The American Spectator : Ruminations of a Reaganite

Text Size

Ruminations of a Reaganite

By Jeffrey Lord on 12.4.12 @ 6:11AM

Craig Shirley, Reagan biographer, businessman, author, ponders the state of the GOP.

(Page 5 of 5)

But what will surely raise some eyebrows is this ex-Reagan aide’s blunt and perceptive take on the problems the GOP faces in the wake of the Romney defeat.

Whoever is the next Republican National Committee Chair would decidedly be doing the party a favor by paying attention.

Or there will be a long time before the GOP has another Rendezvous With Destiny.

Page: ‹ First < 3 45

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (109) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 7:45AM

Another guy who thinks the GOP will find salvation if only they do things "his way". There is certainly so shortage of egos on the conservative side these days. His positions on social issues are far too libertarian for social conservatives who have displayed a nasty habit of sitting home on Election Day if they don't get their way.

TLP| 12.4.12 @ 8:02AM

Exactly.

Please feel free to join us at The Contest on Fridays.

We could use a GobBluthe like you.

We used to have one, but he left.

gracielamiramontes| 12.5.12 @ 9:45AM

Katherine. I see what you mean... Thelma`s c0mment is impressive... last thursday I got a top of the range Toyota after having made $8593 this - five weeks past and just a little over $10k this past-munth. with-out any doubt it's the easiest job I've had. I started this 4 months ago and straight away earned more than $75, p/h. I went to
this web-site..WWW.youtube.qr.net/jOUs/watch?v=9xOf6Pe0ETk

Quartermaster| 12.4.12 @ 12:26PM

The GOP has always been a leftis, statist party. The GOP is just a reorganized Whig party which wanted to ignore the constitution and engaged in an illegal war of conquest of the south. Reagan was an abberation, not a return to any mythical conservative roots.

The GOP got where it is with the help of the SoCons. Many of us started staying home simply because the GOP didn't even recognize what we wanted, telling us to go away, until they wanted our votes.

The basic problem of the country is immorality. You might not like that evaluation, but that's too bad. John Adams said that the contitution is adequate for teh governance of only a moral and religious people. The current milieu is proving just how right he was.

So diss us as much as you like. We'll laugh at you as you rage against something you refuse to control, all the while blaming us for your impotence.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 1:05PM

I hope most socons aren't supporters of the confederacy. Most social conservatives of the 1850s favored abolition.

Dobbs| 12.5.12 @ 7:43PM

I agree. Opening the door to civil unions is the incrementalism the homosexual agenda has used to move toward the destruction of marriage. Shirley is way too soft on too many things to be taken seriously by conservatives.

pogybait| 12.4.12 @ 7:51AM

Santayana's dictum that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.... can certainly be supported by Republican examples, which is why nobody takes them seriously.

Von Mises Jr| 12.4.12 @ 8:09AM

Santayana also stated "If it has happened before, it will happen again."
So the message is be nice to Barry since we are all gentlemen. In the meantime, Barry lied again to get past an election only to throw down the gauntlet and renege on all the negotiation to this point now doubling down on tax increases and negating all cuts. Sound like a damn Prince as he manipulates the MSM (that are composed of really nice guys like Matthews and Todd) blaming the Republicans for a financial collapse.

I usually like Jeffrey Lord's columns although they are verbose, but the last two columns totally suck.
While Boehner (pronounced boner) did his insider trading with Pelosi and Kerry, and Chris Christie tweaks his Agenda21 Executive Order with the Sierra Club, we are supposed to simply fine tune our messaging. Boehner (pronounced boner) is a tall, tan Arlen Specter and Christie is a fat Charlie Crist. And for this, we should send big donations to the GOP.
Boehner (pronounced boner) just kicked the Tea Party Congressmen out of powerful Committees: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G.....committees
My message to the GOP will be the same as before: "Get off my phone, you jerk."

Al Adab| 12.4.12 @ 10:45AM

Whether the GOp ever again enjoys success, as it did under a Conservative majority, is one issue. The other is whether electoral success demands that a party stand for nothing but bread and circuses or whether the first priority of American government remains the Liberty of the citizens.

It is that idea, the liberty of the people, which gave birth to the Conservative Movement which chose the GOP as its vehicle. That movement exists within or without the GOP notwithstanding efforts by GOP leaders to squelch it.

