The American Spectator

Booger| 11.10.10 @ 6:17AM

From the desk of Karl Rove:

Dear Fellow Republicans,

I wanted to take this opportunity to talk to you about those candidates whom we should not support with our PAC money, personal contributions and party funds. There is a certain type of candidate that we need to pay special attention to in this regard, as they have grown in number and prestige of late and could pose a genuine threat to the future of the Republican party.

I am, of course, referring to attractive, conservative women. The Republican party has no business recruiting, endorsing or nominating attractive, conservative women to run for political office, and if we continue to do so it will only lead to our complete dissolution as a national power. We need to reverse course on this problem and instead select and nominate candidates with gravitas, the one characteristic that can unite voters across this country.

Take, for example, that witchy woman O'Donnell in Delaware. Sure, she's cute, and that's the problem. Who can take a nice looking woman seriously? I know I certainly can't. Let's face it, you look at her, see a pretty face and a pleasant figure, and right away you know there can't be anything going on upstairs. Believe me, this is how real men think when they head to the polls. For that matter, it's how women think also. How on Earth are we ever going to close the gender gap with the Democrats if we nominate attractive women? Everyone knows women won't vote for other women.

Another prime example is that Tea-bagger kook Sarah Palin. I mean honestly, she's good looking, but you know she's not as smart as, say, somebody like me. Okay, I know that unlike me she actually has a college degree, but that's beside the point. The point is, she doesn't have the same sort of gravitas that a true Republican candidate needs to win high office. Now she's got herself a reality television show about Alaska. Is this what we Republicans have come to? Since when do we treat a (soon to be failed) actor as Presidential timber? Okay, I know what you're thinking, but he was a man, so that's different.

I remember some of our great Republican men, true men of gravitas, who inspired me in the Republican party. I remember Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and John McCain, all men of gravitas. These are the kind of men who have literally spent decades paying their dues in D.C., who know how the game is played, who have all the right connections in both parties and the Beltway. These are the kinds of candidates we need to win back the White House! Not some dumb bimbo like Palin. After all, just look at that figure, and at her age! There's no way a woman that good looking has anything going on between the ears. We need men like Mike Castle and Lindsey Graham, who know how to present themselves in public. Honestly, what are those women thinking, anyway?

As a side note, some of my "friends" have started accusing me of having a "problem" with women of late. Well, I can assure you that is not the case. Why, some of my best friends are women! And contrary to what some of you wags have been saying, the fact that my wife of twenty-four years just dumped me has nothing to do with my recent statements on attractive, conservative women.

Sincerely not a misogynist,

Karl Rove

http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/

Bob K.| 11.10.10 @ 8:06AM

Liza Fabrizio said it better.

carnot| 11.10.10 @ 8:57AM

yea...too bad O'Donnel ran an incompetent campaign. that's the bottom line.

AceInTX| 11.10.10 @ 10:31AM

O'Donnell was beating coons in the polls before the establishment trashed and disparaged her in the run up to the primaries...She did as well as she could have with the establishment of the party trashing her more than the Democrats did

Cliff| 11.10.10 @ 11:03AM

You made that up out of thin air. That's a flat out lie. NO independent poll EVER had O'Donnell up.

GBinPA| 11.10.10 @ 11:28AM

The polls are not the point. When a person wins a Republican primary, the Republican party should get behind them. Miller and O'Donnell were ill treated, and the Republicans run the risk of becoming a minor player on the political landscape. The tea party is not going to fall asleep two years from now.

Booger| 11.10.10 @ 11:31AM

Rasmussen had O'Donnell +2 in July.

AceInTX| 11.10.10 @ 12:09PM

You should educate yourself before calling someone a liar lest you ptoove yourself a fool...

Polls prior to the primary showed O'Donnell and Castle beating Coons....the Castle Forces took things to the gutter and drove O'Donnell into the ground.

Rasmussen had a July 14th Poll showing O"Donnell up 41 to Coons 39. I'll post the link at the end.

From O'Donnell's Campaign Spokesman after the General:

"Campaign Spokesman Doug Sachtleben added, “In mid-July a Rasmussen poll showed that Christine would have defeated Chris Coons. Had the NRSC and State GOP backed O’Donnell after the primary, like Sen. McConnell did with Rand Paul Kentucky’s Senator-elect, we may have seen the victory that the poll predicted. Instead, we experienced a stall and Republicans didn’t come together until there were less than 2 weeks left before the election."

For the record...I rarely make statements without the facts to back me up...you'd do well to remember that before calling me a liar again.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....ly_14_2010

emo| 11.14.10 @ 6:55PM

O'Donnell was NEVER leading Coons ever in any poll. To think that Karl Rove is responsible for a 17 point loss is absurd. Did Rove also trash the GOP House candidate for DE??? He also lost by 17.

I only wish Karl Rove had the power to turn a 17 point loser into a winner by simply speaking a few kind words on Fox

wodiej| 11.10.10 @ 4:20PM

Uhm....too bad Delaware RNC leaders didn't support her. Too bad the national RNC leaders didn't offer more support.

emo| 11.14.10 @ 6:56PM

Yeah, then she might have only lost by 12

JadedByPolitics| 11.10.10 @ 9:36AM

You have absolutely NAILED those pigs to the wall. If anyone cannot see the damage done by these old pathetic RINO's to women in the GOP then they are NOT paying attention!

WE women are the bigger vote and they had better learn to contain their imagined superiority or they will suffer greatly at the ballot box.

Vern Crisler| 11.10.10 @ 8:38PM

Dittos, JadedByPolitics....

Quartermaster| 11.10.10 @ 9:15PM

I hadn't heard the sobrequet "Tokyo Rove," but it is quite appropriate. Rove Krauthammer, et.al, did not help the Republican cause one bit. Thye hurt it tremendously, and I'll guarantee you it will be remembered. Well it should.

Both parties will see a civil war, one long in coming. The Lefit wingnuts will try to purge what's left of moderation (they're breathing threats against Heath Shuler here in WNC), and the Country Clubbers, AKA RINOIS, who just want power so they can cash in as they have done since 1860, will try to keep the Tea Party boxed in. The moonbats will further isolate themselves in their asylum and the RINOS and Demonrat "center" will most likely team up to keep cashing in and fight the Tea Party types tooth and nail.

Fabrizio really needs to wake up, get a good stiff belt of coffee and take another look at the politcal world after she is fully awake. The Tea PArty isn't wondering about their victory, they are tallying up the sins of people like Tokyo Rove who subverted it. There is going to be a comeuppance.

loulou| 11.10.10 @ 11:40AM

Again, brevity is the soul of wit. (Shakespeare)

wodiej| 11.10.10 @ 4:21PM

Excellent sir!

Alan Brooks| 11.11.10 @ 1:10AM

"Rage erupted when Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove -- "Tokyo Rove" to some disgruntled folks in cyberspace -- suggested that maybe Sarah Palin isn't the answer to the where-is-our-Reagan question."

Nah, she WILL be elected POTUS.
Don't you trust me? would I ever lie to any of you? Lying is a sin-- which is why we never do it.

Alan Brooks| 11.11.10 @ 1:27AM

The Cat is in the bag! Sarah shall be POTUS someday!

It is a done deal.

Alan Brooks| 11.11.10 @ 1:30AM

CHORUS:
Look into my eyes
Can't you see they're open wide
Would I lie to you baby
Would I lie to you
Don't you know it's true
Girl there's no one else but you
Would I lie to you baby
Would I lie to you

Everybody wants to know the truth
In my arms is the only proof
I've hidden my heard behind the bedroom door
Now it's open I can't do no more
I'm telling you baby you will never find another girl
In this heart of mine

(repeat chorus)

Everybody's got their history
On every page a mystery
You can read my diary you're in every line
Jealous minds never satisfied (satisfied)
I'm telling you baby you will never find another girl
In this heart of mine

(repeat chorus)

(Would I lie to you)
When you wanna see me night and day
(would I lie to you)
If I tell you that I'm here to stay
(Would I lie to you)
Do you think I give my love away
(would I lie)
That's not the kind of game I play

I'm telling you baby you will never find another girl
In this heart of mine

Appleby| 11.10.10 @ 6:30AM

Sarah Palin desperately needs a voice coach before she runs for anything else. That screechy voice of hers when she raises her voice is just one step below a cackle.

In a time of great change, everybody is antsy and nervous and that is to be expected. Things will settle down after Christmas. Until then we need not take anything seriously.

Mike| 11.10.10 @ 8:46AM

Her voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard.

However, I would say she needs much more than a change in her voice to be a viable candidate.

WL| 11.10.10 @ 9:23AM

I am a huge Palin fan...primarily because she believes in nearly everything I do...and you HAVE TO admire her moxy to survive and matter...

However YOU GUYS ARE EXACTLY RIGHT...THAT GOD AWFUL VOICE AND FOLKSY TWANG MAKES MY SKIN CRAWL....NOW...I get past it BUT we have a whole lot of RUBES in this country who can't. They sit and conjure up reasons why she wouldn't be a good president.....

And never seem to consider...WHAT COULD SHE DO WORSE THAN the bamster?????

Moe| 11.10.10 @ 9:24AM

Palin has the voice and mind of an irritating cartoon character.

As Mike says, she is most definitely not a "viable candidate."

Anne P.| 11.10.10 @ 10:47AM

I support Palin's political agenda, but I cannot stand Palin herself.

She irritates me everytime I see or hear her. There's an overt, creepy sexuality and predatory nature that comes across. There's a whiff of the common about her.

I'm afraid that beneath that skin is a terrible person. This is my gut feeling, and my husband feels the same way.

Trix| 11.10.10 @ 12:11PM

I know what you mean, Anne P.

I hesitate to say this, but I have always thought there was something a little slutty in Palin's deportment. Maybe just a suggestion of sluttiness, I don't know.

But there is a troubling sexual characteristic that she exudes. And, yes, there is a streak of common that comes across. She lacks dignity.

Anyone out there know what Anne and I are talking about?

Marsha ross| 11.10.10 @ 2:30PM

I am glad Palin is comfortable with her looks. NOW and other feminist groups have tried to have it both ways. They tell us we must be like men. Then they promote women as sex objects and never defend a conservative woman. That is part of my disagreement with the use of the term slutty by you two women. Are men slutty? When mean girls throw pads at the pretty girl I am always suspicious of their emotional health. Thank goodness Palin and other conservative women are not shackled by the way our culture wants women to be: either sluts or 'smart/liberal'. Palin is smart and pretty, a good mother, wife and daughter. Plus, to make liberals even more crazed..she loves the Lord. All this obsession about her voice and appearance has to be a throwback to the old chauvinistic attitudes of men and women that is only directed at conservatives.

Anne P.| 11.10.10 @ 4:09PM

My criticism is not directed at Palin because she is conservative.

No, conservatism has nothing to do with my dislike of her. She is common and all that common connotes, and many of my Republican friends are in agreement in this assessment of the Alaskan presidential wannabe.

She may have a little education--just a little, but she is most definitely not cultivated. As for the arts and culture in general, she is a hick whose aesthetic tastes are on the level of a dumb, aging female country singer.

