The American Spectator : Will 2010 Be Another 1994?

Text Size

Will 2010 Be Another 1994?

By Grover G. Norquist from the March 2010 issue

Five surprise developments in 2009 point to a great reversal this fall.

Election day, November 2, 2010, will either confirm the Democratic triumphs of 2006 and 2008, ushering in a renewed period of Democratic dominance and jerking America left as happened in the 1930s and 1960s, or it will echo the 1994 rejection of the leftward drift of united Democratic government under Clinton.

When Herbert Hoover was elected in 1928, there were Republican majorities in both the Senate (48-46) and the House of Representatives (238-194). Hoover endorsed protectionism, increased the top tax rate from 25 percent to 75 percent, expanded state spending, and responded to the collapse of the stock market on October 29, 1929, with subsidies, bailouts, wage and price controls, and tax and spending hikes.

When he left office in 1933 the Democrats held a 59 to 36 majority in the Senate and a 313 to 117 majority in the House. Democrats would use their supermajorities that reached a high of 76 senators and 334 congressmen in 1936 to change labor law, bringing the number of workers forced to pay union dues from 3.4 million in 1930 (11.6 percent of the workforce) to 14.3 million in 1950 (31.5 percent of the workforce), create the unfunded Social Security system, expand federal government employment to 2.6 million, and increase federal spending from 6.9 percent of the economy to 19.4 percent by 1952.

When Eisenhower was elected in 1952 Democrats held the House (235-199) and Senate (49-47). With Eisenhower's victory the Republicans won a majority in the House (221-213) and Senate (49-47). Ike vetoed the tax cut passed by the newly minted Republican Congress, maintained the top tax rate at 90 percent, and left office in 1961 with Democrats controlling the Senate (64-36) and the House (263-174). The 1964 LBJ election provided the supermajorities that created Medicare, Medicaid, and HUD and saw Congress come within a whisker of repealing state right-to-work laws. Federal spending on domestic programs grew from 11.3 percent of GDP in 1970 to 16.8 percent in 1980.

On the day George W. Bush was elected, Republicans commanded a 55-45 majority in the Senate and a majority of 228-206 in the House. Bush saw federal spending increase from 18.4 percent of GDP to 21 percent, raised the unfunded liability of Medicare from $7.0 to $13.5 trillion, took on the task of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, and passed only temporary tax cuts that all expire on or before January 2011. When Bush left office, he bequeathed America a President Barack Obama with 70 percent approval ratings and a Senate with 59 Democrats and a House with a 257-178 Democratic majority.

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi moved quickly to use their majorities to ratchet up the size and scope of the state with a $787 billion "stimulus" and a second tranche of TARP spending of $350 billion. They tried to enact a cap and trade energy bill that would put all energy under federal control, "health care reform" legislation that would put 16 percent of GDP under federal control, and change labor laws to take away the silly requirement that workers vote before being forced into paying union dues.

Exactly one year after Obama, Reid, and Pelosi came together in power, they had increased the publicly held federal debt from $5.8 trillion to $7.6 trillion and increased the projected spending for the next 10 years by $1 trillion. The unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare now stands at $22.3 trillion and rising. This deliberate explosion of debt and spending is designed to force permanent tax increases. Their ultimate goal is to impose a Value Added Tax (VAT) on top of higher income taxes. But Congress has failed to enact the three changes in law that would permanently alter the balance of power: rewriting labor law, nationalizing energy, and nationalizing health care.

How, why, did the Democrats fail to capitalize on their supermajorities in 2009? What did the Republicans do correctly, and will 2010, both in Congress and on Election Day, stop Democratic plans in their tracks or confirm a continued but perhaps slower march to statism?

