a Republican could do better on the debt.

40% percent -- nearly HALF -- of the total national debt was accumulated during the presidencies of Reagan and the two Bushes.

40%!

And you people complain about the Great Society and the New Deal.

If you want to know what our debt problem is, look at the Two Santas strategy adopted by the Republicans since the 70s.

The Two Santas strategy provides for massive government spending to stimulate the economy by means of "defense spending" as well as tax cuts.

By contrast, Democrats have been veritable masters of thrift.

NEVER believe a Republican if he says he has a plan to lower the debt.

stmichrick| 3.24.09 @ 7:24PM

Bob (the original);

Spare us. you are not an intellectual; you are a PROPAGANDIST.

What's missing in all this is what Andy Breitbart has stressed. Conservatives need to gain in the popular culture: we are beset by a popular, smiling Obama less for ideology but for the frumpy, 'bad news' reputation that conservatives have in the popular culture. Mindless, headline-reading, Jon Stewart-watching, history-challenged and racial voters have determined our plight.

I, for one, see plenty to lampoon in the follies we are witnessing daily. When another republican (sic) candidate emerges who can master this and connect it to the fools that are in power, we will defeat this Community Organizer in Chief.

Nixon found out; it's all about the TV.

welovetheUSA| 3.24.09 @ 7:29PM

Obama's Budget Will Impoverish America, period. To depict the Fed and Treasury as protecting the welfare of American citizens by shoveling billions of dollars at the banks whose gambles have caused the crisis.
What is at stake is the fraudulent confiscation of lifelong savings and pension funds, the appropriation of tax revenues to finance the trillion dollar "bank bailouts".
Watch out Everyone..its coming.National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (HR 645)
HR 645 bears a direct relationship to the economic crisis and the likelihood of mass protests across America, all you dumb Obama fools will be hit the hardest, because America will not die under the hands of Obama.

Mat the Plumber| 3.24.09 @ 7:38PM

2006 was 1966. When it becomes clear that a movement has lost it's steam and lives only to perpetuate itself, the people turn the aircraft carrier around. It's amazing to me how conservatives manage to write themselves out of the history of our post 1966 history. You're the ones that have been steering the aircraft carrier! And your days are over. Until the liberals take it too far in the other direction, that is. Maybe 2066 will be your year.

I'd love to agree with you on one thing, though. The momentum of 2010 will be the momentum of 2012. It's just not going in the direction you think it is.

Frank L.| 3.24.09 @ 7:48PM

"a revolution against a failed yet persistent idea that if the government simply spent more money, hired more bureaucrats, and raised more taxes all would somehow be well."

Obama didn't enter office in 2001. You've left out 8 years that you damned well ought to be remarking on.

Heather| 3.24.09 @ 7:58PM

Obama's favorables are tanking--even the liberal puke, Zogby is showing this--you're mind-numbed if you think Obama's not a disaster. 2010!!

Beavis| 3.24.09 @ 8:04PM

Conservatives are never responsible for anything.
Preach your filth and keep pretending you have the ability to make your own decisions.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 8:04PM

FrankL...

You are right. In brief: Bush spent way too much money on the domestic side. Vetoed next to nothing. He is guilty as charged of spending more money domestically, hiring more bureaucrats. He is decidedly not guilty of raising taxes. He cut them. And, as is always true, revenue went up. He also, and I assume you hate to hear this, kept us safe. Which is, after all, Job One. Let me say again, Job One. If, after the next 4 or (nightmare scenario though it may be) 8 years, we have never been attacked, Iran has no nuclear weapons, Israel has not been hit by one of same etc...then...cheers to President Obama. He will be the winner of the first annual George W. Bush Peace Through Strength Award.

No bets here.

Butthead| 3.24.09 @ 8:07PM

So Beavis...

"Preach your filth and keep pretending you have the ability to make your own decisions"

So you now have the ability to make my decisions? Or did you just give that over to Obama and The State? Sieg Heil!

