-
The Perfect Storm
May 17, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The Perfect Storm: Feb. 2006
May 17, 2013 | 0 comments
-
A President Loses His Power
May 3, 2013 | 102 comments
-
Murder in the Old Dominion
April 2, 2013 | 136 comments
-
The Only Prophylactic Against Voter Fraud
March 16, 2013 | 0 comments
Feature
Will 2010 Be Another 1994?
Five surprise developments in 2009 point to a great reversal this fall.
(Page 2 of 3)
The second pleasant surprise was that Republican leadership and the rank and file of elected officials refused the advice of establishment pundits to move left in the wake of the Obama 52 percent victory. Such advice was proffered by the same sources after Goldwater’s defeat in 1964, after Watergate in 1974, after the Republicans lost the Senate in 1986, and in 1992 with the Clinton victory. Following November 2008, the establishment media predictably urged Republicans to give up, be “bipartisan” and “move to the center” (i.e., cease all opposition to the new ruling elite). These traditional voices were joined by “new” and “intriguing” and “cutting-edge” and “forward-looking” “upcoming leaders” and “brilliant” “conservative” voices — given a microphone by said establishment press to promote the road taken by Quisling and Petain.
The third surprise was the ability of the Republicans in Congress to highlight the difference between the Democrats and themselves by keeping their party united in opposition. Despite the on-slaught of establishment press declaring all opposition to be hopeless, Republicans in the House were unanimous in opposing the stimulus package and the 2010 budget, and lost only eight votes on cap and trade. And on the “health care bill,” Republicans lost only one befuddled congressman, Louisiana’s Joseph Cao, who thought he was casting a pro-life vote after the passage of the Stupak amendment.
This unity contrasts with the 26 Democratic House members who voted for Gramm-Latta, Reagan’s first-year program of budget restraint. And on the Reagan administration’s “must win” legislation, 48 House and 37 Senate Democrats voted for the 198l Reagan tax cut. More recently, in 2001 Bush won 58 Democratic votes in the House for the abolition of the death tax and 187 votes for expanding IRAs and 401(k) accounts. Conversely, it was a sign of Democratic serious-ness and commitment to winning the 2006 elections when the traditional Democratic vote for free trade bills fell from more than 100 to only 15 on CAFTA for the express purpose of forcing Republicans in trade-sensitive districts to cast difficult votes.
The Senate is always the body more likely to have “mavericks” who can win a coveted spot on Good Morning America or even the cover of Time if they break with the party and endorse the Democrats’ newest idea. Yet Republicans were unanimous in opposing Reid’s 2,000-page health care bill. The Democrats could not even bring the cap and trade bills to the floor. Republican senators voted unanimously against the Obama FY 2010 budget and lost only three votes on the early test of the stimulus package (Specter, Snowe, and Collins).
One reason there was no grand compromise on health care was that the senators most susceptible to the temptation to “be in the room” and “be a player” were all up for reelection in 2010 and made their decision to go into full-blown opposition in August when they returned to their states and found that their town hall meetings were engorged with citizens furious at the idea of anything short of total opposition. McCain, Grassley, Enzi, Bennett (and derivatively Hatch) are all up for election in 2010 and, despite histories of liking to be in the room making legislation, were convinced by the August revolt that this would be unwise. Here the Tea Party movement had a measurable and critical role in the victories of 2009 — greater than all the lobbying by businesses on K Street.
The fourth unplanned advantage conservatives had in 2009 was the discovery that Obama and the Chicago White House truly believed their own rhetoric. They believed (and still do) that taking a dollar out of the economy in taxes or debt and moving it somewhere else — the stimulus spending — will in fact create jobs and opportunity. Since passage of the stimulus bill promising to “save or create” 4 million jobs, the nation has lost 2.7 million jobs in the private sector and added 100,000 government jobs.
The left also believed its own assertions that the conservative movement was a shill for big businesses. It believed that if it neutralized the energy industry there would be no opposition to cap and trade. It neutered the electric power industry and yet the public shifted against cap and trade anyway. It neutered the pharmaceutical lobby, the health insurance lobby, and the National Federation of Independent Business. And yet the countryside still arose in opposition to the point that a Gallup poll released in mid-January 2010 showed Americans had come to disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care by 58-37 percent.