IT WASN'T SUPPOSED to turn out this way. Obama began his presidency as one of the few presidents who could inspire fear in political Washington and the business community. He had power. He and Pelosi's and Reid's majorities could tax anything. He told bondholders with legal claims on General Motors to abandon them. He told the pharmaceutical industry to give him tens of millions of dollars to pay for propaganda for his heath care bill in return for his looting "only" $22.2 billion from the industry over the next 10 years -- it could, the godfather said, have been worse. The "powerful" Chamber of Commerce played multi-million-dollar weathervane, endorsing the TARP bailout extension and the stimulus package and bragging how open it was to "working with" the administration that viewed it as the class enemy. In early 2009 political observers believed the Democrats would add three seats to their Senate majority in 2010 by taking the open seats of New Hampshire, Ohio, and Missouri. Democrats in the House (all but two) cheerfully voted for the radical labor union power grab of Card Check, secure in the belief that union money would reelect them.

As 2010 began, polling showed that on the generic ballot likely voters said they intend to vote Republican over Democratic by 45 to 37 percent -- enough to guarantee a Republican House of Representatives. According to the Cook Political Report, Republicans will capture between two and nine Senate seats. That partisan advantage for Republicans has existed since June 2009 and contrasts with the Democratic advantage of 47 to 40 on Election Day 2008. To figure out if the Republican trend can continue into November it is necessary to understand what happened in 2009 to create what they call in wrestling a reversal.

There were five fortuitous surprises.

First, spending per se became a vote-moving issue. In the past, conservative activists and elected officials would argue against increased government spending, saying it would lead to a tax increase and/or inflation and slow economic growth. But voters had a strong tendency to wait until the tax hikes were enacted to create a political backlash: 1978 with Proposition 13, 1980 with the Reagan landslide, and 1994's Gingrich revolution.

The Democratic high command learned this lesson and organized all its tax and spending efforts to front-load the spending and leave the tax hikes for post-2010 and even post-2012. It was Obama's good luck that Bush's major tax cuts, the 15 percent rate for capital gains and dividends and the 35 percent top rate and the zero percent death tax rate, all expire in January 2011 -- two months after the 2010 election.

The politician most surprised that America reacted so strongly and so negatively to higher spending was Arlen Specter, then the Republican senior senator from Pennsylvania. He had planned to oppose the unions' push for Card Check and endear himself to conservatives by opposing Obama's health care -- as he had Clinton's -- and vote against tax hikes and whack liberal judges. When Obama offered him a deal -- vote for my stimulus spending and I will not engage in turn- out-the-vote efforts in Philadelphia-Specter had every reason to believe he had just ensured his reelection, dodging the Scylla of conservative opposition in the primary and the Charybdis of Philadelphia's ability to increase real and imagined voter turnout in the general.

Except...except that Specter's support collapsed overnight in reaction to his vote for stimulus spending. He decided he could never win a Republican primary and switched to the Democratic Party. This unexpected revulsion to overspending also expressed itself in the Tea Party rallies following Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC against government spending and bailouts. At least 600,000 and perhaps more than a million Americans rallied in more than 640 Tea Parties just before and after April 15. Those rallies were repeated on July 4.

Page: 1 2 3 >

About the Author

Grover G. Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (91) | Leave a comment

Derek Leaberry| 3.23.10 @ 8:49AM

Anything Norquist writes must be considered suspect. He is on board with Lindsey Graham, John McCain, the Bush family, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page in efforts to enact demographic revolution in the United States that would inevitably not only turn the nation upside down culturally but make it impossible for conservatives to maintain political majorities.

Ryan| 3.23.10 @ 9:47AM

Okay, then it's suspect.

How is he wrong in substance?

Missy| 3.23.10 @ 2:27PM

Does Norquist support amnesty?

loulou| 3.23.10 @ 6:04PM

Grover probably does support amnesty but I'm not certain.

All I know is that he has close ties to jihadis and his wife is an Arab (not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that). I take what he says with a grain of salt.

victor| 3.23.10 @ 10:57PM

Here ya go:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=126333

Gary Wood| 3.23.10 @ 8:57AM

Derek your comment reads like something written by someone with a lot to say but who chooses too few words in which to say it. For openers, skip the ad hominem and at least state what if anything is suspect about the analysis.

serfer62| 3.23.10 @ 11:22PM

Gary...yes. What Norquist wrote was not that other stuff, but election projections. And on that hes right on...