John| 3.24.09 @ 8:09PM

Older voters are Republican because they have life experiences and have woken up after being overtaxed by Democrats. Younger voters are Liberal becasue they still believe in an idealic world and don't realize how corrupt Democrats are. I was so far left when I was in my 20's and early 30's it wasn't funny. I voted for Clinton twice and that idiot Gore once!! Now I am an independent conservative, not a Republican! I am just stuck voting Republican because they are the closest to what I believe gov'ts role is...although they are quite imperfect too. I would NEVER vote Democrat again in my life! Democrats reward losers, malcontents, and the poor, while penalizing success. They play class warfare so you end up hating those who do well, instead of trying to emulate their success. Funny how almost every Democrat in Congress is SUPER rich! What traitors and turncoats they are! Just look at how they have handled the War on Terror and our borders. Obama is already a disaster. They said George Bush was dumb, but this guy is clueless. He would run a lemonade stand into the ground on a hot summer day with no competition around. He is a total Markist and the founding fathers would have revolted against what he is doing already! Its time we do!!

Gary Henrichsen| 3.24.09 @ 8:26PM

Something to remember - there is clear proof this time that greed and excess have caused this situation. No businessman will be able to point a finger at Obama and say that he is the culprit. He would be laughed out of town.

Heather| 3.24.09 @ 8:51PM

Ha ha ha ha ha!! They don't call them libtards for nothin'. Government is the problem because it has the power of coercion. So many stupid people, so easy to fool--Publik Skool Systim on display.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 9:03PM

Gary...

This problem was caused by the liberal philosophy of having government instruct banks what loans to make...meaning specifically to those without good credit. Obama supported this....his party opposed stopping this....that is the culprit.

Starry night| 3.24.09 @ 9:07PM

Mr. L, there's not a rubber room big enough to house all of the freaks, losers and idiots in this country. I think the average IQ used to be around 100--I swear it's about 50 now. UGH!

Jeffrey Lord| 3.24.09 @ 9:17PM

Starry...

Ha! God bless America!

may| 3.24.09 @ 9:25PM

"Gee, Bob, although a Carter appointee, it is generally acknowledge that the reagan-Volcker partnership is what got the economy moving... "

It is also widely acknowledged that the Volcker Fed sent the economy into a spiral with extreme increases in interest rates in the name of fighting inflation. Hence the Greenspan Fed and its 1/4% rate adjustments. Volcker realized, about the same time as a lot of other people, that 13-14% interest rates were killing the economy faster that 18% inflation, and they backed off. But the damage had been done and it took a few years to reverse. Some would say it was never really reversed for most people.

Mike S.| 3.24.09 @ 9:50PM

A lot of you just don't get it. It is the price of a gallon of diesel fuel that drives up the price of milk, butter, or a sweater. And as the price goes up, so do the state and Federal taxes on the same fuel and the goods they deliver! And we are the losers and all to resistant to changing getting oil from governments who really don't like us.

Denise-Mary| 3.24.09 @ 10:15PM

Keep an eye on the ACORN hearing. Testimony apparently scheduled for tomorrow that between 40-50% of the voter registrations ACORN garnered, were fraudulent. If even after that testimony, ACORN is "vindicated," then the rest of will have suffered an irreversible loss. We will have lost the ability to effectively counter voter fraud in future elections. It is that factor which might make all the difference. Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs has daily updates.

ARJIS| 3.24.09 @ 10:27PM

Thanks to all..

I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion.

Stmichrick
Speaking of the Community Organizer in Chief, is it true he has enlisted throes of his supporters to knock on doors soliciting Pledges of Support from Americans for his plans to "re-vitalize" the economy?

:^)

PIANIIA ROSE| 3.24.09 @ 10:56PM

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS FOUGHT AGIANST THE BANKS! Those private bankers, the fed reserve, they pushed in the late 1800's and finally got the door open to them in the early 1900's. They are the secret government, the "black goverment" - the strong men behind it all. They have been so embedded into our government over time that there is hardly a line, now they use the name of the government to control the private banks when really it is their move to be openly one - with out conspiracy but under the banner of what is good for our nation.
Let our banks fail so that we may be rid of them, cut government spending by cutting big government and put it back into the hands of the people. Many sacrifices made for use and our children - why are we not doing the same?
Free yourself by becoming debt free. The belief that the credit market fuels the american economy is a false - pride & strength, inventiveness & freedom to create, dreams and the opportunity to chase those dreams - family and traditions of culture, diversity and history fuel america..not loans. Thoughts of a child unaware of the real world - maybe, perhaps if we remain focussed as a young nation aiming to succeed we might retain those bright eyed youthful insights that separate the confussed and disillusioned adults from the hope of a restrengthened generation.
p.s. - Stop eating the corn about aig - there aren't any vitamins in it just alot of empty carbs. Look to small news and be aware of our freedoms.

andre kenji| 3.24.09 @ 11:08PM

Without the Hispanic vote the Republicans will be on the minority for a long time(In some years Republicans may be fighting for Arizona and Texas). And if Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania (States heavily dependent to the autoindustry) keeps treading Democratic, any comparison to 1966 or, há, 1968 is a fantasy.