And you may call me a RINO if you like, for that's the part of the party I belong. And, yes, I am an elitist. I've got standards, and that is why I reject Sarah.

zibby| 11.11.10 @ 6:21PM

Anne P. & Trix,
Let me explain to you your feelings. Some people men or women exude sexuality, Sarah Palin could be dressed in a man's tux and still be sexual. Marlene Dietrich is one I can remember well for exuding such sexuality. You are uncomfortable and suspicious becuase of the feelings this evokes in you. You find her attractive but are repulsed at your attraction. This has nothing to do with sexuality but it has to do with simple animal attractions.
For this, you lash out at Palin and call her sexuality "creepy". Your feelings regarding Palin and her sexuality are nothing more than a reflection of you and your feelings which you project onto Sarah.
Now, as far as Sarah being "common". This leads me back to her "sexuality". Her "common" behavior is the way she plays down that "sexuality" and maybe it isn't "sophisticated" but it doesn't mean she isn't smart. She doesn't want to be the sophisticated hot elitist snob, she wants to relate to us all and not pretend that she is better than anyone. She see's herself as equal and wants everyone else to see her that way.
As far as your "gut" feeling about Sarah, don't follow it. And regarding "dignity", Sarah has shown that for the last couple of years.
You two seem so disconnected from reality and yourself I would suggest you fire your current shrinks.

Vern Crisler| 11.10.10 @ 8:40PM

Right on Marsha. Maybe it's Alaska-phobia.....

wodiej| 11.10.10 @ 4:24PM

Uhm, yea, think I do. You're both insecure and lack self esteem and you're both trolls. How's that?

George| 11.10.10 @ 12:20PM

A whiff of the common? You and yours must be elitist, and us poor folk thought she was just like us. We need less people like you in office and more commoners. Alas the class system is alive and well in Annie P's house.

Trix| 11.10.10 @ 12:59PM

Class system?

Lord, I should hope so. Some of us have to set the example for the lower orders.

As far as I am concerned, I long for a rigid class system-- the kind England used to have-- where everyone knows their place and they stay in it.

And, yes, I am dead serious.

Booger| 11.10.10 @ 2:57PM

Dear Trix,

If we lived in the sort of class system you pine for, and you called a member of the ruling class (Palin was, after all, a governor and vice-presidential candidate) by the names you used above you would be taken out and flogged. So maybe there is something to be said for that sort of society.

Skippy| 11.10.10 @ 4:05PM

I am skeptical. Or Skiptical.
Either Trix is a seminar-emailing liberal shill, or she is the least American gal ever.
Dividing ourselves by class is so...European. Yuk!
Or Hindu, I'm not sure which.
Either way I reject her call for ordering our society by class.
The America I love is the one where everyone has the right to rise above, or sink below, the station in life to which one is born.
Just knowing that folks like Trix exist makes me want to vandalize her car.
Or laugh in her smug I'm-better-than-you face.
What a creep!

Bob| 11.10.10 @ 1:01PM

Yeah, and I sure would like to get inside her panties.

Bob| 11.10.10 @ 1:02PM

I was responding to Anne P.s post.

Bob| 11.10.10 @ 4:28PM

And I'd like to get inside the panties of Anne P. and Trix. If I could get inside the lacy underpanties of these two opinionated wimmen, I'd have 'em screamin' for more.

Ms. L.| 11.10.10 @ 4:30PM

You filthy, disgusting PIG!

I'll have you know this is a respectable blog.

Paul Nelson| 11.10.10 @ 10:19PM

respectable? Heaven forfend!

Jefferson| 11.11.10 @ 1:12AM

Heaven forbid that we support a politician with a "whiff of the common" about her. Those common people can't be electing one of their own now can they?

Dan Hirsch| 11.10.10 @ 9:26AM

Mike,

Have you seen Sarah in person? I have; there was nothing screechy about her - unless maybe you have a problem with the full-strength truth of traditional conservatism. Or mebbe you need a better quality TV seat....

When Reagan was running, a sizable contingent in the Republican party threw a lot of junk at him, too. He smiled and kept on moving forward. Which way is Sarah moving? Look out RINO's Sarah's coming and she's got a big game rifle....

Nolite me conculcare!!!

Dan Hirsch| 11.10.10 @ 9:28AM

Shoulda been "...or a better quality TV set."

Stupid, fat fingers!

irish19| 11.10.10 @ 12:45PM

Ahhh, yes! Digital dyslexia. Remember, PIMF.

AceInTX| 11.10.10 @ 10:34AM

I'm a Palin Fan but I've often thought the same thing....if she were to run and win the white house...policy wise I'd be as happy as a loon...but I don't know if I could take 8 years of her shreaking voice

As a man...only one descriptor comes to mind...NAG...heh.

Old Joe| 11.10.10 @ 11:12AM

We all know that it is much more important to have someone that has a wonderful voice and a fantastic ability to read a teleprompter than to have someone that has actually run a city and state, has actually cut taxes, and that has a strong love of country and family. My God, we need a great Republican empty suit to compete with the Democrat empty suit.

All kidding aside, her voice sounds great to me, her speaking style is straight from her heart and her experience. Her intellect is at least equal to Obama’s unproven intellect, and her executive experience far surpasses Obama’s even after his two years as president. And that comment about her sexuality, why is it considered a plus for male politicians and a negative for female politicians. I think you females that have catty comments about her are just jealous that she has popped out four kids and is still a beautiful woman and you male complainers are just frightened of a woman that is so much more than you will ever hope to be. I think she is smart, experienced, capable, and hot. I will vote for her any time.

wodiej| 11.10.10 @ 4:26PM

thank you, well said.

loulou| 11.10.10 @ 11:41AM

Sarah's voice is just fine.
You want screechy and cackly, listen to Hilary.

GW| 11.10.10 @ 7:52PM

Pot, meet kettle.

John Navratil| 11.10.10 @ 4:15PM

Appleby,

You are absolutely correct! It is no disrespect to her or her message to suggest she find a voice which is less jarring.

Chef Schnauzer| 11.10.10 @ 6:34AM

The problem isn't 'silly internecine bickering'. Firstly, recognizing that the slack-jaw, slump-shoulder paper pushing back slapping party first inside the beltway Republicans have sold out values, have sold out principles have sold out the Constitution over and over and over again. ENOUGH - IS - ENOUGH. Type of apparatchik who make up the steaming pile of staffers and lobbying parasites brought us here. Their best thinking on their best day got us here. Thanks, thanks so much, really. Time has passed the 'can't we all get along' crowd by. ACCOUNTABILITY and RESPONSIBILITY are the new watch words.

JimP| 11.10.10 @ 6:43AM

I'm not sure I understand Lisa.

Noonan is a turn coat conservative critic by trade. Krauthammer publicly savaged O'Donnell. I don't recall him attacking Palin in the same manner, but maybe he did. Rove savaged O'Donnell over and over and over on the air waves. Rove's view on Palin is not what earned him the sobriquet of "Tokyo Rove". These are just three of the conservatives who violated President Reagan's 11th Commandment. So why are those who object to these three the "disgruntled" ones?

It's early and I haven't finished my coffee, so maybe I read this column wrong. Still, calling people that are angry with a turn coat who sang Obama's praises and voted for him, and two guys who savagely attacked a candidate chosen by a state's GOP electorate seems backwards to me.

carnot| 11.10.10 @ 9:01AM

because the flip side are "conservatives" who savagely attack other convesations who note the obvious: not every TP candidate is/was the sharpest tack in the box. many of the losers ran putrid campaigns. sure.....ideological point was made....at what opportuntity cost?

I, for one, don't give a flying **** about any one conservative candidate. I want government off my back. if that means weeding our all the political weklings of whatever stripe....so be it.

carnot| 11.10.10 @ 9:04AM

ahemmmm...that wld be other conservatives

JimP| 11.10.10 @ 10:36AM

Wow! I don't know exactly what you read between the lines of my comment. I obviously hit a major nerve with you. Please note that all I did is state facts. If you are a fan of Noonan and disagree that she is a turncoat critic being paid by the left wingers, then state your case. Krauthammer and Rove both did savagely attack O'Donnell thus breaking the 11th Commandment that Lisa invokes against those who think K & R went overboard. That O'Donnell and whoever else are/were not perfect candidates is irrelevant to my point. Lisa can't have it both ways. Blaming the internecine war on people who are upset with Noonan et al while ignoring the "sins" of Peggy, Charles and Karl is applying a double standard and breaking the same 11th Commandment being invoked in this column.

Next time, before you go off on a half cocked rant, take a valium and get a solid 8 hours of sleep. Maybe then you will understand what is being said.

John Navratil| 11.10.10 @ 4:23PM

JimP,

I can't say I watched everything Krauthammer had to say about O'Donnell, but my experience was not so much the he savaged O'Donnell but rather the voters whose "fit of pique" denied the Republicans the 51st vote.

That isn't to say he thought much of O'Donnell and many did not. Krauthammer, whom I typically respect, go it wrong here for two, complete different reasons:

(1) Thinking the 51st seat was anything more than a trap to empower the most liberal Republicans into forcing Faustian bargains with the left, and

(2) Not blaming the Republican party (think Cornyn) for not fielding a better candidate than either O'Donnell or Castle, instead of blaming O'Donnell for standing up for herself and the people of Delaware.

zibby| 11.11.10 @ 6:36PM

Thanks Jim for writing exactly what I was thinking. If it was up to the country club we Republicans we would've had Crist not Rubio. We wouldn't have had Rand Paul, or Allen West and the list goes on.
The original sin was made by Rove and company and to blame the people who are not happy with their behavior is backward.

Curly Smith| 11.10.10 @ 7:01AM

Yes, let Reagan be our example. Let us recall how he compromised with Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Iceland in 1986... let us recall how that compromise led to the lasting success of the Soviet Union... let us know return to our own reality where the Soviet Union collapsed.

There are some things on which you cannot compromise. If your intent is smaller government then you cannot accept government that merely grows slower.

But let's consider why the Republicans didn't vote for ObamaCare. Was it, as Ms. Fabrizio implies, out of concern for the country or did they simply recall what happened to the Democrats in 1994 after the HillaryCare debacle? Did the Republicans simply say "Hey, if we let the Dems step in it then we'll be swept back into POWER!!"? Or, did they mount a Constitutional challenge to the legislation whilst simultaneously talking to the Democrats on how to improve it? Was the GOP's lack of support noble or was it venal?

JadedByPolitics| 11.10.10 @ 9:39AM

They voted AGAINST it for one reason and one reason only, they were not included. There was no principle to these hacks left up there after 2006-08, they were locked out and treated like the losers they treated WE The People as when they decided to socialize the Country at a slower pace then Democrats. Given what they wanted in that bill they would have voted for it and given Obama the across the aisle credentials!

Emo| 11.14.10 @ 6:59PM

""Let us recall how he compromised with Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Iceland in 1986.""

Your history is wrong!!! Reagan walked away from Reykjavik in Nov 1986 rather than negotiate away SDI.

Reformed Trombonistr| 11.10.10 @ 7:05AM

Lisa, you are writing from the perspective of a Republican, not a conservative. Let's hold your own analysis up to your own standards: you decry the trashing of the establishment Republicans by the upstart Tea Partiers, but seem oblivious to the trash that has been flung from the other direction. Karl Rove's conniption on Fox News when O'Donnell won the nomination, as if the voters' job was to get right with Karl Rove and not vice versa. The mainstream Republicans serving as party spoilers when they lost to more conservative challengers in the primaries. Just last week, Peggy Noonan called Sarah Palin and ignorant nincompoop.