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.23.10 @ 8:57AM

Derek,
It don't matter!
He simply layed out, (laid out?) the shape of the field. Pretty accurately as far as TEAM America can determine. http://judgeroy.wordpress.com

Alan Brooks| 3.23.10 @ 9:03AM

I'm not exactly a demon for details; but specifically what is it that is worst about the Bush family, Derek?
As the Kennedys, they want power too much. Reagan's family wasn't, and isn't, power obsessed.

Reagan's adopted son has a radio program, but he is talented, and not on the air for power.

Derek Leaberry| 3.23.10 @ 9:56AM

The Bush family are plutocratic, non-productive sorts of folks who wish to legalized tens of millions of illegal aliens from the Third World in order to serve their corporate bosses who wish to drive down wages.

Alan Brooks| 3.23.10 @ 12:24PM

Sure, isn't that all about power?

Alan Brooks| 3.23.10 @ 12:29PM

But, Derek, the following question is IMO important enough that it might deserve a v. straight answer:
why were the Kennedys any better, more productive and less plutocratic, than the Bush family is or was?

Derek Leaberry| 3.23.10 @ 1:26PM

True, the Kennedys were more corrosive in many ways than the Bushes. However, the Kennedys have been enemies of conservatives for many years. The Bushes have pretended to be friends with conservatives yet have betrayed conservatives on numerous occasions- Amnesty, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare expansion, Poppy's Read My Lips lie on taxes from the past. I dislike backstabbers more than I do those who directly and honestly oppose me.

As for productivity, I am not sure that either family has been particularly hardworking since JFK and Poppy's World War Two valor, which I honor. Both families seem to have gotten ahead by becoming expert gladhanders.

Alan Brooks| 3.23.10 @ 2:08PM

All true Derek, yet as soon as the Cold War ended, American conservatism became strategically incoherent.
The anti-Soviet glue dissolved after '89-- to be replaced by nothing.
The demographics today favor Latinos, so a Tancredo couldn't even be elected governor of Colorado. Millionaire seniors want govt funds....

Derek Leaberry| 3.23.10 @ 2:12PM

You are very right regarding the Cold War glue. Conservatism splintered as soon as the USSR collapsed. Funny, I wonder how many Americans even know what the USSR was? The USSR fades into the mist of time as remote as Dwight Eisenhower, Robert E. Lee and Genghis Khan.

Alan Brooks| 3.23.10 @ 2:20PM

Derek,
what about Latino influence/power on US demographics?

Derek Leaberry| 3.23.10 @ 3:23PM

I think the Republican Party will be the minority party for most of this century. But then again, you never know how this slow-motion bankruptcy is going to play out. Francis Fukayama famously wrote in the early 90s that we were at "the end of history." Yet he ignored that history is often capricious and it never ends.

Alan Brooks| 3.23.10 @ 2:16PM

"No Child Left Behind,"

GOP feel-good.
Children will always be left behind, due to the variation in the gene pool; variation in childrens' abilities.

Bob Miller| 3.23.10 @ 9:11AM

Norquist is also owned by Arab interests.

Alan Brooks| 3.23.10 @ 12:22PM

Well, den he caint be accused if being a RACIST.

David Williams| 3.23.10 @ 9:50AM

I'd be very careful about ebullience over a Mike Castle senate victory in Delaware. He is not a conservative moderate republican. He is just a moderate in the style of Specter, Collins and Snowe which he demonstrated by his vote with the Democrats on Cap and Trade. Essentially, he is a politician to his core and a big government one at that. The only reason for joy is that he is a better choice than Beau Biden, by a long shot.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.23.10 @ 11:25AM

Hi David.
One thought I have had is that given support and encouragement and/or party discipline, any Republican is a much better vote than ANY Democrat.