If the GOP wishes to find itself in constant minority status, it need only follow the advise of the left in defining itself as better managers of the welfare state. If it wishes to lead again, then it needs to recover its spine, stand on principle and explain that Liberty, not materialism, is the defining right of citizens.

CrackerHound| 12.4.12 @ 11:12AM

This is why the time for a third party is at hand. It is taking too long (and this election was a huge set back) to turn the GOP into a conservative party.

A third party gives us the opportunity to start fresh with ALL conservatives and shutting the door on RINOs. The only problem is that many RINO's like to pretend to be conservative only to betray us in the end.

We need more than just conservatives. Just as important is to be articulate and intelligent. I mean Akin was a conservative but he was also a doofus who had a big part in Romney's defeat.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 1:08PM

What makes you think a third party would remain pure? If conservatives keep getting out manouvered by moderates, what makes you think the Conservative party wouldn't get left in the dust?

CrackerHound| 12.4.12 @ 1:31PM

I don't think it would remain 100% pure, but it would surely beat the liberal GOP we have now. Democrats are ideologically pure far left, which is why they are successful. A middle of the road guy (moderate) doesn't stand a chance as a Democrat. A moderates true home is with the GOP...the party of squish and no principles.

No, what we need is a true liberal versus conservative fight. No grey areas, just a straight up battle for the future of America. Then conservatism wins. But it will take a third party to represent conservatism because it looks as if the GOP will never be conservative again....especially when they take the election results and look at it as a mandate to be MORE liberal.

CJW| 12.4.12 @ 11:44AM

Shirlely proposes that the state governments not issue marriage licenses because this is a violation of the First Amendment, and instead issue contracts or civil union certificates, which would be enforceable in all states. Thus you get a contract in NY and it is binding on the rest of the 57 states.

The end result is nobody gets a marriage certificate from the state and anyone can get a civil union certificate. The civil union can be two, three, whatever, depending on the state you get it in. And this guy, Shirley, is supposed to be a Reaganite that we should pay attention to?

Next, he proposes a blue ribbon commission to investigate the Republican Party fundraising. This is a brilliant idea that the Dems wished they proposed. Sounds like Shirley did not get a cut of the pie from the Romney campaign.

Another idea is to have local boards decide the immigration status of illegals. This is basically amnesty.

Why should we listen to Shirley?

pogybait| 12.4.12 @ 3:52PM

At this time we should have one big funeral and bury the existing Republican party as we know it, as they have turned their arrogance into self indulgence.

JmsA| 12.4.12 @ 6:15PM

Whereas Santayana once posited: "In Greece wise men speak and fools decide"; for the most part, as recent and not so recent events have demonstrated, in America foolish men speak, and bigger fools decide.

Tom of the Missouri| 12.4.12 @ 8:00PM

Excellent post!

TLP| 12.4.12 @ 8:00AM

Yawwwwwwn. Is that right? Or, is it Yaaaaaawn? Cause I hate it when people use: Zzzzzzz.

ANOTHER Story discussing What went wrong last Month, with a guy with a Boy's first name, and a Girl's last name. (I know that having your First and Last names both be First Names, is supposed to be Lucky. Maybe this means that he Sits down to pee?)

"What should Republicans do when confronted with Liberal @sshole Types on CNN and MSNBC?"

"That's easy, Jeff. They should tell a Joke. Interact with their Uber Liberal Host. Maybe, slide their hand down the front of their pants. Chris Mathews is actually a really good guy, once you've had your hand down his pants."

I have another idea. How about this: STOP GOING ON THESE SHOWS!

"We need a Blue Ribbon Commission to look at ourselves. The Republican Party appears to many to be a Racket, with no Organizing Philosophy except bashing Obama for the cynical purpose of Raising Money."

Really? Which Republicans is he talking about? Has ANYONE seen the kind of Republican that he's referring to? Cause I haven't. And when did Raising Money for a Campaign become "Cynical"?

What I'm taking away from this Column, is that this guy lost touch with You and Me, a long time ago.

We don't need any Commissions, save One.

And, that would be the Commission on Self Term Limiting our People, through a Rules Commision. DeGaulle knew all about these Indispensable Men: "The Cemetaries are full of them."

Indeed.