The underlying message of all this from the GOP establishment appears to be: we hope you've had your fun and gotten all of that out of your system; now, go home while we adults serve the pork just like before.

This country faces an existential crisis of mounting debt. The Democrats are Thelma and Louise, flooring it and heading us for the cliff. The old GOP way is to offer us half-throttle, when in fact we are still heading for the same cliff. We need to turn the damn thing around and head the other way. If the GOP establishment doesn't get that, and they don't, then don't be surprised when Tea Partiers consider them to be as much a part of the problem as the Democrats. For years, the GOP has been not the opponent, but the enabler, of liberalism. That has to stop now.

thirteen28| 11.10.10 @ 2:20PM

Bravo, well said.

zibby| 11.11.10 @ 6:40PM

Wonderful, well said.

emo| 11.14.10 @ 7:04PM

""This country faces an existential crisis of mounting debt.""

Talk about hyperbole!! The entire existence of the USA is threatened by debt. Nonsense. Debt wont destroy the US, it will make it mediocre and slow growth from 3% to say 2%, but it wont destroy the country. Debt doest cause depressions and no Greece isnt in a depression and Argentina's 2001 depression wasnt debt induced. What debt does it takes an increasing amount of the nation's output to be used for debt service. Monitizing that debt makes the situation worse through inflation, but to say that debt is an existential threat is rubbish.

Reformed Trombonist| 11.15.10 @ 6:59AM

What happens when a country owes more in debt than its net worth? Currently, the U.S., lock, stock, and barrel, is estimated to be worth about $60 trillion. Our debt is about one-fifth that amount. The debt levels just on our current level of unfunded liabilities are on track to take us to well over our national worth within thirty years. First, to service the debt, we will find there is little left over for anything else -- it's already at the level of defense spending. And this is when interest rates are low -- what happens when we're paying 7 to 10% instead of 2 to 4%? To service the debt will require squeezing the taxpayers even harder, making it harder and harder to rebound economically. Enough of that, and you have political unrest. Enough of that, and what's left of the Constitution crumbles. Yes, I call that an existential threat.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.10.10 @ 7:06AM

Lisa,
Lines in the sand are EXACTLY what we need; Reagan's quote was referring to politicians whose goal was, even though the path was different, still America first. The people we need to take the battle to do not understand compromise, their goal is progressivism, and they will do anything they can up to and including fostering the demise of America to achieve their goal. You refer to all the bright, young new faces that do not know how to “play the game,” that is their redeeming feature.
The victims of the 2010 election cycle were blue dogs and RINOs, even weak candidates nearly won. The result is that the progressive/liberal camp is isolated, under acute scrutiny and, if anything, more strident. They control two branches and have neither the desire nor the motivation to “capitulate,” any compromise will be either slanted to their benefit, or vetoed. The Republicans have two years to prove themselves worthy of what the people demanded with this overwhelming victory, if they, as you suggest, proceed along the “business as usual” dynamic of the beltway entrenched the electorate will again “readjust” the Congress in the image of smaller taxes, less government, and more personal freedom.
Your heroes, you mentioned Hatch, are nothing more than capitulators; Reagan knew what to do with the enemies of democracy and it was not implicit in the quote you provided. The people we are dealing with ARE the communists, the democracy haters, and the enemies of America. Sharing a cafeteria with them does not change what they plan to do. The guidelines are set in the “Contract,” the” game” that will be played is fielding candidates, not compromising legislation. The “Tea Party” is the only one on a positive learning curve.

Ken (Old Texican )| 11.10.10 @ 9:27AM

Michael,
Well spoken.

AceInTX| 11.10.10 @ 10:54AM

Something else Reagan said that confounds the authors premise:

"Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?...."

"...A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way...

John Navratil| 11.10.10 @ 4:32PM

AceInTX,

To amplify what you are saying, it is time for the GOP to return to conservative principles. When it does, I will return, after twenty years in the desert, to the Republican party.

The real fear, for me, is that the Democrats will move more left. It appears that those who lost to the shift of independents were the more conservative of their caucus as evidenced by a real possibility that Pelosi will become the minority leader (those signing the letter asking her to bow out are already out).

This will reduce the pressure on the GOP to get right with the "Tea Party" wing. This is not a good thing for battle of the conservatives with the old guard.

We have to keep the pressure on. If anyone feels the need to form a third party, I'd prefer it be the centrists and not the conservatives.

Reformed Trombonist| 11.15.10 @ 7:05AM

Conservatism is the costume that Republicans wear to the election ball. Half of the party consists of cynical pols who value conservative principles the same way car, phone, and soup companies value a Madison Avenue jingle. The other half consists of liberals who felt they could do more "good" by undermining conservatism than promoting liberalism.

For a conservative, the beginning of wisdom is the realization that we have no friends. We're going to have to do this all by ourselves.

G. Tracy Mehan, III| 11.10.10 @ 7:14AM

I couldn't agree more.

Shamus| 11.10.10 @ 7:22AM

Ept fiscal policy will keep voters gruntled and allow the government to remain funct.

Melvin| 11.10.10 @ 7:23AM

How many tortured and murdered Russians tried to compromise with Stalin and Lenin? How many Jews tried to compromise with Adolf Hitler, and millions of Chinese tried to compromise with Mao Tse Tung.
You don't compromise with Communists or the new term for Communism, Progressivism. You destroy it so that it cannot rear it's ugly philosophy ever again.

JmsA| 11.10.10 @ 7:05PM

There you go, Melvin; you hit the nail in the head.

JmsA| 11.10.10 @ 7:06PM

Meant to write, hit the nail on the head.

bluecollarbytes| 11.10.10 @ 7:25AM

No names, but there is a Republican ruling class which is maneuvering to 'kill off' the rebels it sees as a threat to its own existence.

Sarah Pain- perhaps a figure as polarizing as Hillary Clinton, but who has done more than a roomful of Republican elites/power brokers to revive the interest in our politics among average folks.

I confess some disappointment in Charles Krauthammer, who I still consider one of the very best minds on the Right. I hope he sees fit to temper his criticism going forward. We don't need a circular firing squad. If the refreshed American-ideas- carried almost exclusively by Tea Party participants, are worthy of support, then support them.

If one prefers the 'steady, sophisticated, mature Republican leadership' we've come to know since 1988, then make That case.

Tim*| 11.10.10 @ 7:33AM

Consider:
Jeb Hensarling : Citizens Against Government Waste, a spending watchdog group, rates him higher than Bachmann. The group gives him a lifetime rating of 96 to her 91. Club for Growth gives Bachmann an 88, compared with Hensarling, who is tied for No. 1 with the top score of 100.
“People in the conference who know my record support me,” Hensarling said, “The people in the Tea Party – I’m very happy for example Ron Paul is endorsing me for this particular race, as is Mike Pence.”

Hensarling said he is well-known as a devout fiscal conservative, and has a history of taking on his party, most noticeably when he led the charge for earmark reform and opposed the bailout package, moves he said should win him favor with the anti-establishment movement.

"In many respects, I guess I would say I was into Tea Party before there was a Tea Party."
“I'm one of the top 2 or 3 or 4 most conservative members in the House of Representatives when it comes to economics. I have a knowledge of budget issues, and I think we're going to spend a lot of time in the next two years talking about these issues,” he said.

Doctor Right| 11.10.10 @ 7:49AM

Ms.Fabrizio,
Your entire premise is flawed. Those doing the bleating and whining are NOT Conservatives, they are instead members of the GOP-establishment who see their power and influence diminishing as the insurgent Tea Party movement gets stronger.

These are the same dimwits who said Reagan was too radical on 1976 and gave us Jerry Ford, instead. They gave us Bush 41's pathetic campain in '92, Dole in '96, and the cretinous McCain in '08. They preferred Mike Castle over Christine O'Donnell, and Murkowski over Joe Miller. They're idiots like Steve Schmidt, McCain's '08 campaign director who began savaging Sarah Palin before the election was even over. They're the kind of country-club Republicans who inhabit the northeast and prefer cozying

Joe Oliva| 11.10.10 @ 10:38AM

Correct Doctor.

Reagan's time was much different than it is now and what he espoused about his take on the 11th Commandment no longer applies. My guess is if he were the GOP leader today, he wouldn't put up with Krauthammer and Rove. They cost us the seat, not Christine O'Donnell.

They should have supported her from the moment she won the primary and sent some professionals to get her campaign up and running. Instead, they denigrated her and left her to produce a campaign that didn't have the necessary talent to get it done. Once they said she couldn't win, the GOP vote basically disappeared.

Screw Rove and the Kraut! They may be smart people, but they are not the future this country needs. They are the past GOP establishment elites! I will not forgive them.

John Navratil| 11.10.10 @ 4:45PM

Joe Oliva,

I'm not really taking issue with you, but playing the Devil's Advocate.

The entire election cycle was about the growth of the "Tea Party" influence. The outcome to be was a mystery on election day and prognostications were fuzzier the further back in time you look.

True, O'Donnell was up two points in July, after the primary bump, but she never had the polling that indicated she would be able to win AT THE TIME.

I'm no fan of Cornyn but do respect the notion of triage and putting money into a campaign you think you can win with it, but will lose without it. O'Donnell, in retrospect could have won with sufficient backing, but looking forward it was not evident that pouring money into the campaign (I contributed to her) would result in a win.

I can tell you that the NRSC had none of my money to give to O'Donnell.

That said, the Krauthammer and Rove statements were not helpful, to say the least. And the Republican party was flat-footed in this race nominating Castle. I still prefer having Coons in the Democrat caucus than Castle (another RINO) in the Republican one.

martin j smith| 11.10.10 @ 8:01AM

Lisa Fabrizio: I think there is a need for debate on issues of where the "conservative" and "republican Party" stand on issues of the day. This election illustrates that the People want an economically conservatively run country. Free market Capitalism not Socialism it was a referrendum in my view Against the Obama,Pelosi,Reid agenda NOT a vote of confidence for the Republican Party. I think that when there is a primary and the person wins is then vllfified by other members of that SAME party --there is something wrong with those people. I think that when someone is nominated as vice-president and then is villified by members of the SAME party there is something wrong with them as well. So, when people ,are fed up with those peoplewho complain about the MORE CONSERVATIVE WINNERS of free and fair primary elections--I have a problem with them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rove,Krauthammer, etc were wrong in their behavior and wrong politically. They blame the ODonnells for losing. Well, maybe they played a role in the defeat as well. And, perhaps anger and rage at the behavior of these individuals is warranted, necessary and even helpful in clarifying where we are going to OPPOSE SOCIALISM--which is what this election and exercise in Democracy is all about.

Margie| 11.10.10 @ 1:28PM

martin j smith:

That was excellent and you couldn't be more perfectly and precisely correct.
Nothing needs to be added!

Unhappy Gilmore| 11.10.10 @ 8:01AM

Judges. Judges. Judges.
Lindsay Graham. Lindsay Graham. Lindsay Graham.
Conservatives. Conservatives. Conservatives.

Tim*| 11.10.10 @ 8:41AM

Agreed Gilmore.