Do the math. Without the states with large Hispanic populations, without the *whole* Acela Corridor and New England and without the Mideast you don´t win any elections.

It´s the old story: Obama may be not FDR, but the Republicans already found their Herbert Hoover, their Wendell Wilkie and their Alf Landon.

pianiia rose| 3.24.09 @ 11:11PM

by the way - when I say private bankers I am referring to the money changers. The real controllers of the world, the family who employed the savior of america's great depression after they created it. Forget about the donkey and the elephant, forget about nationalizing and open our eyes to globalizing. The seven brothers who strategically placed banks around the world and their great grandsons and predecessors - those masters of the greatest slavery ever, economic.
go back and read your history books, preferably ones printed prior to the great depression. Check out the history of president andrew jackson and what he fought against - see the war of 1812. We have been warned time and time again.

Magic Dog| 3.24.09 @ 11:12PM

John 8:09, I am a 51-year-old Democrat. Bush Jr. had the effect of giving me a hard shove to the left.

pianiia rose| 3.24.09 @ 11:16PM

republican vs democrat - coke vs. pepsi....same company. forget the corn you are fed and research what has been conveniently left out. I may never pick up a musket to fight for my county but I can certainly educate myself, I owe it to my children and those who fought for me.

pianiia rose| 3.24.09 @ 11:21PM

donkey or the elephant - left or right. isn't it better to steer straight and look forward? if a direction need be chosen - I might go with up but certainly not left or right (that might make a circle and take me right back to where I started)
stop eating your corn.

pianiia rose| 3.24.09 @ 11:29PM

corn fed and the aig...breakfast lunch dinner and snack..even good with popcorn and a movie.
anyone heard about the brown jacket obamma followed up from bush. run all you green party and constitutional voters, infact run all you who think and want to be free.

Basil Plumley| 3.24.09 @ 11:56PM

@ Jeremiah
[polite golf clap]

That was an interesting response. That was a response, wasn't it?
Like your buddy Obama, your response was short on specifics and long on nothingness. I would have answered sooner but I almost fell asleep halfway through reading.

Nice try, though. You get a point for the Orwell reference.

Oh, concerning your statement: What makes any of you think a Republican could do better on the debt.

Lest you forget, the GOP Congress during the Clinton years. Reagan had a Dem House and 2 years of a Dem Senate. Bush I had a Dem House and Senate. Bush II had a Dem House for 2 years and a Dem Senate for 4 years. Check your Civics, all spending bills originate in the House. The POTUS proposes a budget but it is the House who authorizes the spending.
How do you like all the spending by the current crop of Dems in the House?

Nice try at revisionist history.

Basil Plumley| 3.25.09 @ 12:12AM

Well, if the Interloper is to be believed, it was the Dems who freed the slaves and guaranteed the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.
Unfortunately for Interloper, he/she/it does not tell the truth.
Affirmative Action was created by Richard Nixon, aka Mr. Democrat.

BTW, Interloper, not to make you look worse but did you (and Bob) read that Independents are presently favoring the GOP (38-24). There seems to be a lot of disillusionment with the Dems.
Your "take" on demographics, policy, and issues belies your lack of knowledge. Ask yourself why a great majority of the states who predict a loss of Congressional seats are "Blue".

Angel| 3.25.09 @ 12:52AM

Jeremiah, I'd rather have an ordinary, patriotic American near the launch codes than your marxist.

Interloper| 3.25.09 @ 1:09AM

Frankly, your denials of the Republican Party's 50 plus years involvement in opposing civil rights are the most false and futile of the your invariably puerile articles, Jeffery Lord. Nor does it help that you publish the same falsehoods - that the GOP favored civil rights legislation, that the abolition of slavery the old Republican Party ruled through should be credited to the modern GOP, and that most Americans support the bigotry that is the one of the few remaining calling cards for the GOP - over and over again, no matter how often they are refuted.

The public has spoken and is still speaking loudly about the GOP's policies and demographics. It is emphatically saying: No! The Southern Strategy drew segregationists and their progeny to the Republicans, in the South particularly, from the passage of the national civil rights legislation through the 1990s. However, as two new generations of voters were born and outsiders moved to the South, that advantage began to deteriorate. The inclusion of three Southern states in the Obama column marked the death knell of the Southern Strategy. It also confirmed the status of the GOP as a Southern Regional Party.