John Navratil| 3.23.10 @ 11:59AM

Ken,

Not to quibble, it's just hypothetical, but I'd take a Daniel Patrick Moynihan over a Chuck Hagel. You can deal with a principled opponent, but not a weasel who claims to have your back.

owyheewine| 3.23.10 @ 10:02AM

As conservatives we need to keep in mind who the real enemy is. Liberals won control by running "moderates" in conservative districts, because liberals would have gone down to crushing defeat. Candidates that agree on the majority of issues in liberal districts and states serve our cause a hell of a lot better than the wacky leftists that now have their jack boots on our necks.
Idealogical purity is nice, but it has to be moderated by judgement.
Conservatives will become dominant agian, because our cause is just. We only need to stay patient and make progress in however small steps that are necessary. We do need to stay vigilant and keep those that we elect from straying into the Beltway culture swamp.

Thorvald| 3.23.10 @ 10:23AM

Norquist, for whatever reason, is offering false hope. The mass of the electorate is less rational than it has ever been. Millions of voters daily consume mind-altering substances to the degree that metabolites of some legal ones show up in some watersheds. The enemy has succeeded in infiltrating our institutions-- even many churches-- far better than the Commies ever did. Each new cohort of young voters have had their physical brains altered by the pernicious boob tube.
We are at the point of Lincoln-Douglas, and Lincoln just lost. Incremental gains in Congress will likely be insufficient. I fear we will soon need to collect ears and string them on 20-pound monofilament "pour encourager les autres".

Wayang Kulit| 3.23.10 @ 10:37AM

Norquist is a Swedish name. You can take the Swede out of Sweden, but you can't take the Swedish out of a Swede. (E.g., "Neutral? Hey, great idea! Let's do that while the Nazis bleed Norway white."

John Navratil| 3.23.10 @ 5:27PM

It seems you, yourself, have given up hope. While the electorate gave us Obama (a profound disappointment) there is ample evidence that -- Surprise! -- he isn't what he promised and the electorate is responding. To assume the electorate is irrational is to adopt the Pelosi/Reid/Obama position. If, it is true, we should just take our Soma and go to the "feelies".

I think not!

William R| 3.23.10 @ 10:30AM

Norquist is a phony. Says he's for limited government but supports mass immigration which is the Viagra of the state. It grows government. Mass immigration while there's a huge welfare state is the ultimate health of the state. Milton Friedman knew it. Ron Paul knows it.

maverick muse| 3.23.10 @ 11:04AM

If 2010 is 1994, we're lost.

Let's hope that the conservative American protest against government and party corruption makes all the difference this election given the major TEA PARTY REVOLT. I don't want to recapitulate 1994 with another neoconservative bipartisan-led Republican Party majority in 2010 or 2012, with some opportunist playing the Newt Gingrich rules of Deem And Pass pork barrel ear-mark legislation that expands both government and debt, and FAILS to enact permanent tax cuts or hold federal bureaus and programs within a limited budget. A re-do of 1994 would be another whoring of conservatism, encouraging the expansive "neoconservative"(progressive socialism pirating the Republican Party) fraud, profit and power. Getting Republican citizens to vote for the Contract With America was only for propaganda purposes (similar to Obama promising to pull our troops out of the Middle East). Our 1994 newly elected constitutional conservative Republicans made it to Washington only to find their Republican Congressional leadership sabotaging all conservative effort to rescind corruption and cut taxes.

2010 had better empower the Constitutional Conservative agenda in EFFECTIVE majority power, eschewing neoconservative agenda and concentrating legislation to affirm the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, repealing and prosecuting sponsors of unconstitutional laws, rules and programs to the full extent of the law.

Instead of adding on, it's time to cleanse the temple.

Cris Worth| 3.23.10 @ 11:08AM

Warning to the GOP: Don't count your chickens before they Orrin Hatch. This health care victory has reenergized the Democrat Party and deflated the tea partiers the last conservative political hope. Besides can conservatives really depend on majority Republicans to do anything right including reversing liberal initiatives? History shows they can't. Just ask senator Grahamnesty (R-SC) who supports amnesty of illegal immigrants.

davelnaf| 3.23.10 @ 12:06PM

Don’t kid yourself CW. There’s a lot of energy (substitute anger) out there against Democrats.

maverick muse| 3.23.10 @ 11:17AM

There is no legitimacy as virtue in the neoconservative mantra for "centrism".