Gang Of 14, Gang Of 14, Gang Of 14.
McCain, Graham, Snowe, Collins, Chafee
McCain, Graham, Snowe, Collins, Chafee
McCain, Graham, Snowe, Collins, Chafee
RINO-CINO's, RINO-CINO's, RINO-CINO's

hardcard| 11.10.10 @ 8:07AM

we must unite in the fight against socializm. the new congress has not taken their seats yet. politics is what it is, give it a few weeks to jell. stop the B/S. don't let obamasoros spin the good to the bad. keep up the pressure. stay the course.

Teflon93| 11.10.10 @ 8:22AM

Three words for you: filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. This cycle we only needed enough GOP senators to sustain a filibuster. Next cycle we can reward those who support opposition to Obama and punish those who do not. Having a bunch of RINOs for a majority is no majority at all, as we've seen time and again. They don't stick with us on judges or anything else.

Get outside the Beltway sometime.

Larry| 11.10.10 @ 8:25AM

Oh dear, each time I read a piece which eludes, in one form or another, to the notion that even Reagan would be unable to pass muster with today's brand of Conservatism I know I'm reading words written by a RINO. Of course the self serving and obligatory distancing from "RINOism" will always follow but the tone and general direction of the piece always ... allow me to repeat ... Always betrays the real sentiments of the author.

This column is no different. It's conclusions are predictable, its tone irritating and its rational wrongheaded. The recent Republican victory which the author is basking in wasn't the result of the sentiments or worldview of the crowd she runs with.

Indeed, if the energy and ethos which animates that collection of clingers were all we had at our disposal then Democrats would have been the big winners in last weeks election.

Moderates seem to think only in terms of a third way which is to say that if liberals insist that 2+ 2 = 6, while Conservatives maintain that 2 + 2 = 4, Graham, McCain and company can be relied upon to glibly assert that 2 + 2 = 5 . Such sordid reasoning has contributed mightily to Thatcher's famous "Ratcheting Effect".

The vaunted third way may be less wrong but its still all wrong ... we need a Conservatism wich pledges loyalty to the Right Way ... and doggedly pursues it among colleagues whose highest aim is to appear reasonable.

Vic| 11.11.10 @ 10:48PM

Funny you should mention this third way. It was first promoted by one Benito Mussolini. Socialism made workable, he called his fascism. Right wing communism if you will. You can still have your property, as long as the almighty state has absolute control of same. This is why if republicrats have a choice between progressiveness(communist), or constitutional conservatism, they will pitch their tent with the progressives every time. They will join hands to defeat constitutional governance because they both love the overbearing state. In government we trust is their motto. They just fight with each other over which one is to be in power at any given time. If you threaten their beloved state, they will come after you with a vengeance.

Bob K.| 11.10.10 @ 8:26AM

The returns from this election proved one thing indisputably! The United States electorate overall, (California and New York and a few other left wing enclaves excepted), refuses to be governed by the far left!

This same electorate will also refuse to be governed by the far right. And if it comes to pass that they reject it we will see the Left come to power again because they control the Democratic Party! The far right does not control the Republican Party. This country is, on average, a moderate to conservative country. The Republican Party leader's have to be constantly reminded of this.

Reagan was right! Politically and practically.

Larry| 11.10.10 @ 9:28AM

Bob K, perhaps you could specify what, precisely, you mean by the "Far Right".

Need I remind you that Reagan was denounced as "Far Right" by members of his own Party ... until, that is, his policies led to massive electoral and economic victories (to say nothing of a rather remarkable victory over the Soviet threat).

I find that establishment types enjoy a rather malleable vocabulary and memory.

So, again, please define "Far Right". What are its aims? What is its language? What are its means? And most especially, what distinguishes it from the "Other Right".

BTW, just what are the aims and achievements of the "Just Right Right".

AceInTX| 11.10.10 @ 11:24AM

He won't answer...he can't...without exposing his inner progressive.

Bob K.| 11.10.10 @ 11:39AM

Ace,
Don't jump to conclusions. You have to think here sometimes you know.

AceInTX| 11.10.10 @ 12:18PM

[quote]"I don't have to define the "far right." Just as I don't have to define "RINO." Samuel Johnson said that "Definitions are tricks for pedants." That is enough for me."[/quote]

Thank you for making my point. That's not an answer...that's a deflection.

You used the term "Far Right" and only YOU can explain what you meant when you explained the term...

so

What did you mean exactly?

AceInTX| 11.10.10 @ 1:07PM

forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for an answer

Bob K.| 11.10.10 @ 5:40PM

Ace,
You can breathe now. I don't have to do anything you require. This is not a cross examination, it is a discussion. If you can't understand what I have been saying it is your problem.

Have a nice day.

AceInTX| 11.10.10 @ 6:32PM

No...you don't have to do anything I say...that's not the point...

I said you wouldn't answer because to do so you would "expose your inner progressive"

You didn't answer...

Point made

Bob K.| 11.10.10 @ 11:37AM

Larry,
I don't have to define the "far right." Just as I don't have to define "RINO." Samuel Johnson said that "Definitions are tricks for pedants." That is enough for me.

The electorate with the help of a compliant press will do the defining of who is far right. If the Republican party wants to stay in power it will have to get together and act as a party. You will note that a number of people who you or others might define as "RINO" were thrown out, including Specter. (Good Riddance!). Then the Senator from Utah was thrown out. (Not so sure about him though) and even Utah's other Senator, Kennedy's good buddy, is now said to be in trouble. Next time around this could happen to people to others could be defined as "far right" but who are really right.

It is time to evaluate all candidates by their overall adherence to Conservative Principles. And don't ask me to define them either. If you don't know them or can't evaluate them you are in the wrong web site.

Larry| 11.10.10 @ 11:59AM

Bob, for a chap who tosses around labels as freely as you appear to, it seems more than a little disingenuous to show such an aversion to defining your terms.

Or might the problem be that the concepts are still a bit fuzzy for you?

Bob K.| 11.10.10 @ 5:53PM

Larry,
If you spent a little bit of time outside your own ego you might find that we are on the same page. I haven't asked you to define RINO and I don't care to know what your definition of it is. And if you re read my post you will see that I told you who will define these terms and they will be defined, once again, with a different meaning at the next elections by people who don't care what our definitions are.

If you want another definition of definitions I will tell you that they are a method of wasting time demanded by narrow minded myopics who can't see the big picture in front of them. Johnson would agree with that.

AceInTX| 11.10.10 @ 6:36PM

YOU are the one who used the term "FAR RIGHT". Only YOU can define what YOU mean by that term.

The fact that you refuse to explain to us what you mean by it...our how you define "Far Right" say's more about you than it does anyone you label here as "narrow minded myopics who can't see the big picture in front of them."

AceInTX| 11.10.10 @ 6:38PM

I would add that your writings here points to a tendency toward narrow mindedness.

JimH| 11.10.10 @ 8:29AM

Potential Robespierres exist on both side of the aisle.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 11.10.10 @ 8:39AM

Some Republicans want to point fingers at the Tea Party, and say what if we had our guy in that race instead, maybe we could have won that particular race? Yeah, maybe you "could" have!! But what they don't understand is that the Tea Party is solely responsible for "creating" or "saving" most of the wins the Republican Party is enjoying right now. Without the Tea Party and its Candidates being in the race this year, the Republicans would be suffering through a "Great Depression" that was predicted to last at least a generation, but instead they have been handed back the keys to the car that was driven into that damn ditch only two years ago. Who do you think called for the Tow Truck, huh? They shouldn't bite the hand that is feeding them, but then again, maybe they really think they did this on their own, and they don't need the Tea Party anymore. They didn't, and they do!! So be happy with the results from last week, they were truly glorious, but don't take what happened for granted, because this will be the "last" time we hand you back the keys if you bite us again. Listen and learn!!

Helen| 11.10.10 @ 8:49AM

I, for one, will not be forgiving Rove any time soon.
There is a reason we Tea Party rebels carry that flag.

Larry| 11.10.10 @ 8:51AM

Bob K, perhaps you could specify what, precisely, you mean by the far right. Need I remind you that Reagan was denounced as "Far Right" by members of his own Party ... until, that is, his policies led to massive electoral and economic victories (to say nothing of a rather remarkable victory over the Soviet threat).

I find that establishment types enjoy a rather malleable vocabulary and memory.

So, again, please define "Far Right". What are its aims? What is its language? What are its means? What distinguishes it form the Other Right" and, BTW, just what are the aims and achievements of the Just Right Right.

American Veteran| 11.10.10 @ 8:53AM

"so many conservatives who claim to love the U.S. Constitution do not understand that it was crafted by politicians for politicians; to rein them in. "

WHOA! WHAT? This negates anything else you wrote that I might have agreed with. I can't believe anybody could be more ignorant or misguided on our US Constitution. Please go back and do some research on the signers of our founding document before you embarass yourself again. Hopefully your apology is forthcoming.

LisaFab| 11.10.10 @ 8:59AM

I refer to the classic definition of a politician:

: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

Nearly all of the Founders were representatives of their state or local governments.

Thomas| 11.10.10 @ 9:10AM

The problem that the Republican leadership faces is that they dislike and fear their base, the self-described conservative voter. It has been shown that national Republican candidates can not win without conservative support. Ford lost because he was a moderate, who went along with liberal Democrats on social issues. Dole never stood a chance as most conservatives viewed him as being far too liberal, especially on social issues. Bush '41, who, having just prosecuted a successful and nearly bloodless war against a ruthless occupier of a friendly nation, betrayed the trust of conservatives when he reneged on his "no new taxes speech", largely to fund social programs of the Democrats and the conservatives didn't bother to go to the polls. Bush '43 barely beat Al Gore, possibly the wackiest liberal tree hugger on the planet, because he was liberal enough on several issues that many conservatives stayed home. His replay in 2004, against a rich social liberal who was a rabid war protester of dubious personal integrity was equally as lusterless. John McCain, poster boy for RINOS tried to entice conservatives to vote for him by casting a woman with much stronger conservative credentials as VP. But, even that wouldn't entice the conservative voters out of their homes. Yet, the Republican leaders, like their Democratic counterparts who actively woo female, black and latino voters during the elections and then ignore them the rest of the time, expect conservative voters to have the intelligence and attention span of a newt. It is like a scene from the Wizard of Oz; "I am the great and glorious Conservative politician. Pay no attention to the social liberal behind the curtain."

The Republican leadership has forgotten the aftermath of '94. The conservatives in this country sent conservative legislators to Washington to reduce spending, to stop the social welfare juggernaut, to continue the defense strategy of the Reagan administration and to at least slow the erosion of social values held by much of the country. The first 2 years went well. Then Washington political thought began to reassert itself. Defense spending went down. Social welfare programs began to expand again, one of which would be the prime initiator of the mortgage collapse of 2008. Taxes began to go up again. More and more federal aid was being funneled to state and local coffers. Tax and spend was back. In 2006, it came to a head. There was simply no recognizable difference between Republican and Democrat legislators. The Conservatives stayed home again and the Dems swept the Congress, overwhelmingly.

When the Republican Party turns its back on the wishes of the members of its conservative base, it loses. As soon as the Republican leadership is composed of people who realize this fact, then the Republican Party, as a whole, will be nearly unstoppable.