Your take on gay marriage - equating it to polygamy or polyandry - is equally reflective of the cluelessness of most conservatives. For most voters under 35 or so, homosexuality is not a defining issue. They're indifferent. So, the Anti-Gay Strategy, which propped up the Southern Strategy for a while, is doomed, too.

The current and future demographics of the country, which is fast becoming majority minority, guarantee the GOP will not recover in the foreseeable future. A party consisting mainly of older, white Americans, disproportionately male, simply cannot win elections nationally. What will exist is increasingly backward Republican redoubts. States that continue under Republican leadership will remain huddled at the bottom of all measures of quality of life, as they are now...unless their citizenries wise up and rebel.

Tom Dockery| 3.25.09 @ 3:58AM

The Democrats will lose big in House races where the demographics are little changed since 1966,but the ACORN leeches will turn out enough voters to hold Senate losses to but a few.

Pingback| 3.25.09 @ 5:28AM

Brevity Has a Long History - Idea of the Day Blog - NYTimes.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Twitter will not replace the paragraph, the writer contends, “only publicly demonstrate concision’s vices and virtues.” [ Smart Set ] More Recommened Reading: The 1966’s Election’s Warning to Obama – Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator The Threat of World Depopulation – Phillip Longman, USA Today Hope Springs Eternal for Cold Fusion – Sharon Begley, Newsweek…

Deborah| 3.25.09 @ 7:34AM

Yes, Mr. Dockery -- ACORN has received a huge chunk of change thanks to the Obama Swindle-Us bill. That's one reason he and the Dems don't worry too much about the hollering masses out here. They have the "Dead" vote cornered.

Paul Y| 3.25.09 @ 8:08AM

The difference between then and now is that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. They are one and the same. DO you hear the shouting from the Republicans about what is going on? I think not. Your representatives see the attempt to move this country into a dictatorship type government and they don't want to get kicked off the playing field. They know what it will be like for the common man and they don't want it. There are a FEW and I emphasize a handful of "true republicans", that have stood up for our country but they will not stop this train. The American people are the only ones who can put a stop to this! And it won't be through the electoral process. The Commucrats and their henchmen (ACORN and labor unions) will make sure of that. They will come for your guns and then your liberties!

Bob| 3.25.09 @ 9:28AM

Jeffrey and "The Other Bob":

Perhaps the problem with both of you is that you take a CPA approach to analyzing the economy (microeconomics) rather than an overall view. Perhaps because of that, you don't actually look at the data to come to your conclusions and just use wives tales. If you are intellectually honest, we can fix those problems.

Myth 1: Tax cuts increase federal revenues. Here is a chart of federal revenues over the years:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html

Because inflation was so high at the beginning of the Reagan administration, your compound growth rate was not real growth. You need to correct for inflation unless you believe that inflation is real growth and Santa Claus really exists. This chart is in real dollars. Read it. It clearly shows that there is a natural growth in revenues over time and the growth during Reagan's term was about average. In point of fact, there was greater growth in revenues during Clinton's administration. Your statement that tax cuts stimulate growth is clearly a myth if you look at the data. Furthermore, it was not ratified during Bush43.

Myth 2: The Fed funds rate does not effect corporate borrowing. This is like saying that ice will not make your drink cold because you are not eating the ice directly. The Fed Funds rate affects the interest rates charged to businesses by the banks and also affects the corporate bond rates. Even though it is short term in nature, it eventually even affects mortgage rates as we all know. Your statement on this is just plain dumb. Here is a chart of the Fed Funds rate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Funds_Rate_(effective).svg

Perhaps you need to read a summary of Reaganomics by one of Reagan's own chief economists:

Reagan was a very good President. I voted for him twice. I believe he was better then both Clinton and the Bushes. But that does not mean that everything he did was great. He was absolutely brilliant in bringing down the iron curtain but was just average economically as the data shows.

It is quite interesting to me how illiterate you and the population is on economics. Not understanding the effect of inflation on the data is a rookie mistake -- and if you think about it, you'll admit it.

Regarding using Jane vs. Jean, that is "my bad". Thank you for the correction. Whatever her first name was, I was impressed with her intellectual prowess.