Time to Clean House, and Senate.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 8:10AM

I'll point out CA has terms limits on all elected state officials while TX doesn't.

TLP| 12.4.12 @ 3:20PM

I'm talking about FEDERAL.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 5:39PM

Well if it hasnt worked in CA what makes you think it would work at the federal level. Term Limits are what Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "Boob Bait for the Bubbas"

Von Mises Jr| 12.4.12 @ 8:13AM

"Surely you jest? Don't call me Shirley!" (Airplane 1980).

I don't know if this works for this week’s contest, but I am making an early submittal anyway.

R Martin| 12.4.12 @ 9:02AM

This is like early voting--ban it!

Albert Constantine Jr.| 12.4.12 @ 9:36AM

Well, we had KJ's absentee apearance from Japan this week, it is no surprise that early voting has started.

Next, there will be a move to suppress Mike 3/505's military entry. Before you know it, we will have people from the Daily Kos sneaking across the border to make an entry.

I'm thinking we need a photo ID requirement, and since TLP keeps soliciting Tina B for the bikini photo, apparently so does he.

TLP| 12.4.12 @ 10:18AM

I agree.

I'm gonna need pictures of both of ya, in a Bikini.

Alan Brooks already sent one in. Which is strange, seeing as how I'm just starting this policy, now.

R Martin| 12.4.12 @ 11:17AM

If there actually were to be a Tuesday contest, AC'c would be a worthy entry.

TLP| 12.4.12 @ 10:14AM

Speaking of that.

Can someone please explain how Early Voting is CONSTITUTIONAL?

The Constitution is very explicit on which day we go to the Polls. It COMMANDS US to go on the First Tuesday, after the First Monday of November. I don't recall anywhere that it says (unless you wanna vote When You Want To.)

I'll wait.

And tell V.M. that he's wasting his talents on a Tuesday. He needs to Get his mind right (Cool Hand Luke) and schlub his way over to Our Place on Friday, like all the other schlubs.

Von Mises Jr| 12.4.12 @ 10:51AM

I figured that if I vote early on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday like the progressives do, I can reserve Friday afternoon for micro brews. Friday is for chugging, not schlubbing.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 12.4.12 @ 11:05AM

Some prefer to make their first entries in the a.m., before the bar opens, then read the others after happy hour. I do find everything funnier in the evening.

Drunken Sailor| 12.4.12 @ 11:30AM

I'll drink to that.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 12.4.12 @ 11:54AM

You're a natural, Doc.

Drunken Sailor| 12.4.12 @ 2:51PM

Damnit Jim, I'm a doctor not a miracle worker.

TLP| 12.4.12 @ 2:46PM

Seeing as how The Contest is Open til SATURDAY 7pm?

You can Chug, AND Schlub.

And, Albert's got it dead to rights.

The Entries get Prettier at Closing Time.

R Martin| 12.4.12 @ 2:49PM

I think he menas the entrants.

TLP| 12.4.12 @ 3:22PM

I think you menas: MEANS.

George S| 12.4.12 @ 12:38PM

It's buried back there between the right to suck out a baby's brain by drilling a hole through his skull and Congress' enumerated power to make you buy health insurance.

John Navratil| 12.4.12 @ 2:14PM

Article 1, Section 4: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators (amended by the 17th amendment).

Congress chose the Tuesday after the first Monday in November for practical reasons. The crops were in and the weather was likely reasonable for travel. It also allowed time for electors in the far flung states time to travel for their vote.

Church on Sunday, travel into town on Monday and vote on Tuesday.

The problem began with absentee balloting which used to the somewhat inconvenient and required a reason. Then some people asked why they couldn't vote absentee without a reason. It all sounds so reasonable.

It sure makes the "get out the vote" operations easier. You can use one van for several days instead of several vans on one and requires a lot less staff. Don't tell Eric Holder you have a problem with that ;)

TLP| 12.4.12 @ 2:49PM

Johnnie. Where have you gone?

The Contest is not the same without you.

Especially since Nick seems to be Dead.

John Navratil| 12.4.12 @ 3:19PM

TLP,

I've been reading, but have been completely snowed under. I'll try to make it this weekend.

TLP| 12.4.12 @ 3:23PM

Are you in Alaska?

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 8:17AM

Conservatives should one again value competence over ideology. Incompetent conservatives have hurt the movement tremendously.