As to why liberals like Frank and Pelosi continue to be elected, there are two main reasons. The first is that they represent districts that are so liberal that most of their constituency is angry because their legislators have NOT taken away MORE of their freedoms. And, these districts and the states in which they exist have very powerful people who are beholden to these liberal incumbents and actively work to see to their reelection.

Everyone wants to keep their teat jobs and the current Republican leadership is no exception. With like thinking "moderate" legislators in officer, their positions are safe. With staunch conservatives in office, many of whom are not beholding to the leadership, their positions are in jeopardy. That is what the seeming internecine warfare in the Republican Party is all about. Power and who will wield it.

Simon Templar| 11.10.10 @ 9:12AM

Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer,Karl Rove, Bush, Mitchell, Lott, and the gang are part of the ruling class that shares the same world view as their counterparts on the so-called left of the two party system. It is this....WE ARE THE ELITE, YOUR BENEVOLENT RULING CLASS THAT KNOWS BETTER THAN YOU DO..NOW SHUT UP AND BUY SOME MORE PRODUCT. The issues that we argue about such a big government vs. small government, deficit spending vs. fiscal restraint, religion vs secularism, etc. were decided long ago around the turn of the century among this group. Thats why you hear those little slips of the tounge occasionally like...we will coopt the tea party, deficits are not a problem, Bill is a great guy..not mean-spirited, there is no conservative movement in this country, and on and on coming out of the so-called conservative Republicans. They view these usurptations that occasionally erupt like in 1994 with Perot and the most recent as temper tantrums, distractions, and and unfortunate dirty aspects of having a pretend democracy that need to be cleaned up, coopted, and waited out until they pass like little dust up storms...and the its back to the agenda and business as usual. What is the agenda you might ask? Well, its right in front of your face if you could only look away from the punch and judy show for a moment. A clue...Whats happened to the country since 1960? Some more clues..manufacturing, culture, dollar, trade policy, immigration, education, media, courts....

Derek Leaberry| 11.10.10 @ 9:13AM

The problem is that the Republican Party has demonstrated over the years that its dedication to small government is a rhetorical canard. Conservatives can not trust Republicans to cut government. Mitch McConnell has already mentioned that earmarks are fine and dandy with him. So the bipartisan spending spree will go on.

MikeBee| 11.10.10 @ 9:34AM

Without a doubt, politics is the art of compromise, in order to achieve one's goals. Those who don't know when and how to compromise will be absolutely terrible at governing (witness the Dimocrat party of the last couple years). This is where the older RINO Republicans can come in handy. Instead of being in elected office, these RINOs should be on the advisory team of newly-elected CONSERVATIVE Republicans, helping them to learn how and when to compromise, in order to achieve their ultimate goal of moving America to the Right. They also know all the House and Senate rules, and can be an excellent resource for newly-elected Republicans for how to "play the game" to get what they want. Tea partiers would be wise to acknowledge the strength in governing that the RINOs have, and use their advice, but to achieve Tea Party and conservative goals. Publicly, respect for RINOs is called for, rather than disdain.

On the other hand, Reagan's philosophy of not criticizing your own applies also to the present RINO and established Republican group. The people put Tea Partiers in power for a reason. They want Republicans to use their experience at governing to move the country to the Right, and to stop the Socialist Democrats. Criticism of Tea Party candidates should not be heard outside of a private personal meeting with these candidates. Instead, all Republicans should support one another publicly. RINOs and established Republicans should publicly show nothing but respect for new Tea Party and conservative members.

Does this mean that the Tea Party should not target RINOs for removal from office? Certainly not. This should continue, but, once removed from office, these RINOs should be included as part of the team of the Tea Party candidate who ousted them. This is where the RINOs belong, as advisors on a Tea Party candidate's team, not as those governing. Until they are all in their new positions, however, the public stance of Republicans should be nothing but utmost respect and support.

G. Tracy Mehan, III| 11.10.10 @ 10:06AM

When I said, above, "I couldn't agree more," I was speaking of Lisa's column in chief.

Conservative Bob| 11.10.10 @ 10:09AM

Regan may have compromised when he had to, but as I recall he did not lead from the position of what he was willing to accept but rather pushed hard for what he wanted and only ceded ground as necessary. I remember his budgets being pronounced dead on arrival and his going over the heads of his rivals directly to the people and frequently getting his way.
Mr. Hatch whom you revere thinks that after one of the greatest electoral victories in generations that rather than negotiate from strength on an issue (extending the Bush tax rates) that his best first gambit is to take a step back. How about we hold firm until at least the first shot is fired before we break and run.

I have voted Republican my entire life, I have contributed money, I have volunteered, and made calls. Liz what you are saying is now that we have again secured the victory, that we stupid rubes should shut up set down and let the professionals handle things.

It is precisely these professionals that have taken my life’s savings and so decimated my investments that I can never retire, these same professionals that have in their failure to take a stand have blown up the value of what is for most people their greatest asset their home. These same professionals have made sounds about fixing what is wrong with the Healthcare monstrosity, these same wise professionals that until we rose up to convince them otherwise saw no problem with amnesty for illegal immigrants. These wise professionals have gone along with the playing the game to the point where we are at risk of leaving our children and grand children substantially less than we inherited in terms of individual liberty and prosperity.
Liz I will not sit down, I will not shut up and with my dying breath I can guarantee you, I will not quietly sit by and let my children and grand children be made slaves of the state.
Let us seize this victory, let the republicans show that they are worthy of the second chance that they have been given. If they fail to properly understand and act on the message of these elections they will not only lose their majority but our Republic.

Simon Templar| 11.10.10 @ 10:24AM

Bob, you nailed it! Excellent commentary...you saw right through it. There are times to compromise and there are times to stand firm. This is NOT the time for compromise. Stand firm..my brother!

Joe Oliva| 11.10.10 @ 10:49AM

Not only that my friend, but these corrupt elites have made sure that they will not suffer. Their retirement package of full salary and free lifetime medical benefits comes with the first day of being sworn into office. So, when they get bounced out, they don't suffer. My grandson however, will have to pay for these corrupt elites.

Screw 'em all

Sheila| 11.10.10 @ 11:15AM

Conservative Bob - well said.

Simon Templar| 11.10.10 @ 10:14AM

A few words about Lisa from Connecticut ...Lisa is a lapdog for this group..not a ruler but a willing worker bee..you see them everyday..take a look at your workplace. She works as a mouthpiece for the group pretending to be conservative when it suits the situation... but like many Republicans and elite school graduates they really do not believe in conservative principles. They believe in sharing power, being good sports, remaining at the top, going with the flow of history as they see it. They secretly view the average conservative american with his/her outmoded ideas (mostly coming from the traditional views of those well meaning but old white men founders) as in need of a gentle prodding and progressive education. My god can those rednecks be so stubborn and stupid at time! They see the inevitable and necessary decline of the US and a steady and civil evolution to a new world order where nationalism and american exceptionalism is dead creating the opening for greater global cooperation among elites, global business, global government, less inequities, and their version of democracy all over the world. This is not about compromise but more about capitulation, social evolution, control, and co-optation. When did the conservative values, beliefs, and objectives of our founding fathers become extremist, far right, fringe, outmoded, irrevelant? So, now the message is tone down your conservative rhetoric, back off with your extremism, trust us. We will not be fooled again, coopted, nor compromise. Follow the will of the people..follow the constitution..you are not our rulers..you are elected representatives. We will continue to cling to our guns, religion, and constitution..no compromise on these! Let me remind you of what you can expect from the likes of a Hatch or a McConnell...lip service...can not even get rid of earmarks..gotta have that 3 billion dollar bribe system...now come on, how do you think we can get anything done around here, right Mitch!? Times up, America..time to demand principle not compromise...

Bob Grant| 11.10.10 @ 10:14AM

I am a conservative and Tea Party supporter who agrees with Lisa Fab's basic premise.

It seems to me my fellow conservatives/Tea Party supporters don't always approach issues through the prism of an average voter who, I would argue, don't really have a day-to-day appreciation of conservative principles and only view them in a positive light when tangible benefits are evident. They (the average voter) are not really interested in the concepts of "natural law", "separation of church and state", "separation of powers", "states rights" "invisible hand", "fiscal responsibility", etc.

I agree with Lisa Fab's assertion that we must institute policies that shift the country in a rightward direction at the same time give concrete examples of why/how conservative principles work and are our only hope for the future. If this means making small compromises in the immediate future, so be it as long as the ball continues to move to the right. I believe this was Reagan's approach.

Unfortunately the Bush family undercut all conservative momentum gained throughout the 80's primarily because they muddied it's definition; they didn't follow, nor sell conservatism. Their only attempt at doing so was 43's misguided decision to introduce "compassionate conservatism", which only perpetuated the average voter's confusion about conservatism.

I say we change the tide, sell it properly (hello Senator Rubio), and make the appropriate compromises when necessary. This will take brilliant people - not of which is Sarah Palin - to pull this off. That was Reaganism.

simon templar| 11.10.10 @ 10:41AM

Compromise is exactly what brought us here to the edge of destruction... a century of compromise..Liz is not advocating selling conservatism properly as you say but trusting the old guard and toning down the conservative rhetoric. Like the stuuf coming out of Palin's mouth..you know the idiot that you so nicely smeared. The average voter? Forty percent of the country considers itself conservative, forty percent independent, twenty percent liberal. Sixty to seventy percent center to right.

Bob Grant| 11.10.10 @ 11:58AM

Unless you want to go down the revolution path, conservatives must count on voters every 2, 4, 6 years to achieve their goals.

The Bushes' could have sealed the deal 0n conservatism in the 90's and 2000's had they adhered to core principles and sold it properly. SMART COMPROMISE, along with effective communication would have set the course for the next 20 to 30 years.

I didn't say compromise core principles.

As far as Sarah Palin is concerned, I don't think she has the ability to accomplish this. That's not to say she doesn't have a role in the conservative movement. I see her more as a female version of Rush Limbaugh or a movement leader, not a politician.

Larry| 11.10.10 @ 10:55AM

Bob, the electorate’s ignorance is not resolved through compromise, but education. It is the Party's obligation to provide a reasoned and compelling argument for its agenda. One which overwhelms with logic and historical proofs the silly nostrums of the Left or Less Left (or middle, that ever shifting piece of real estate claimed by those who wish to appear above it all as a cover for their intellectual sloth).

Compromise is often nothing more than the lesser of two evils and only provides an opportunity to continue moving the ball in the wrong direction ... worse, it tends to normalize the dysfunction against which we ought to be fighting.

The Left considers the compromise of their agenda anathema ... consequently they have effectively framed the issue of the day, control the important institutions of our society and place on the defensive all who would challenge their wisdom.

This ought to be the position of the Right. May I remind you that those who first championed American liberty did so through impassioned, reasoned argument whose aim was to persuade and convince. So great was the commitment to their cause that at last, when others cried out for compromise, they fought and died for their beliefs.

Compromise would not have yielded the liberty which we now (in a measure) enjoy nor will we be able to secure for our children this same liberty through further compromise.

We have reached another tipping point ... the possibility of actually reversing course is now tantalizingly within reach. Nothing less than a full throated defense of our claims and a dogged insistence on their implementation will properly capitalize on this hours potential.