By the way, it is not government that makes the GDP grow, it is private enterprise. That's why neither tax cuts nor spending are tremendously effective in making the economy grow. Monetary policy is more effective, but not the answer. Government should be limited, small, regulate to keep the markets fair, and develop strategies to keep our country competitive in the areas of infrastructure, energy, and health care. I know a lot of you will disagree with me on the last one but we cannot compete with other countries for manufacturing if our health care costs continue to consumer 16% of our GDP while other manufacturing countries are half of that. The current system is not working competitively. If we can't grow manufacturing then we can't create jobs -- and that is a huge problem.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.25.09 @ 9:41AM

"Your take on gay marriage - equating it to polygamy or polyandry - is equally reflective of the cluelessness of most conservatives. For most voters under 35 or so, homosexuality is not a defining issue. They're indifferent."

Great. Then lets get rid of marriage completely. Who cares? The lawyers will eat through this business in a New York minute. This makes you, I hate to say, a bigot. Polygamists are nice people and they deserve their civil rights. It's people like you who are destroying their families. Shameful, no?

And as to civil rights, facts, as I believe John Adams once said, are stubborn things. You can't play the arsonist for 165 years and then get the credit for being a fireman. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than Democrats. The GOP platform of 1964 supported the Civil Rights bill. The bill was in fact a re-do of legislation passed by the GOP in the 1860's and 1870's - having to be redone because Democrats insisted on segregation and lynching. You get no credit for being 100 years - 100 years! - late to the party. Sorry. The Dems have played the race card throughout their history - and still do. You can't run or hide from this one. Al Gore's father voted against Civil Rights for God's sake.

Ammo Guy| 3.25.09 @ 10:35AM

Geez, Bob, an almost perfect post on your part…congratulations! Your scorn of non-Ivy Leaguers was evident on only a couple of occasions…“just plain dumb” and “illiterate” stand out…but your last paragraph was a solid and useful summary of your views without the condescension that drives most TAS subscribers up the wall.

S.L. Toddard| 3.25.09 @ 10:57AM

Bob's a loser. No one cares what he thinks.

A.J.Nolte| 3.25.09 @ 11:01AM

Bob et al:
So, I assume from your lack of response, Ivy League Bob, that you have not, in fact, ever read any Latino demographic data, gen Y demographic data, etc, and simply assume, without any factual basis, that "smart people agree with me". OK, that's fine, but again, if you want to argue that the fiscal conservative socially liberal brand is the future of the GOP, you might want to actually do some demographic research first.
With regard to 2010 trends, I suggest we all look at the broader context. This notion that 2006 was a realligning election was silly. I say this because, absent 9-11, it is most likely this "reallignment" would have happened in 2002. The idea of demographic destiny and permanent Democratic (or Republican) majorities is silly. If anything, I'd argue there's a rather permanent gridlock majority; when one party controls the executive, the other party gains in the legislative. If you control for things like, say, terrorist attacks and assassinations, this seems to be the post-Truman pattern. Ask yourself this question: how many Democratic presidents won two terms in their own right from the end of FDR's term to the Republican capture of both houses in 94? Not one. How many Republican presidents, in this time, won two terms in their own right? All but two (Gerald Ford and George W. Bush).
Based on this trend, I would expct modest Republican congressional gains in 2010 and 2012, and Republican control by 2014. This will in no way signal a "permanent Republican majority", though people will trumpet it as such. Rather, it ought to signal the permanent death of the permanent majority nonsense.
(This projection assumes Obama is able to win a second term, and implies 96-style ticket-splitting).

Bob| 3.25.09 @ 1:46PM

Ammo -- it's fun to use "Ivy League" on this board as it tweaks so many people. There are lots of great schools across this nation. My serious point is that education is important to the future of this country -- especially in math and the sciences. It demeans education in our country to have people like Bush, McCain, and Palin on any presidential ticket. I was a Romney supporter and would also support Jindal even though I disagree with them both on social issues. Like Obama, they are great family guys, did well in school, have been successful, and are great role models for our children. Some Ivy League schools are the best we have to offer and should not be derided.

Regarding "dumb" and "illiterate", I have little patience for people who make stupid economic arguments and don't understand concepts like inflation when they say they are "CPA's" or are major contributors to AmSpec. People like Ferrara just drive me up the wall -- not because I disagree with him on fiscal conservatism, but because his arguments lack objectivity and coherence. Reagan was a disaster regarding debt creation just like Bush -- and yes, just like Obama.