Centrist politics today are socialist and proudly gave us the unconstitutional Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland Security to unleash Marxism to dissolve our Constitutional Governance and our American Liberty.

Since the political pendulum has swung into authoritarian Marxism in Obama's administration and appointments, the only way out of that hell is to swing back to the Libertarian "Classical Liberal" stance of our founders, at which point the designation of "centrist" would no longer define socialism, but rather would define upholding the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Critics who eschew Constitutional Governance as an obsolete way of life are blind to the LIVING traditions of our American Heritage in the lives of Americans, and our Constitution's unique balance of powers with Liberty for citizens as the law applies equally to everyone, especially the POTUS and governing officials who swore their oath to defend and protect The Constitution of the United States. Critics of the Constitution are envious and covetous Marxists who want to pirate the USA.

davelnaf| 3.23.10 @ 11:30AM

Republicans should stay focused on November and, taking a page out of the Obama book, do whatever it takes to win.

maverick muse| 3.23.10 @ 11:30AM

Chris Worth
Tea Party participants already proved their determination by the show on the lawns and steps of our nation's Capitol, and at Townhall Meetings with elected representatives. You think people who already invested in reclaiming their Constitutional Rights are going to give up since Obama still rules the day?

I refute your presumptive assumption that the Tea Party participants are "deflated" in depression. Conservative activists don't give up any more easily that socialists. And now that the masks are off ALL of our leaders, it makes protest that much more effective. I would point out the obvious, that as one protesting corruption, this socialist agenda only spurs me into action reclaiming the Republican Party by attending precinct, regional and state meetings and voting for Tea Party constitutional and fiscal conservative candidates despite the Alinsky ridicule from the pompous neoconservative voices for status quo, meaning THEIR elitist power to abuse as authoritarian-Republicans.

Cris Worth| 3.23.10 @ 12:09PM

If the Tea Party movement is just the right arm of the Republican Party and it's purpose to flush out the GOP liberal element it won't work. Forget about reclaiming the Republican Party. Take a page out of the liberal playbook build from the ground up, recruit/train/run for office INDEPENDENT strict constitutionalist conservatives. Utilize the courts to support your position and overturn opposition positions. You need to brush up on your GOP history, except for Reagan failure at every turn especially rolling back liberal largesse. The last GOP president made expensive additions to Great Society program Medicare and supported amnesty of illegal immigrants instead of enforcing constitutionally mandated immigration laws. The leading 2012 GOP contender, liberal on social issues, provided the Democrats a blue print for the now signed into law health care plan. Can the Tea Party realistically reform the Republican Party?

Grant| 3.23.10 @ 1:01PM

You may be on to something re: the Republican party. Forget David Frum, even Chris Buckley went for the Bamster. Romney is dead in the water now, probably especially in Massachusetts as they're living under Romneycare.
If party loyalty won't save America from Socialism, something else is going to have to do so. We're the last great hope of mankind.
Step #2: purge the liberals from Fox Radio News.

Siegfried X| 3.23.10 @ 2:19PM

The Tea Parties have ALREADY changed the Republican Party. Specter is gone. As the article said, Republicans were unanimous against ObamaCare and against all major Obama legislation after the stimulus.

For the first time in decades left-wing "maverick" Republicans are voting with their own party instead of like Democrats.

Cris Worth| 3.23.10 @ 2:44PM

Tea partiers supported Scott Brown's election, yet senator Brown betrays their support right off the bat by voting with the Democrats on Obama's job bill. I don't see any GOP unanimity here.

emo| 3.23.10 @ 8:19PM

Youre so transparent CW. Is this the best you can do?