Any compromise ought to tilt the playing field in our favor and clearly point the way forward to further rightward momentum. Anything, ANYTHING which fails to achieve that only serves to undermine our efforts and strengthen our opponents.

Bob Grant| 11.10.10 @ 11:30AM

"...Any compromise ought to tilt the playing field in our favor and clearly point the way forward to further rightward momentum. Anything, ANYTHING which fails to achieve that only serves to undermine our efforts and strengthen our opponents."

Sounds like you agree with me...
...my only point is we cannot win elections without the average voter; the ones who I like to refer to as "floaters", those who vote in every election who are ill informed and don't have a firm understanding on how our government works, and yet, find it necessary to vote at every opportunity. They are easily swayed and are susceptible to manipulation by the mainstream media, hollywood, or some other source that catches their fancy at any given time.

I would prefer they don't vote but these people feel it's their duty as a citizen ------- whatever. I have an issue with the fact that their vote counts just the same as mine - or yours - those who takes the time to learn the issues in order to cast an educated and responsible vote.

I'm just facing reality. My goal is to transform as many "floaters" to the right as possible; to make them permanent, reliable conservative voters.

To this requires smart compromise in the short term and constant education about how conservative principles are a positive force in our everyday lives.

Larry| 11.10.10 @ 12:22PM

Bob, you're appealing to reality while, ironically, ignoring it. Conservatives consistently win at the polls when they present themselves as unabashed, unapologetic and forthrightly Conservative.

Republicans consistently lose when they attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Dole, McCain and the narrow Bush win (coupled with his anemic policy initiatives) provide ample evidence of this phenomenon. Indeed, the evidence piles so high we're probably viewing an axiom.

Compromise in this environment is decidedly "unsmart" .

Bob Grant| 11.10.10 @ 12:33PM

Larry, You respect and admire Reagan as do I?

If so, please explain his amnesty and gun control positions?

Margie| 11.10.10 @ 1:36PM

Heh, I'm not Larry but I'd like to take a stab at this. As to gun control it wasn't 'gun control' as far as restricting or abolishing the use of guns as far as I see it. The Brady bill was a law put in effect as far as the purchase of hand guns and it only caused a delay in order for a background check. )Lisa provided the link to Reagan's write up in the NYT, above.) To try and say he was for "gun control" per say I think is truly disingenuous, IMHO.

Larry| 11.10.10 @ 1:40PM

Bob, I assume you're reffering to the 7 day waiting period for the purchase of handguns ... hardly a liberal position. There's also the matter of his former press secretary Brady (certainly an influence) not to mention that he was no longer President and therefore no longer implementing policy.

As to amnesty, well, he was wrong ... and now in hindsight we know that. Ed Meese said as much (in fact here's a piece he wrote on the subject http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18399 )

Now, Bob, perhaps you can answer my questions ... or do you specialize in asking questions rather than answering them?

RCV| 11.10.10 @ 2:45PM

In fairness to President Reagan, if you'd been shot and your close friend paralyzed by a lunatic who was trying to impress Jodie Foster, you might be in favor of a short waiting time to screen out mental defectives from buying handguns. Just sayin.

Bob K.| 11.10.10 @ 6:08PM

Mr Grant,
By George! You've got it!

Frog In Uniform| 11.10.10 @ 10:25AM

I sure don't want to be rude by meddling in your domestic politics, but I've witnessed what the wimp and the leftists did to my country, so let me give you my two cent opinion:
Do not compromise. Do not negotiate. Take no prisoners. Do not lie to anybody, including yourself.
God Bless America.

Occam's Tool| 11.10.10 @ 10:56AM

Alas, if there were only more Frogs like you.

The principles are rather simple under which we should fight:

1)Cut Spending
2) Cut Taxes
3) Fight totalitarianism; in Reagan's Case, Communism; in this case, Sharia.

That's all the government really needs to do. The American people will take care of the rest.

Margie| 11.10.10 @ 12:05PM

Well said. How very Reaganesque of you!

Louis Jenkins| 11.10.10 @ 1:07PM

Now that's the American spirit!! Compromises, negotiations, and prisoners only slow down the process. Two cents can be worth millions. Thanks!

AceInTX| 11.10.10 @ 10:26AM

Let's just give up and let the Democrats have everything they want then.

The problem isn't with compromise. It's about which side of the 50 yard line the ball is on...and whose end zone you move the ball toward with your compromise.

The way Republican "compromise" worked for the last 70 years is that the compromise advances the ball to the Statist/Big Government/Democrat end zone.

Name one department or law that has been eliminated or repealed since just after WWII...They are few and far between....

Republicans will start by saying we want $100 Billion in tax CUTS. The Democrats Counter with $100 Billion in tax INCREASES....the compromise ends up being...Republicans will agree to $50 Billion in Tax INCREASES and they will pat themselves on the back Because the Democrats only got half what they wanted!

That's been the pattern and that's why government has consistently grown over 70 years during Republican and Democrat leadership.

martin j smith| 11.10.10 @ 10:29AM

Some comments: I totally disagree with the author and here is why. First off this was not an ordinary election. It was a referendum--NOT FOR DEMOCRAT VERSUS REPUBLICAN PARTIES BUT RATHER A WAY OF GOVERNING. SOCIALISM VERSUS CAPITALISM111111111111111111111
Next: The socalled Democrat Party are not behaving as a "normal" politcal American Party but rather taking their cues from the Socialist Left of Europe and other such countries. They will not compromise THEIR PRINCIPLES. and with the aid of the MSM will make every effort to sabotage and distort things in their favor.
I think it is timely--as a lesson that GWB is being interviewed about his book. I have heard at least tow of these interviews and th MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR ME IS THAT DOES NOT GET WHO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS OR IS LYING OR IN DENIAL. He believed that responding to their critics about the war in Iraq was unbecomiong. Sorrry--not buying it. One can be dignified and yet respond dto crticis on the facts--not name calling. This is a fiundamental diufference in view between a "moderate" and some one who sees the politicical landscape for what it is--a political all out war.I the Republican Leadership mae efforts to"comp[romise" and see the same old Socialist rebukes and hostility--and still do not respond correctly--they will go down. Thge People want CHANGE and HOPE-not more currpt deals. That is why I do not believe the who discussion is about Republicans. It is about our future.

simon templar| 11.10.10 @ 10:44AM

Thank you, Martin! Well said!

Yosemeti Sam| 11.10.10 @ 10:37AM

PEN1 - tear down your WALL of partisanship
dissimulation!

Dai Alanye| 11.10.10 @ 10:57AM

The struggle to move the Republican party from big government (Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover) to conservatism has a long and difficult history. We were set to do in in 1952 by nominating Mr Republican--Bob Taft of Ohio--but the eastern wing of the party brought in Dwight Eisenhower, an apolitical establishment-controlled replacement.

We went down in flames with Goldwater, then struggled through Nixon and Ford, choosing Ford in 1976 instead of a younger, more energetic Reagan. We settled for GHW Bush in 1988 and Bob Dole in 1996.

And yes, though vastly preferable as Dubya was to either Gore or Kerry, he wasn't much of a conservative.

The fight still isn't over but Fabrizio is correct when she points out (in effect) that better is the enemy of good. At times we must settle for the best available rather than the ideal, at other times considered judgment will lead us to stick with the principled candidate regardless of electoral chances. Too many Tea Partiers, however, seem to think that they’ve invented Conservatism in the last two years , and are the only anointed judges of who is acceptable.

I personally believe losing with O'Donnell was preferable to winning with Castle, as he'd be an immediate voice for "compromise" just as Orrin Hatch almost always is. In the case of Angle and Fiorina, however, there were more viable alternatives who probably should have been accepted.

The big upcoming question is Sarah Palin. There is, unfortunately, no doubt she lacks gravitas, and will as a result find national election difficult. But let’s think of what gravitas is.

What is gravitas, politically speaking? It’s usually a combination of dignity, caution and self-regard that gives weight to the candidate’s every utterance and stance on issues. It is, in fact, merely the APPEARANCE of gravity. In Obama’s case his gravitas was based largely upon stand-offishness, narcissism and skilled use of the teleprompter.

Palin’s folksy way of expressing herself, her combative joy, her high-pitched voice and, yes, her healthy good looks all contribute to a seeming lack of gravity. But compare her way of governing with that of the present leader of the free world. When Obama stepped into the Presidency he generally left policy making and program design to his aides and to Congress, confining himself to talk and more talk, posing as an executive and leaving action to others. We can be certain he was one of those who waited until the health insurance bill was passed before reading it... if he has read it even yet.

In Palin’s case, upon becoming Governor she and her aides went through the Alaska budget proposal line by line, and this approach illuminated all her time in office. She proved herself a doer rather than a poser. Imagine if by some miracle Palin had become President instead of The One. Can any rational person doubt we’d be better off both economically and internationally than under the pseudo-leader Obama? She wouldn’t have made a tenth of the mistakes he has made, nor allowed Pelosi and Reid to drive the nation so rapidly toward a pit.

In Pride and Prejudice we are informed regarding Darcy and Wickam that “One has got all the goodness, and the other all the appearance of it.” So it is with Palin and Obama. One has all the gravity, and the other has all the appearance of it.

But the mass of voters are affected by appearances. If it were not so the inexperienced dilettante community organizer would never have elected in the first place. Conclusion--Palin must beg, borrow or steal some gravitas in order to have hope of winning a national contest.

Until then both she and we are better off if she remains on the sidelines as an effective voice for conservative principles.

Larry| 11.10.10 @ 11:01AM

Oh dear! Each time I read a piece which alludes, in one form or another, to the notion that even Reagan would be unable to pass muster with today's brand of Conservatism I know I'm reading words written by a RINO. Of course the self serving and obligatory distancing from "RINOism" will always follow but the tone and general direction of the piece always ... allow me to repeat ... Always betrays the real sentiments of the author.

This column is no different. It's conclusions are predictable, its tone irritating and its rational wrongheaded. The recent Republican victory which the author is basking in wasn't the result of the sentiments or worldview of the crowd she runs with.

Indeed, if the energy and ethos which animates that collection of clingers were all we had at our disposal then Democrats would have been the big winners in last weeks election.

Moderates seem to think only in terms of a third way which is to say that if liberals insist that 2+ 2 = 6, while Conservatives maintain that 2 + 2 = 4, Graham, McCain and company can be relied upon to glibly assert that 2 + 2 = 5 . Such sordid reasoning has contributed mightily to Thatcher's famous "Ratcheting Effect".

The vaunted third way may be less wrong but its still all wrong ... we need a Conservatism which pledges loyalty to the Right Way ... and doggedly pursues it among colleagues whose highest aim is to appear reasonable.

chris| 11.10.10 @ 11:02AM

peggy noonan endorsed and voted for obama. who cares about her opinions?
karl rove constantly discussed the negatives of christine o'donnell thereby keeping those negatives in the news. what was the point of that other than to disparage her? i never hear the liberal pundits, such as carville and begala, point out and consstantly repeat the negatives of liberal candidates.

Eric Damon| 11.10.10 @ 11:04AM

When does the time come when the establishment GOP decides that they should stop their sniping at their right flank and fall in line with the will of the electorate? And when will some conservative writers start to realize that it is not the Tea Party that is waging this internecine war, but the Establishment?