Also some introspection on the Iraq War. It has damaged the GOP and the conservative movement. Without it, Obama never gets elected in 2008 and the GOP never suffers such large congressional losses in 2006-08.

C. Vernon Crisler | 12.4.12 @ 9:25AM

So you think country club Republicanism is the way to go? I thought we got all of that competence-over-ideology stuff with McCain and Romney.

Stkman| 12.4.12 @ 9:49AM

I feel it's time to dump the Republican party completely and start a third party. NOW is the time to do this so we can get true conservatives elected in 2014 and be ready for a presidential run in 2016.
We've tried working with the Grand Old Party and they've given us the Grand Old Finger. They've taken all the Tea Party elects of 2010 and removed them from all the committee's. Damnit, it's time we dumped them. How long does your wife have to screw the neighbor before you get a divorce? Third party NOW!

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 1:16PM

While a third party is possible , it certainly won't be ready for 2016. 2020 at the earliest and more likely it would take 10 years. That is how long it took the Canadian Conservatives to win after the implosion of the PCers. So 10 years of unopposed democrat reign must happen first. If you want to destroy the two party system and replace it with a multiparty system ( I believe the only way the right can win ) is by replacing the electoral college with a direct popular vote with no runoffs. This will result in both parties breaking up. Then conservatives can have a pure party and win with 35% of the vote.

John Navratil| 12.4.12 @ 1:30PM

GobBluthe,

A direct popular election will be decided by the liberal urban centers. That's where the campaigns will be and that's where the "get out the vote" efforts will be done. Rural issues will be meaningless. At least Iowa will be able to get back to farming. Wyoming will be irrelevant.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 2:00PM

You're assuming that the two party system stays intact. If the USA goes from a two party to multi party state , a conservative can win national direct elections. What is clear now is the GOP can't win the electoral college anymore.

John Navratil| 12.4.12 @ 3:30PM

GobBluthe,

Over half the world's population now lives in cities. I'm not sure what the percentage is in the U.S. Cities are naturally habitats for liberals as there is much more incentive for regulating all aspects of live when you are piled on top of one another. I would be a supporter of noise regulations should my neighbor like to blast a radio at 3AM. The next thing you know, my neighbor works the night shift and wants me to turn adapt to his requirements. What does it matter to a city dweller if the EPA wants to regulate farm dust? Why worry about fracking regulations in some place with no people in it? Too many cars in the city! We have to regulate parking and implement congestion pricing so that we can walk to our jobs. These concerns simply cannot and do not contemplate the concerns of the rural citizen.

Obama won 52% of the vote but got a much larger share of the electoral college. It magnifies close elections. Imagine 50 Florida's every four years. We are almost there now. The founders created this system precisely to magnify the voices of the less populous states.

In defeat, it's hard not to be defeatist. Your solution looks like Britain, Canada or Germany. It's not my cup of tea.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 5:42PM

Obama won 50.9%.

""In defeat, it's hard not to be defeatist. Your solution looks like Britain, Canada or Germany. It's not my cup of tea.""

None of those have direct popular vote. They all have parlimentary systems where the party with the most seats, forms the govt.

Also Obama won 50.9%. I'd also take Canada any day of the USA right now. You can have Obama, Ill take Harper.

John Navratil| 12.4.12 @ 8:35PM

GobBluthe,

Sorry about mistating the 50.9%. It was still a win. No horse-shoes or hand-grenades here.

Of course in parliamentary systems there are no such things as coalition governments either. When you have the left, centers and rights forming a coalition government you find the moderates with greater power because they can be the spoilers. How would that play out, today? Would anyone be pleased when the American Nazi party provided the swing seats?

Direct democracy is an invitation to schizophrenic government and tyranny. The founders knew this well. You might look to Egypt for an example where it can lead.

And what happens when Harper becomes another Trudeau?

Stkman| 12.4.12 @ 1:59PM

GobBluthe,
So what you're saying is we won WWII in less time than we could put a political party together? I'm not trying to put you down or anything, but we're Americans and we can do whatever the hell we set our minds to do once we get mad enough about something. Aren't you and everyone else here mad enough yet? I am, I'm damn mad! Both parties have betrayed us and we can put an end to the Republican party in 2-4 years. Real conservatives who beleive in the Constitution can unite the people of this country and do it quickly, IMHO. We just need to get going and do it!