Mimi| 3.23.10 @ 12:32PM

Yes, CLEANSE THE TEMPLE register andvote in all republican primaries. We've gone from Jan. 2009: " Oh well a first black president , hope he does well for us" to Feb/MAR.2009: : Whoa wait aminute here". Month after month one outrage after another. WE have gone from fear to anger to activism and now we've reached THE PUKE STAGE and our great nation via RUSH " HANGS BY A THREAD" . WE want men and women, white black or PURPLE, with honor for constitution , integrity who can lead us out of this mess!

Margie| 3.23.10 @ 1:43PM

You've got it right Mimi.
Register and vote for conservatives who are running in the Republican party.
The third party route is a sure route to destruction because it will give us Obama II.
Rather than fortifying the Republican party there are those who want to destroy it and are sounding quite militant about it. They are just as dangerous as the Left. That is not conservatism.
When the planks of the Republican party are right~ Individual freedom, pro-life, pro-business, a strong Military defense, etc., why wouldn't they want to unite instead of try and divide?
Rush is right-we ARE hanging by a thread, and we cannot abide another Obama admin.!

Cris Worth| 3.23.10 @ 1:48PM

Interesting you mention Rush. Limbaugh came on the scene in August 1988, Reagan was President and the GOP had some semblance of political power especially Presidential elections. But since then the GOP nominated one RINO after another, remember Bob Dole? Threw away their most important election victory (1994) by supporting W.'s less than conservative policies. Now the country is saturated with liberalism...nationalized health care is here, pending amnesty of illegal immigrants with GOP complicity, massive tax increases including a VAT. Since 1988 conservative influence has diminished and the country has begun to disintegrate...what exactly has Limbaugh accomplished?

Margie| 3.23.10 @ 2:35PM

I'm just curious Chris,
If Rush ran for President as a Republican, would you vote for him?

Cris Worth| 3.23.10 @ 5:37PM

No. The difference between me and Limbaugh...his battle is more between the parties mine is ideological. The proof came last election cycle during the primaries when Limbaugh backed Romney who is a bald faced social liberal said so many times and governed that way. Romney's central theme in his failed Presidential bid was trying to convince us he was a born again conservative. Conservative ideologues quickly smelled a rat and his campaign faltered. Not Limbaugh, he viewed Romney as the strongest REPUBLICAN candidate not CONSERVATIVE candidate. Party trumped ideology. Coulter and Hannity fell into that trap also.

Margie| 3.23.10 @ 9:34PM

So, I'm trying to figure this out here. You wouldn't vote for Rush because he backed Romney because Romney is a Republican. Not because Rush is a conservative and since he is a conservative he would have the same ideology as you do? Or are you are saying then that you're angry with him for backing Romney and that's why you wouldn't vote for him?

If Rush isn't conservative, what is your idea of a conservative? Also~ didn't Rush and Ann C. back Romney after Thompson dropped out of the race?
The only thing I can say and I say it to my friends and acquaintances, is that we have 2 parties. One is Socialist, Marxist and Communist (pardon the longhand). The other one's platform is good. It is PRO America. There are individuals who run and get nominated that aren't perfect. If we want a more perfect individual then we must seek them out earlier on and back them both financially and otherwise. We don't live in a perfect world and will never have perfection but we can have pretty good candidates if we're willing to work for it.
That's it.
God bless.

Pingback| 3.23.10 @ 1:34PM

The American Spectator : Will 2010 Be Another 1994? | Legal News - Your Source for Le links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…in the lives of Americans, and our Constitution’s unique balance of powers with Liberty for citizens as the law applies equally to everyone, … Read the rest here: The American Spectator : Will 2010 Be Another 1994? Share and Enjoy: This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010 at 10:08 am and is filed under Living Will Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0…

Oldefarte| 3.23.10 @ 3:41PM

Kudos to Grover for his excellent, detailed analysis. The D's play political hardball, while the R's play according to Queensbury Rules; and the result has been a gradual increase in government from Kennedy-Johnson to Obama. R's lowering of taxes hasn't been followed up by lowering expenses, and therefore the budget/debt increases. Grover's point that, since D's have now balooned the expenses, that the inevitability of tax increases should follow, is accurate [since the ability to decrease expenses is extremely difficult politically]. Conservatives must continue the fight to success for government expense reductions [tax increases are the only alternative]; since same have historically increased to the extreme. Anyone with normal intelligence witnessing the federal budget is shocked at the waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers' hard earned money contained therein. This simply has to be reduced and/or eliminated; and our political fight toward that end will be extemely difficult going forward!!!!