The Tea Party fought it's war against the Establishment exactly where it should have been fought...in the primaries. Battles were won at the primary level against entrenched Establishment types all across the country, and when those battles were over the TPM (wrongly) assumed that all of the GOP would then turn their guns on the Democrats to defeat them in the general election. Boy, were we wrong!

Instead, the GOP decided that it was more important to protect the Establishment than to wrest control of the government back from the Democrats. If you don't believe it, I'll use one example from my home state of North Carolina as an illustration.

Renee Ellmers won the GOP primary for District 2 and ran against Democrat incumbent Bob Etheridge, defeating him in the general election. A few days after the election tally came in, there suddenly appeared uncounted ballots from election night that some how went uncounted. And wonder of wonders, most of them were Democratic votes that suddenly reduced the Ellmers victory to a position where a recount was needed.

Now, Ms. Ellmers didn't have the money needed to effectively wage the recount fight and the NRCC intially refused to help defray here costs, because way back in the primaries they had decided that her candidacy was "not ready for primetime"...mainly because she beat their preferred candidate. The Establishment was ready to possibly lose control of this seat in the House primarily because it was not won by their preferred candidate! But it's the TPM that's waging war? Really?!?

Tim*| 11.10.10 @ 11:56AM

Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

Core Values

* Fiscal Responsibility
* Constitutionally Limited Government
* Free Markets

Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.

Tom Poole| 11.10.10 @ 11:59AM

Interesting comments all, but the fact is the TP backed candidates that lost generally were NOT supported by the National committees and many of the State committees. Rove, krauthaimer et al were/are so committed to their own bias they cannot accept others might have a different idea. In point of fact, for a young (2 yr/old), un-organized group like the TP we did pretty well, some 64% of the endorsed candidates for the House being elected and around 58% (depends on AL) in the Senate. Just think what we can do if we "knew" what we were doing, like in 2012 maybe.

Pat| 11.10.10 @ 12:18PM

This essay is very unfair because Americans react in different ways to victory and defeat - and some Americans are only satisfied with total victory, and total annihilation is valued even more highly. Consider that, after WWII, polls showed over 25% of adult Americans thought Japan had gotten off too lightly, we’d killed more than half a million Japanese, including women and children, destroyed over 2 million homes, sunk their entire Navy, tested a revolutionary new weapon on two of their cities and put their high government officials and military leaders on trial for war crimes and subsequently hanged many of them. Yet we allowed them to keep their Emperor which for many Americans was weakness and treating the Japanese much too leniently. So, for some Americans, the sweet taste of victory isn’t always that sweet.

And even though it personally costs the average American practically nothing to elect our politicians, we still expect to see our elected employees working hard for us. If Fabrizio’s employers could afford to pay her more for writing these essays, she could attend professional sporting events and learn a little something about Americans and our attitudes toward victory.

We don’t expect Peyton Manning to demonstrate his skill at origami on the gridiron or want Chad Ochocinco to sing tunes from the “Sound of Music” at halftime – we expect them to play hard, persevere and win over their enemy – the other team of professional players that is. And it’s understood that when the Green Bay Packers wallop the Dallas Cowboys, the Packers aren’t allowed to execute the Cowboy players and sell their wives and children into slavery – no, they just get their coach fired. We understand that victory means a temporary feel good episode for ourselves and nothing more, we understand poise in winning as well as disappointment the score wasn’t even more lopsided – and we understand they’ll play again next week, this year’s Super Bowl will be followed by next year’s Super Bowl – there is never a final victory in either football - or politics.

But rather than demand vigorous performance, Americans should learn to demand more complacency from our politicians. Let’s support the Do Nothing Party, let’s put a high value on legislative gridlock and learn to embrace lazy politicians – we’ll be happier, wealthier and safer if we do.

Let’s encourage older Senators to spend more time in the Bill Clinton Memorial Coat Room with young female interns. Pelosi and Palin should party down more often in Washington nightclubs, happily engaged in criticizing young female interns for their revealing dress while stuffing dollar bills into the thongs of male interns. Politics isn’t football, the harder the politicians play, the more we suffer. So, let’s keep our lust for victory confined to the stadium, but our lust for political revenge should be expended in support of the Do Nothing Party.

Larry| 11.10.10 @ 12:27PM

Pat, enormous difference between revenge and urgency. You happily unaware of just how far (and unsustainable) a liberal trajectory has carried of our nation from those fundamental truths which secure life and liberty for its citizens.

To do nothing now would be the biggest gift we could possibly deliver to the Left and the very worst gift we could offer future generations.

martin j smith| 11.10.10 @ 12:33PM

News that relates to my point: This Socialism versus Capitalism. On Fox News, video of student riots in the UK--why ? The raise of tuition. These are not spontaneous--but well organized. This will be in our future unless we have politcal leaders who ,"get it".
GWB in his current interviews does not get it. And I fear that the moderate crowd and RINOS for sure Do not get it. It will be necessary to be "on guard" for an indefinite period of time monitoring the behavior of every person voted in.
The kvetching between Republican groups is a distraction from this reality. The need to grasp what the choices and consequences of failure to act by defending against Socialists Marxist . Grid lock government is better than phoney compromises

CHRIS| 11.10.10 @ 1:01PM

It seems everyone is using Reagan as an example of compromising and doing business with the the democrats. But, there was never any question that Reagan was a conservative who believed in conservative principles. When he "worked" with the democrats and the russians, it was to advance his conservative agenda. He did not compromise on his principles.
However, can you truly say that McCain,Dole,Rove,Bush 1 and 2, Lindsay Graham and his ilk, are conservatives with conservative principles? McCain/Graham represent the type with no conservative principles who who "work" with the democrats for the sake of saying they can "cross party lines." McCain/Graham,etc. could switch parties (Jeffords, Specter,Chafee) and their principles would not change.
I agree that politics requires compromise, but not compromise on principles and goals. You compromise to get the best deal now so you can advance it next time. This is what democrats do all the time. But you never hear democrats boasting they can "cross party lines" like McCain.
And you will NEVER hear the media asking democrats if they will compromise and work with republicans.

simon templar| 11.10.10 @ 2:02PM

Excellent commentary...let me add that you will never hear a Connecticut republican columnist asking socialist and democrats if they will compromise.

marsha ross| 11.10.10 @ 4:23PM

So true. The liberals definition of compromise is: conservatives must give up all hope of reducing the budget, lowering taxes, cutting the pork and limiting government intrusion in our lives. Rino definition of compromise is: see above definition.
Never in the history of congress have Repubs ever 'won' by compromising. On another note, I agree with all who are disgusted by Dr. K, Rove, Noonan, Parker, Brookes, Frum and Lindsey/McCain,etc. These are just people who pretend too be conservative but are really trying to stay relevant and in charge/power by labeling themselves as conservatives. They are phonies.

Perusha| 11.10.10 @ 1:15PM

Concerning Sarah Palin’s voice:

The people who agree with her principles, but personally can’t stand the “high-pitched” or “screechy” sounds her voice box emits, due to her inherited genes, might learn from history.

George Washington was a terrible speaker, with a weak voice. There was another founding father I can’t recall who had the same “problem”.

However, America long ago DID cease to be a serious nation, at least since pretty boy JFK conned enough people into thinking he’d beat the 5 o’clock shadow Nixon, in the 1960 TV debate---which Nixon won, according to radio listeners.

There is something to be said, therefore, for the parliamentary form of government, because our system has, IMHO, ever since I turned 18 in 1960, only had failed presidents—Reagan excepted.

No doubt, given the childish, nay, infantile suck-the-teat-of mother government = others criterion most Americans use---like the sound of the voice!---what else can you expect?

The future beacons!

Ted R.| 11.10.10 @ 2:05PM

Lisa,

You should be able to recognize that the dogmatism and perpetual grievance-politics that you and Reagan (and Richard Hofstader) have noticed in the conservative movement, is something that is an essential expression of conservatism, part of its very DNA.

The zealots that you are concerned about, represent conservatism at its essence: conservatism, reaching back to its roots in European history, embodies a dogmatic, authoritarian, intolerant and unegalitarian worldview - in the final analysis, an undemocratic (small D) worldview. Conservatism, at its heart, is anti-pragmatic and has no conception of the loyal opposition. The actual violence that is always latent in the movement, roils under the surface of all the most vocal contributors to this site, for example. Negotiation is a vice for them, dominance (and obedience) a virtue.

Conservatives like Ford and McCain, who managed to avoid letting ideology get the better of their classical liberalism, will always be cast out of the movement for their "impurity." Real leftists might grumble about mainstream Democrats, but with them you never get the kind of pitchfork zeal that conservatives direct against their confreres. It is a difference that traces right back to the fundamental impulses of human nature. Conservatism appeals ultimately only to our own base instinct to command, to dominate. It is the reason why militarism has such a comfortable home in the movement; it is the reason why conservatives routinely question the legitimacy of their opponent's elections; it is why they are sanguine about torture; it is why they regard people of non-Christian faith or non-white ethnic background as suspect - going so far as to use these grounds to call for the reversal of Barack Obama's election (and you cannot, in good faith, say that that is a fringe point of view).

Though I don't expect you to admit it to yourself, Lisa, it is nonetheless true: Ideological dogmatism, intolerance, and the latent threat of actual violence, are at the core of the conservative worldview - they have characterized it through the ages. I find it sad that you've thrown in your lot with them.

Simon Templar| 11.10.10 @ 2:21PM

Ted the Red,
Engaging in a little left wing projection, historical revisionism, and slander..its getting really too old and tiring. I especially loved the line, "Ideological dogmatism, intolerance, and the latent threat of actual violence, are at the core of the conservative worldview." LOL. You just described the left wing movements of the past century! Latent threat of violence..that was hilarious. Are you talking to yourself in the mirror again?

Ted R.| 11.10.10 @ 2:39PM

Hits a little too close to home, doesn't it? Truth has a way of doing that. Have Leftitsts in the past succumbed to authoritarianism? Sure they have. But it is not - and never was - part of the real Liberal DNA; and it is why we rejected it. Look up your history. The British Labor Party was not a Communist movement; nor was the New Deal. Wherever democratic institutions have been strong, Liberals have upheld the open civil society and some form of free market.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have the original patent on dogmatism - even when you try to gloss it over with all the flag-waving and apple pie. Note the many examples I brought out in my post, above. I love all the Constitution-clutchers who blithely ignore the 8th Amendment, for example. Nah, acccusing the Liberals of illiberal hypocrisy just goes to show drunk you've got on your own Kool-Aid.

Simon Templar| 11.10.10 @ 3:16PM

Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Golberg..read it and report back to us...otherwise go away..skip over to the Huffington Post. Your not worth spitting on and wasting the spittle. You have no interest in truth, facts, or honest debate...your a socialist..it is in your DNA. Larry below has much more patience and eloquence in responding to your load of crap..these days I am just getting too tired to exercise any more restraint with self deluded liars and 'useful idiots'...to borrow a phrase from one of your leaders.