A.J. -- I am NOT arguing that the Republican party should be socially liberal, only that the party should welcome people on both sides of the spectrum and embrace the personal liberty of choice. Fiscal conservatism, individual responsibility, strong national defense, and non-interventionism is a great platform. Leave it at that.

I see that you haven't read the polls about Hispanics and blacks. Immigration is a key issue for Hispanics and it overrides most other topics. For black voters, equal opportunity and jobs are key issues. Republicans generally believe that the playing field is equal now. I grew up in South Central, and even as a white guy, getting out of the neighborhood was not easy. There are conservative solutions to these problems if Republicans are willing to admit they exist.

Regarding realignments, they generally occur for a reason. A previous party makes a huge mistake or a leader comes along and changes the focus of a party. The Republican party will not succeed unless Obama makes a huge mistake or the platform of the party changes to broaden its reach. Registered Republicans are at the lowest levels in modern history. This is a trend, not ebb and flow as you surmise. The reason for this is the longer term trends in demographics. If the party gets small enough, perhaps the social conservatives will agree to broaden the party. If they don't, there will not be a major realignment because the numbers just don't support that possibility. In fact, if you take the current demographics and apply it to Reagan's first election, instead of him getting 50.7% of the vote (less than Obama), he would only get 43-44% of the vote.

If the economy turns around, there will be no Republican gains in 2010 or 2012. Remember that people vote their pocketbooks. "Low taxes" does not work anymore because it has been proven that the middle class loses under a low tax scenario. Fairness will continue to be the issue for the next few years.

Ammo Guy| 3.25.09 @ 2:23PM

Bob, I know I’m going to regret this follow-up since I would like to leave this thread on a high note, but I can’t help myself. George W. Bush earned degrees from both Yale (where he had higher grades than John Kerry…or so I’ve heard) and Harvard (in business, no less), yet the intelligentsia is infinitely more impressed with Obama’s degrees from Columbia and Harvard, though no one has seen his grades. As a lifelong businessman, would you have hired a 47 year old with Obama’s resume to run one of your companies?

Jeffrey Lord| 3.25.09 @ 3:04PM

I'm curious...I'm under the impression you don't like Rush. Here's a guy who skipped college and has built a fabulously successful business. News reports last year had him signing for another round at $400 million. Am I correct? If so, why? He not only talks the talk he walks the walk.

Daphne| 3.25.09 @ 4:26PM

Mr. L: Rush didn't attend an Ivy League School. That's the be-all/end-all for Bob. Pathetic.

Bob| 3.25.09 @ 4:38PM

Ammo - Harvard Business School accepts a large number of legacy admits. I graduated from HBS before Bush, but have talked to some of my friends who were in his classes. Very few people fail HBS once they are accepted. I came directly from the Army after Vietnam and was accepted on my merits. We didn't have grades, but had a High Pass/Pass/Fail regimen. I heard that W attended classes and achieved below average grades. At Yale, he was a "C" student and also a legacy admit. He did just enough to get by. From what I heard, he was not dumb, but he didn't do any more than he had to. Obama, on the other hand, was President of the Law Review. Virtually all of my classmates at HBS graduated college with honors. The difficulty was getting accepted -- not graduating.

Would I have hired Obama? No, because he had no executive experience and didn't have a background in marketing, finance, operations, or any other major business discipline. There are companies like Halliburton where the most important job of the CEO is to get business from his government friends. That's something that Cheney did and Obama could also do. The CEO at Halliburton didn't really run the company. My own companies specialized in business development so a background in marketing, finance, and economics would have been required. These are all technical disciplines which would require at least a decade of experience. My biggest fear of Obama was his ability to manage the government. But McCain's only "executive" experience was as a squadron commander. I was in the Army and worked with a number of officers at this level. The military has specific ops procedures and it is nothing like running a division or a company. Palin's only real executive experience was less than two years as a Governor when oil prices were high and she didn't have to make any really hard decisions. I initially liked Palin, but when she showed a severe lack of knowledge, there wasn't a chance in the world I would have voted for her. We were in an economic crisis and putting someone in office who totally lacked national knowledge would have been a disaster. I'm a big knowledge guy as you can tell.