The fifth game changer in 2009 was the collective decision by conservative activists and Republican elected officials to avoid the mistake we made in personalizing our objections to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Conservatives focused on Clinton rather than the bad policies of the congressional Democrats. Republicans ran tens of millions of dollars attacking Clinton in 1998 and voters didn’t connect Clinton’s personal problems with why they should defeat Democratic congressmen and senators. In 1998, Democrats gained five House seats when Republicans understandably believed they could and would win 20. Clinton’s peccadilloes were such that describing them made even his most dispassionate critics sound “pornographic.”
This time around, conservatives focused on criticizing Obama’s spending and big-government approach to energy and health rather than on attacking him personally. Even better, criticism was correctly focused on Harry Reid of Nevada and Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. The stimulus package was written by the Democratic Congress with little or no input from Obama. The 2010 budget was written by the Democratic Congress. The cap and trade and various health care reform bills were written by Congress. Obama gave speeches. The House and Senate Democrats have been writing and sometimes passing legislation. If the Democrats’ agenda were a martini, Obama would be the vermouth — only vaguely present.
The decision to avoid attacking Obama personally was made independently by tens of thousands of Americans. The signs at the Tea Party rallies focused on policies and Congress. There was much wisdom here. Why attack the first African American president, whose allies are begging for the opportunity to describe all opposition to trillion-dollar deficits as racially motivated? Why attack the president who for reasons distinct from his party and policies was at the beginning polling at 70 percent? And why attack the White House when the next target is Congress in 2010, when Obama will not be on the ballot?
AS WE ENTER 2010 there are now 256 Democrats and 178 Republicans in the House and 59 Democrats and 41 Republicans in the Senate. Republicans need to win 41 House seats net to gain a majority of 218. They contest in a field where 49 House seats are held by Democrats today in districts that voted for McCain in the losing year of 2008. There are 83 House seats that were carried by Bush in 2004 when he squeaked by with 51 percent of the vote. In 1994, Republicans gained 52 seats to win a 230-204 majority. That year 25 Democrats had retired from contested seats. As of this writing there are 12 Democrats leaving contested seats.
In early January, the generic ballot on which Americans are asked if they plan to vote Republican or Democratic for Congress showed a preference among likely voters for Republicans of 45 to 37 percent — a 15-point swing from Inauguration Day 2009. In 1994, the Republicans never held a generic preference lead until the day they won the election.
In the Senate, where 36 of the 100 seats are in play, Republicans and Democrats must each defend 18 seats. Republicans need to gain 10 seats to win a majority, as a 50/50 split would let Vice President Joe Biden be the deciding vote. A win of five seats would ensure that (even with episodic defections from Maine or Arizona) Leader Mitch McConnell could cobble together 41 votes to stop any particular piece of legislation with the filibuster.
One year ago it looked as if the Democrats would gain three seats in the Senate. Today, Delaware has moved from solid D to likely R with the decision of moderate conservative Mike Castle to run and Beau Biden, the vice president’s son, preferring to stay on as attorney general. North Dakota was viewed as safe territory to reelect Byron Dorgan but, facing overwhelming polling numbers, Dorgan has exited the field and popular moderate conservative Gov. John Hoeven has announced he will run. Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln has desperately played the game of pretending to be a moderate or even conservative Democrat, but everyone has learned that Harry Reid owns her vote on everything from spending to taxes, unions, and health care. She polls behind every serious Republican in a crowded primary field. Illinois Democrats had every reason to believe they owned the seat vacated by onetime state senator Barack Obama, but their strongest candidates bowed out and Republicans are likely to nominate Congressman Mark Kirk, whose sole indiscretion as an economic conservative was the barely forgivable vote for cap and trade — a vote he has forcefully and repeatedly repudiated. Kirk is now expected to win the general. In Pennsylvania, now-Democrat Specter is polling behind the man he beat in the Republican primary of 2004, former congressman Pat Toomey, onetime chair of the Club for Growth. Nevada’s Reid is looking more and more like Tom Daschle and polls behind by double digits against either of his likely Republican challengers, Danny Tarkanian and Sue Lowden. Colorado’s appointed senator Michael Bennett is polling behind longtime conservative statewide official Jane Norton. Indiana’s Evan Bayh expected his $13 million coffer and undeserved reputation as a moderate to keep him safe, but he polls neck-and-neck with lesser known potential Republican challengers.
In New York and California vulnerable Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Barbara Boxer could lose in 2010, depending on who runs against them. And the three Republican seats once viewed as vulnerable — New Hampshire, Ohio, and Missouri — have strong Republicans running well who are viewed now as likely winners.
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
More Articles by Grover G. Norquist
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/23/will-2010-be-another-1994
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
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:
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:
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:
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.