Chris| 11.10.10 @ 6:14PM

Ted,
you must be kidding. today's liberals are dogmatic, authoritarian busybodies who want to rule every aspect of our lives, from the amount of water in a toilet bowl and shower head to whether we can buy a happy meal. this type of "thinking" is the basis for strong central governments that run our lives, and it is only a short step to the communist governments in the last century that killed over one hundred million people. they all want to remake us in the image they prefer.
To give you the benefit of the doubt, you may be thinking of the classical liberals who advocated small, limited power governments. those classical liberals do not exist in the democrat party. they are now today's conservatives.

Yosemeti Sam| 11.11.10 @ 7:08AM

Red, White and Blue Americans 'ignoring' the 8th Amendment?

AS in protection against cruel and unusual punishment?

HAH!

L-OO-K around at Society and the EVIL perks criminals and perverts enjoy and then wax more on and on and on - on who's getting the shaft nowadays from the 8th Amendment.

Larry| 11.10.10 @ 2:43PM

Ted, if you actually believe what you've written then I'm assuming you must be an acolyte of the Left. Only an unquestioning drone who has been fed a steady diet of absurdity and lies could possibly assert your position with a straight, unblushing face.

You've regurgitated the infamous lies, bigotry and hatred the Left has become famous for. Original thoughts though are in short supply on that side of the isle. The ground is rushing up fast now and it seems that all modern liberals can offer is the same convoluted, self-contradictory, on-their-face-silly and tired old lies. How truly, truly sad.

For the last century the Left has authored the worst human rights abuses ever recorded in human history ... with more than 100,000,000 dead and countless millions more suffering under its cruel tyranny. Yet after so much destruction we hear nothing of an apology, nothing in the way of repentance ... only the foolish insistence that everyone else has gotten it wrong.

Well we've learned one valuable lesson in all this and it goes to the heart of this discussion. The Left never goes away. First it must be beaten ... absolutely and utterly triumphed over ... half measures simply will not do. When it is conquered though, it doesn't die ... it merely slinks away ... shrinking into the shadows ... where is gathers strength and waits for an opportunity to once again to destroy the hard fought gains of generations and impose its suffocating rule on another gullible generation.

Ted R.| 11.10.10 @ 3:30PM

Talk about needing to look in the Mirror. Talk about all the regurgitated lines - like contemporary liberals being responsible for past authoritarian regimes. That old chestnut is truly one of the Right's favorite lies.

Contemporary liberalism grew, organically, directly, from classical liberalism. At its ideological extremes, it issued not in totalitarianism but anarchism and Marxism. Marx, after all, was not a Communist - he disavowed Communism, and insisted that the State would "wither away." He was naive, sure, but no authoritarian.

Twentieth-century authoritarianism - either in its right-wing or left-wing incarnation - has its roots in the ancient impulse of human beings to try to dominate one another. This is the impulse that liberalism, either classical or contemporary, has always resisted. Where did Twentieth-century authoritarianism have its roots, Mr. Templar? Not in liberalism, since countries with strong liberal foundations resisted it. Instead, totalitarianism was an atavistic form of ancient authoritarian, traditionalist, hierarchical - namely, CONSERVATIVE - worldviews.

That's right. There was nothing liberal about Soviet Communism. Russia was an autocratic, agrarian-based empire; the Russians revolutionaries simply reverted to the only form political economy they knew; they just dressed it up in radical liberal language. And they killed people in its name; but Western liberals aren't to be blamed for that. Fascism, on the other hand, more obviously had its roots in a traditional conservative Reaction to Liberalism (both classical and contemporary). And I do detect more than a whiff of fascist rhetoric, when I hear you conservatives today complain about your "enemies," whether it be "the enemy within" or "sick" and "diseased" liberals.

Of course all this is too subtle for the likes of you. Too much nuance. Too much historical fact. You prefer your ideological bedtime stories - so I leave you to them. Sweet Dreams.

Margie| 11.10.10 @ 3:52PM

I sure am getting the scent of good old Liberal reader aka Nate returning once again as Ted R.

Heh, won't take long to find out once we start pinning him and he starts the cursing... we'll see.

Larry| 11.10.10 @ 3:54PM

Well done Ted ... you're playing perfectly (predictably?) to type. Modern liberalsim does find its roots in Marx and, reaching back a bit further, to Plato.

There you go, transposing, again. The Left, in all its iterations, Marxism, Fascism, Socialism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism (whew ... the names change so frequently in order to elude their past) are all statist ... all seek to impose their enlightened rule over the Great Unwashed.

Funny (but not surprising) that you should suggest that Conservatives are authoritarian, given that authoritarianism is antithetical to Conservative thought but not merely at home with Leftist thought and practice but, indeed, its very essence.

How difficult it must be to wander through life with your mind and eyes closed ... even when you bump smack dab into the truth ... you can't see it or appreciate it.

Fortunately there are far more thinking people than not ... and so the great change is now underway. Awakened from their slumber by the clumsy efforts of the Left they now return to demand a voice at the table ... a table they built.

JP| 11.10.10 @ 4:21PM

TedR,

You came close but, overall you missed a very big point. I think we should clairify some definitions. Old School Conservatvism, in the European sense, has its roots in the monarchy, it deep devotion to God, the aristocracy, and the Landed Gentry. American Conservativism, on the other hand, has its roots in Classical Liberalism (with an emphasis on Liberty and not necessairily Equality), property rights, and Federalism. While American Conservativism pays tribute to the Greeks and Roman ideals, it sets itself apart from idealism (at least the European variety). There is no Utopia, nor is there a Walden to set our sights on. Essientially, American Conservatives are classical Hobbesians (life is Mean, Nasty, Brutish, and Short). From this core belief, American Conservatives have a distrust of "Centralized Governments". They rightfully realize that a Centralized Government is a necessairy evil. But, they also believe Government over time becomes its own interest group. Conservatives are not starry eyed in that they put much faith in the good of Man. And they certainly realize that evil looks in the heart of even the best of intentions.

Modern Progressives, Fascists, and Liberals get thier beliefs from a variety of sources. And despite, the infamy of European Fascism, most of the world's Progressive ideas came out of the US and various Protestant confessions. East Coast Mainline Protestantism, by the late 19th Century was in many ways the impetous for many of the worst ideas. Income Equality via federal income taxes, forced artificial contraception, the idea of government as a higher way of life (which evolved into the Politics of Meaning), as well as Prohibition, and expansive government involvement in regulating banks and finance (the Federal Reserve), and even social hygeine (euthanasia) all had thier biggest supporters here in the US. The huge expansiion of federal control over so many facet of our lives is anything but Conservative. You are right, Liberalism in 1790 would be considered Right Wing today. A far better word is Progressivism.

marsha ross| 11.10.10 @ 4:29PM

Strange how people like me who just want to live my life in freedom and liberty are somehow dogmatic and intolerant and want to do violence to others. Projection they name is liberalism.
Actually, it is often the radicals who are the violent prone. They want to take what others work for and control our lives. Who said liberalism is a mental illness? I am beginning to think he is on to something or else liberals are just plain nasty people.

Simon Templar| 11.10.10 @ 2:08PM

This is what a century of compromise and cooptation from our great wise leaders have brought us...taken from NewsMax story...

Trump counts himself a staunch supporter of free trade. “But we don’t have free trade with China. It will literally destroy this country if we don’t get smart quickly. They’ll do it with a smile, and our people will have no idea what’s happening.” That’s why “I’d love to have a trade war with China,” Trump says. “If we do no business with China, we’ll save a lot of money. We’re losing a fortune to China.” Of course, he fails to mention that with China standing as the largest foreign holders of Treasury securities and a huge source of cheap imports, we would likely suffer as much as the Chinese from a trade war.

Wonderful world..is it not?

JP| 11.10.10 @ 3:39PM

The jury is still out on the Teaparty. The midterms were a mixed bag. Since the majority of the House pickups occured in districts that McCain won in 2008, it isn't too had to figure out that the GOP would have picked up at least 25 seats. The Senate was less pleaseant. Angle and Miller were disappointing. No one gave McDonnell a chance, no need to expound there. But she did prevent another RINO from occupying that seat. Rubio would have won without the Teaparty; ditto for Johnson in Wisconsin. Only Paul's victory could be attributed to the Teaparty's involvement. At the state level, the teaparty had a huge impact. No one saw the tsunami coming. The GOP now runs the majority of this nations' state houses and governorships. Next year, those legislators will be redrawing congressional districts.

On the brightside, not one political party in the last 100 years has had such an immediate impact on the political scene. The Teaparty has no national organization, no leader, and no money. Yet, in sheer terms of influence it scares the daylights out of Establishment Republicans, Bluedogs, and the MSM. Yes, it has a large number of relgious conservative; but it also contains libertarians, liberals, and moderates. I know pundits like George Will bemoan the lack of civic virtue in this nation; but, the Teaparty represents a return of an involved and engaged electorate( of course, the bedwetters in the MSM now worry that the electorate is too engaged). There is not one group of people outside of the ivory towers that knows thier Constitution, thier Federalist Papers, and thier history.

Let us hope it isn't too late.

wodiej| 11.10.10 @ 4:33PM

I truly hope you all are the minority and not the majority who assesses candidates by their voice or other personal characteristics or we are doomed in 2012. You sound like you have an issue w women in general more so than with Palin.

PCP Smoker| 11.10.10 @ 7:37PM

I never figured you for a blabber mouth for the likes of McConnel. Defending Peggy "Barack just gave me an orgasm" Noonan in these pages?
Fuck you Lisa.
Fuck you, fuck Mike Castle, David Brooks and any asshole wishing to maintain the status quo

Lesser Weevil| 11.10.10 @ 9:11PM

"But these men can take it to the opposition when it counts; as they did back in 2003 when they staged an all-night protest on the blocking of President Bush's judicial nominees."

Oh, yes, that's *exactly* the kind of bold, decisive action that we need now. Imagine the terror of the Senate Democrats when they realized that our side had the all-night protest and was willing to use it. It sure let them know who they were dealing with. And the results showed it.

Tea Rex| 11.12.10 @ 12:14AM

"Now, I'm no fan of RINOs or their enablers, but this kind of invective calls to mind not the free and open exchange of views that made our movement great, but a kind of Madame Defarge mob mentality: off with their heads!"=quote

Yea, that deranged mentality was on full display as Rove tore into one of ours on Fox for all to see prior to the election. No chastisement from Ms. Fabrizio was forthcoming in that incident, but, to be fair, perhaps she wasn't watching that day. Or maybe like our friends on the left side of the isle, she is somewhat selective in her outrage when it comes to mob like tactics.

Jack in the Midwest| 11.12.10 @ 9:54AM

Without Sarah Palin on the ticket McCain would have been lucky to get 40% of the vote. Dozens more represnatives would have been lost. The Senate turover was almost impossible this year because more Republicans were running than Democrats. Without the Tea Party The Republicans would never have come close anywhere. Look at the governorships and state legislature. Rove and his gang give us people like Kirk, Spector, E. Dole, Castle etc. Who needs these people?

Adult toys| 7.4.11 @ 3:43AM

three drunk friends made a bet whoever can make their wives scream the longest during sex win 1000.next day when they met.
　　first guy:I made love to my wife 2.5hours and she screaming for 1.5hours;
　　second guy:I licked my wife for 2hours and she was screaming whole time and even 1/2hour after I was done;
　　third guy:that’s nothing,I made love to my wife 10mins and I came twice,wipe my dick on the curtain and my wife still screming at me up to now!