Bob| 3.25.09 @ 4:52PM

Jeffrey -- Rush is an amazing entertainer. So is Joan Rivers. I agree with Rush on goals. However, his lack of knowledge drives me up the wall. His "facts" are wrong much of the time so his conclusions are extremely suspect. His strength, in my opinion, relates to the politics of situations, not the substance. Someone once asked me if I would have liked to be like Rush. I have no envy of Rush. My priorities are my wife, children and grandchildren. I believe marriage (even gay marriage) is important and that true leaders should be examples for young people. I value the knowledge gained through education. In grad school, it was important to be disciplined in methodology.

Rush's lack of education shows. His analyses are lazy. He appeals to people because he oversimplifies information. He does not seem to have the integrity to correct himself when he is wrong.

I've met a few people in my life who are self made and never went to college. They had "on the job" training and actually spent much of their time learning. I've never met a non-college graduate with a lot of knowledge about technical subject matter however.

There are lots of great entertainers who make a lot of money. There are a lot of athletes who make a lot of money. Rush is simply of that genre. I've made enough money to retire and I'd rather be with my wife and grandchildren than be as rich as Rush. It's my choice, and it makes me happy. What else is important in life?

Frosty| 3.25.09 @ 5:48PM

You don't know Obama's GPA at Harvard or Columbia--if they were good he'd have released them by now. Anyone with half a brain realizes that they must have stunk up the room. You are a dolt.

Basil Plumley| 3.25.09 @ 8:37PM

Okay Bob, you said:
"I graduated from HBS before Bush, but have talked to some of my friends who were in his classes. Very few people fail HBS once they are accepted. I came directly from the Army after Vietnam and was accepted on my merits. We didn't have grades, but had a High Pass/Pass/Fail regimen. I heard that W attended classes and achieved below average grades."

Based on the "High Pass/Pass/Fail" grading system, how does anyone achieve "below average grades"?

As for Obama being President of HLR; you do realize Obama was a compromise candidate and as far as anyone knows has not had any work of his published for the HLR. Obama is a true tabula rasa, yet, you pontificate.
I have a friend who actually attended school with Obama at Occidental. From what my friend tells me, Obama was a real freak in a creepy way. Obama hung around with the radical/drug infested crowd and was not thought of as intelligent. How does that strike you "knowledge man"?

Bob, no one uses the "strawman" and "false choice" arguments more than you. You indict the Reagan years without so much as a thought that it was the Democrat-led Congress that was spending all that money. I get it; blame Reagan and ignore Tip O'Neill.
You indict tax cuts and hang your entire premise on the thinnest of statistics.
You indict Limbaugh; calling his analyses lazy. Do you actually read your tripe before you hit the submit button?
Much of what you post is based on half-truths and worse.

BTW, I rather enjoyed the "I liked Sarah Palin before" part of your post. I am sure Ruth also got a kick out of that. You have had a "white hot" hatred of Palin; almost to the point where I think you might be a misogynist.

Keep up the posts Bob, you are quite the entertainer. I understand Air America is looking for a few good men. With your business acumen, you could make that outfit a success. You can even broadcast from South Central.

ZerObama| 3.25.09 @ 9:16PM

Can anyone say Affirmative Action?

Cpm| 3.25.09 @ 9:20PM

After reading Bob's posts, one thing is clear, and that is that he's an elitist snob.

ruth| 3.25.09 @ 9:21PM

No, Basil--more like a stalker. Way creepy. Bob could never get a girl like Sarah in a million years, so he's eternally PO'd about it. I know Bob's type--I steer mucho clearo of guys like him.

ruth| 3.25.09 @ 9:23PM

Cpm, you hit the jackpot on that one! Bob is a big-time bozo. Did you know he went to Harvard?

Basil Plumley| 3.25.09 @ 11:30PM

Wait!?!? ...... Bob went to Harvard?!?!

I must have missed that part of his post.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.26.09 @ 11:14AM

"We were in an economic crisis and putting someone in office who totally lacked national knowledge would have been a disaster. "

We did just that. Being a "community organizer", a state senator from Chicago and running for president the moment you hit Washington, spending almost the entire part of your US Senate career of 3 - 3! - years not even bothering to show up is one long way from "national knowledge"...as all of us, those who understood and those who did not, are seeing quite vividly now every day. He is painfully over his head.

McCain was certainly not the perfect candidate - well admitted here. But that was the choice, and given that choice, there was no choice but to reject the inexperienced guy. We didn't.

Daphne| 3.26.09 @ 11:50AM

Obumbler (Jumbotron teleprompter) is excruciatingly in over his head. "There's no there, there

Daphne| 3.26.09 @ 11:51AM

"There's no there, there."