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 2:02PM

We didn't win WW2. Those who won WW2 are dead dying or 85 years old.

Stkman| 12.4.12 @ 3:23PM

I meant "we" as American's. You might remember them, those couragous folks of the western hemisphere that have a "can do" attitude". You know, the same people that revolted against good ole King George.
Not only that, I'm a Texan and I don't beleive in giving up in the fight for right. Remeber the Alamo!

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 5:43PM

America is different today than it was just 30 years ago. No Man Dies in the Country in which He was Born

Tom of the Missouri| 12.4.12 @ 5:27PM

GobBluthe,

"...certainly won't be ready for 2016 or 2020..."

Oh really? History tells a story of a different possibility. I was not sure of the exact dates so I just googled the following which describes the time between the Republican party's founding and its winning the presidency:

"The .... Republican Party 's founding convention was on July 6, 1854 at Jackson, Michigan., In the fall of 1854 it elected 40 members to the U.S. House of Representatives (more if you count representatives co-nominated by the American and Republican parties). By the elections of 1856 it had gone from third party status to being the main rival of the Democrats."

In 1861 Republican Abraham Lincoln was inagurated as President. The rest as we say is history. I feel the stakes are just as great this time - the financial collapse and/or the complete socialization of our country and loss of our essential freedoms. I see no reason why it cannot happen again. It was the Tea Party that brought hundreds of thousands of peaceful law abiding citizens to the capital a few years ago. Can you imagine the Republican party doing that? With the right leader it can happen again. A good one just needs to step up and start the process. My checkbook is ready. I nominate Ted Cruz or Bobby Jindal. They are both super smart articulate conservatives with a habit of winning with their principles intact.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 5:51PM

you think federal elections are no more complicated or expensive than they were in 1860???? LOL. Dream on pal. Youre dream of a conservative party to replace the GOP can happen, but it will take years and will in the interm result in a Democrat party that has more power than it has had since the 1930s.

There are some problems however with your utopian outlook.

1. The Old Guard of the GOP will simply take over the new party. And why not? Conservatives have proven themselves so incompetent at purging the moderate from the GOP, that moderates could easily hijack the new party. Organization and process are something the right hates, but they are essential to creating a national party.

2. America is center left. A new conservative party wont have any more luck than the GOP. It will likely be regional in nature and thus not appealing to anyone outside the south or great plains.

There is already precedent for what youre proposing. It happened in Canada from 1993-2006. The Refrom Party destroyed the PCers but was unable to be a serious alternative to the Liberals. Only after the Reform was taken over by more pragmatic conservatives were they able to emerge from their regional west base and win. But it took 13 years.

Tom of the Missouri| 12.4.12 @ 7:24PM

I am sure Washington, Jefferson and Madison, et. al. felt the same way about their long shot utopian scheme, too, when they pledged their fortunes and lives and the safety of their families to their cause against the most powerful empire on earth, too. Ditto for the guys at the Alamo. Fortunately, this does not involve life and death - at lest not yet, but just our freedom from statist tyranny and a greatly diminished standard of living for our children. I am willing to give the idea of a simple party change a shot. With your lack of imagination I am sure you did not think the Republicans would take congress back either with the help of the tea party.
I would like to see also your figures on what a campaign cost in the mid 1800's vs one today adjusted for inflation. They also did not have the relatively free internet in those days or talk radio on their side, either. It seems to me that back then it was relatively expensive getting one's message across via railroads, horses and the telegraph. What is your plan? Surrender? It seems pretty clear we are headed for collapse by doing nothing.
Also, I am not sure who the "conservatives" that failed to be effective in the past that you refer to are. If you are referring to the Republican party establishment I certainly agree. I also think it is possible those patriots that wrote huge checks for the Romney effort like that casino guy Sheldon Adelson …