Margie| 3.23.10 @ 9:42PM

POI (point of interest)~ Heard today on the radio that our newly elected (I'm so proud!) gov. Chris Christie (NJ) today asked for public school workers not accept their raises in order to try and help reduce expenses, etc. Now how do you like that? And they said he was a RINO.
Now. This is what we need more of.

Margie| 3.23.10 @ 10:09PM

Here's Rush psyched about Christie's stance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

And here's Christie's AWESOME budget speech about how he's going to cut gov. spending BIG time (this is part 2, there are other parts there you can watch) Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYUUqYDEyuo

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.23.10 @ 3:59PM

Hey guys, quit bitching and bellyaching about "neoconservatives".
NONE of you can even define the term, based upon your ignorant posts above.

I dare you! Write a post defining "neo-conservatives". I will LMAO when you finish...heh...unless you copy each other.

THIRD Party? Shaddduuup. You won't get one electoral vote.....again.........in 2012....except to contribute for Obama.
2010 congressional elections? Shaaaduuuuup! You will only help elect communists, (pardon the shorthand).
If you want a third party, then start right now raising a billion dollars and setting up a national coalition with teeth... instead of bad breath.
Find serious competitors who believe as you do, help them get nominated "R" then help them get elected...one by one.

John Navratil| 3.23.10 @ 6:00PM

I'll take your dare! A "neo-con" has a internationalist view (described as hawkish), generally socially conservative, but comfortable with a "compassionate" state. Often one who has "grown" from a more liberal position. As Margaret Thatcher may have said, somewhat damp. That said, the term has been tossed about with such abandon that any clear definition has been blurred. Just about anyone not considered ideologically pure has been called a neocon.

It's hard for me to group Krauthammer, Richard Perle, David Frum, John Bolton and Richard Armitage together, but they are all described as neocons.

(How did I do?)

That said, you are 100% correct that a third party is a path to the desert. The conservative Democrats moved to the Republican party in the 1960's (e.g. Reagan). It's time for conservatives to reclaim the party and let those closest to the margin decide which is the more comfortable home.

I'm happy Spector's decision has been made.

loulou| 3.23.10 @ 6:08PM

David Frum is not a neoconservative. He is a left-leaning RINO.

John Navratil| 3.23.10 @ 8:35PM

Precisely!

C.K. Amos| 3.23.10 @ 10:12PM

Frum a neo-con? That's rich. A former conservative, he's the robot the state-controlled lame-stream media march out, with his glowing assent, to trash conservatives and Republicans.

By the way: "conservative Democrats"? Ain't no such thing. Democrats are Democrats first, then maybe Americans. Liberals are liberals first, then maybe Democrats, but unlikely Americans.

C.K. Amos | 3.23.10 @ 9:54PM

We have 2010 and 2012 to reclaim our country at the ballot box.

We don't need any more faux Republicans and/or conservatives, either.

Nor can we allow any Democrat, liberal and/or leftist to get away with calling himself or herself a "centrist," "moderate," even "progressive."

Margie| 3.23.10 @ 10:21PM

I refer to those who call conservatives neo-cons as neo-con-artists.

If their definition of a neo-con is any conservative who isn't "pure," pure in who's eyes? Yes, in THEIR eyes. Well, for your eyes only neo-con-artists: there is no such thing as a pure conservative. Unless you have already died and gone to Heaven! Because according to my Bible, that's the only time we get to attain ultimate purity.
Usually, it's the Libertarians and Paleo-cons that use this neo-con term. They have their own special definitions of the pureness that you can only attain if you are "one of them."
All I know is that I love this country and consider myself a conservative. God will be my Judge!