Ann| 3.26.09 @ 10:02PM

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Ann

http://largepet.info

Pingback| 3.27.09 @ 9:46PM

Off Year Elections Can Turn the Tide | National Federation of Republican Assemblies ( links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Off Year Elections Can Turn the Tide | National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) #masthead { background-image: url(http://www.RepublicanAssemblies.org/wp-content/themes/nfra_mimbo_1/images/bg_masthead.jpg);

Magic Dog| 3.28.09 @ 8:30PM

I'm under the impression you don't like Rush. Here's a guy who skipped college and has built a fabulously successful business.

You could say the same about a variety of businessmen, including the oxycodone who Limbaugh patronized, or hard-core pornographers, or the purveyors of violent hip-hop music, or those who distribute violent white racist propaganda for profit.

The fact that Limbaugh makes a pile of money is not something that ought to satisfy the right wing. That much said, I'm happy to see that he's finally been hung around the neck of the Republican Party. Rush and the Republicans deserve each other. Richly.

JHarp| 3.28.09 @ 11:09PM

We gonna bust yo Bama's a$$ in 2012--just wait. Rush is right--he's the MAN!!

Interloper| 3.28.09 @ 11:10PM

Magic dog be eatin' magic mushrooms--again

Magic Dog| 3.29.09 @ 4:26AM

But the Party of Limbaugh approves of narcotics and their use. 'Shrooms? What's the problem, wingnuts?!

Pingback| 4.2.09 @ 9:47PM

Laffer: Estate Taxes Make No Sense | National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NF links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Laffer: Estate Taxes Make No Sense | National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) Home NFRA Blog Donate Sign Up About Us Our Mission What We Believe Bylaws History National Leadership State Chapters Contact You are here: Home -> Around The World,…

dropshippngwatch| 8.31.09 @ 6:14AM

Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Replica Watches Trade
Replica Watches
Replica Watch
Replica Ferrari Watches
Replica Fortis Watches
Replica Franck Muller Watches
Replica Graham Watches
Replica Gucci Watches
Replica Guess Watches
Replica Harry Winston Watches
Replica Hermes Watches
Replica Hublot Watches
Replica Hugo Boss Watches
Replica IWC Watches
Replica Jacob & Co Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com

fdjsk| 10.16.09 @ 1:07AM

shanghai massage
turntable bearings

Pingback| 10.29.09 @ 12:46AM

Jeff Adams Marketing Strategy in Real Estate - The Blog Planet links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Relations Firm » Blog … Small Business Trends Radio | Small Business… - http://www.smbtrendwire.com/ Has anyone else heard about him going broke ? « Mike Watson The American Spectator : The 1966 Election's Warning to Obama Digg it Add to del.icio.us Reddit Stumble 0 Comment Leave a Reply Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website Categories Arts and Entertainment…

Jason S| 11.4.09 @ 1:32AM

Jeffrey,

Thank you for this article. I know it was written quite some time ago, but if possible, I'd appreciate your response. I have yet to find a conservative give me a response to two questions, so please help me out if your can. 1. The national debt rose substantially under President Reagan. How can he be considered "conservative" when this fact remains? Did he not fail in his ability to conservatively govern when spending increased and taxes were cut, leading to large budget deficits? 2. Bill Clinton presided over cuts in the budget and tax increases. Yes, he was president during an era of peace and massive technological improvement and expansion, but the fact remains. He presided over economic success and four of the only years of budget surpluses out of the last 40. When presidents like Reagan and Bush speak about conservative values and preside over debt after unimpeded debt, why should we believe the newest crop of conservative leadership?

Thank you for your time.
Jason
ps- I never visit this site. If I won't receive an e-mail notification will you please e-mail me directly? Thank you again.

fsdf| 11.13.09 @ 3:59AM

beijing massage

mimi| 12.14.09 @ 9:40PM

wholesale shoes

Pingback| 12.27.09 @ 7:52PM

CPM raps UPA over food polices, rising prices « Asianetindia.com Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…| Kerala Latest News | Kerala Breaking News | Kerala … CPM raps UPA over food polices | NewsX UPA: Two years on, not much to show Manmohan Singh has sold his soul The American Spectator : The 1966 Election's Warning to Obama Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) Hotel food to become dearer from December 1 No electoral alliance with BSP: CPM UPA, NDA constituents re-thinking The…

ygvu| 1.31.10 @ 2:54AM

www.napster.com
napster.com Low One Time Fee, Free to Download

The American Spectator