Liberal Reader| 3.23.10 @ 10:28PM

Norquist is peddling what is pretty much common wisdom around DC these days.

Which is another way of saying he's holding his finger in the wind and taking a wild guess.

Most of the surmises in this piece seem reasonable, I suppose.

I for one doubt Democrats are going to suffer the apocalyptic defeats Republican prophets are now describing for us.

Political prognostication has all the merit of a newspaper astrology column. Two months ago half of the pundits in the country said health reform was dead.

Imagine forecasting six months ago that Kennedy's seat will soon be held by a Republican!

Cow Rie| 3.23.10 @ 11:16PM

Great column. But GN misses one thing.
Sure the Tea Parties helped. He says by 600K.

But notice how immigration reform will be slammed thru like health care. Thousands of immigrants will be let in, pardoned, asylumed, granted citizenship with health care benefits. A lot of stimulus money will turn up for these people. SEIU will enroll them also. Government jobs with full benefits will go to them. And you will pay for them, their offspring, and all their cousins. You will see certain districts with inflated voter rolls. ACORN and its spawn groups will organize these new "citizens".

And they will cancel out the Tea Parties......

People.... get ready to rumble. The War is On.

Pingback| 3.24.10 @ 2:18AM

King Jewelry Nashville | Jewelry Beauty Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…, the… Read more here: King Jewelry Nashville Related Blogs on Another Another Tainted Inquiry « Climate Audit Another Senseless Drug War Death – Reason Magazine The American Spectator : Will 2010 Be Another 1994? Related Posts What Kind Of Jewelry Is A Pectoral Amulet Of King Tut's Tomb, King … Fad King Tut Pendant, What What Kind Of Jewelry Is A Pectoral … King Tut Chest,…

Gold BC| 3.24.10 @ 6:55AM

Significant differences exist between '94 and '10. In '94 Democrats faced the double whammy and it was more personal...Bill was the villain and Hillary the villainess. Bill’s retroactive tax increase rankled the middle class. HillaryCare failed demoralizing Democrats. The GOP in a rare occurrence of unity were better led, offered an alternative Congressional plan of action and succeeded in nationalizing the election. Scandals plagued the White House putting more pressure on Democrats. In ’10 ObamaCare passed muster and the Democrats are in much better political shape. Since W.’s disastrous second term Republicans divided along ideological lines with the recent Tea Party movement enhancing the division. The Republicans have no alternative plan Congressional or otherwise. Changing demographics also hinder Republicans today in contrast to ’94.

Derek Leaberry| 3.24.10 @ 9:04AM

Norquist is correct in noting how Hoover, Eisenhower and the Bushes left the Republicans much weaker at the end of their presidencies. And his points about Charlie Cook's analysis are fine to note. Cook is a moderate Louisiana Democrat but probably the best seat-by-seat analyzer in the nation. If Cook thinks the Republicans will capture the House, they probably will. Yet calling Mike Castle a moderate conservative is about as truthful as calling Tiger Woods a faithful husband.

Pingback| 3.24.10 @ 9:07PM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Will 2010 Be Another 1994? [spectato links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…#teaparty #beck #palin #rush #gop #conservative #antiobama Topsy Retweet Button Add Topsy Retweet Button to your Blog or Web Site. WordPress Web Sites 13 tweets tweet The American Spectator : Will 2010 Be Another 1994? spectator.org/archives/2010/03/23/will-2010-be-another-1994 – view page – cached Election day, November 2, 2010, will either confirm the Democratic triumphs of 2006 and…

iPad to iTunes Transfer| 11.21.10 @ 12:24AM

iPad to iTunes Transfer ia an all-in-one ipad transfer tool. United four tools into one, this iPad to iTunes Transfer can be considerred as the best assistant when dealing with iPad stuffs. As an iPad uer, you can use iPad to iTunes Transfer as a iPad to Computer Transfer, Computer to iPad Transfer, iPad Converter, DVD to iPad Transfer, even it can be used as a hard drive to manage iPad files in good order.

The American Spectator