Tom of the Missouri| 12.4.12 @ 7:30PM

…. and others are now searching for some fresh articulate voices to support. We just need a leader like the ones I suggested to step forward to organize a convention to set up the party and receive the funding. I am not sure why you think the formation of a new party has to be open to everyone. It is still a free country with a right to assembly so I think it is possible to limit and screen the folks that write the initial party platform to keep out Axelrod's radicals from Chicago and the Republican Rhinos out. I am also sure the Rhino Republicans would not want to join either - after all they mostly joined no Tea Party events. I am sure they would laugh like they laughed at the Tea Party and its members and leaders. I am sure one could research how the early Republicans did it with the Whigs or even how the founders did it when they were writing the new constitution and signing the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. How did they keep the British loyalist out? I have no idea but I am sure it is doable. I thus think your objections are at best unimaginative and at worst ridiculous. To you Mr. GobBluthe I would close by saying to you, " If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"

Tom of the Missouri| 12.4.12 @ 7:57PM

And one more thing. In regard to your point 2, to wit: " It (a new party) will likely be regional in nature and thus not appealing to anyone outside the south or great plains."
If that is the case, so be it. I however think that given a choice between the socialist Obama Democrats and a new party, lets call it The Freedom Party, whose limited government platform is clearly articulated to them by someone that can do it like a Ted Cruz or a Bobby Jindal, I think they would get more support from all over the country than you can imagine.
People like yourselves mad the same tired arguments about the so called crazy actor from California both times he ran. I don't know you personally, but I have to guess the reason you can't imagine the appeal of conservative principles and the resultant prosperity and freedom that flow from them is because you don't believe it yourself or you don't believe the so called common people can understand them. A good example of the latter is how Romney wrote off the so called 47% as presumably too stupid to understand the appeal of his great business credentials let alone explaining conservative philosophy to them. Reagan of course appealed to people from all strata of society to the disbelief of Rhinos like yourself. They of course attributed it to his personality or to his "teflon" or other excuses. They were wrong then, they were wrong in the last election and as wrong as you are today.

Tom of the Missouri| 12.4.12 @ 7:57PM

We just need a leader that can explain it to the people and their votes will follow. Victory of course is never guaranteed but it certainly seems it is time to try a different approach.
And by the way, when you get me the figures on the cost of campaigns in 1850 versus today, also figure it on a per capita basis before you do the adjustment for inflation. I think that is the only way to make a fair comparison.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 8:22PM

""We just need a leader that can explain it to the people and their votes will follow""

How naive. The problem is simple. Too few Euro-Americans. Conservatism simply doesnt appeal to blacks or immigrants. Sorry it doesnt.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 8:25PM

$2b was spent on the most recent campaign . According to inflation calculator $2b in 2012 is equal to $75m in 1850. Do you think, Abe Lincoln spent that much on his campaign?

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 8:21PM

""lets call it The Freedom Party,""

Why not just call it "The Conservative Party"

""I don't know you personally, but I have to guess the reason you can't imagine the appeal of conservative principles and the resultant prosperity and freedom that flow from them is because you don't believe it yourself or you don't believe the so called common people can understand them.""

I am a conservative but I also believe that in this world bad wins out over good and the bad guys are winning right now. Socialism doesnt work, but that doesnt mean it cant survive for decades. Conservatism is dying and will die off. Not permanently, but for the next 25-75 years. But what you must understand is the USA is not permanent, the natural state of humanity is tyranny not freedom. The USA was an exception to that rule. What is happening in the USA today is a culmination of things that have been going on for 50 years. This has been a 50 year fight and the left is on the verge of a final victory over the right.

Hardcard| 12.4.12 @ 8:29AM

Me thinks I smell a wolf dressed up like gob.

Pecos Pete| 12.4.12 @ 9:05AM

Wow! Like, golly gee whiz. This Shirley dude wants to be nice to enemies of our Republic?

Corruption at the RNC is news? And, like, you know, we are supposed to ignore our knowledge that the RNC is part of the leadership of the pig farm.

Shirley is a rich guy and part of the Ruling Class.

nathan| 12.4.12 @ 9:23AM

Once again, Lord and Shirley worked for Reagan. I would ask them both and the rest of you this question: Tell me/us one just one please, one New Deal/Great Society program the greatest "conservative" of the 20th century rolled back/eliminated/meaningfully altered during his time in office. Carter created 3 cabinent positions during his tenure. How many of the newly created positions were eliminated during RR's 8 years? 0 What is destroying this country is entitlements. A far bigger threat than most anything external, probably even then given that the Soviet Union was falling apart internally and could not survive and would not survive no matter what we did, if we just sat back and watched. So again what did RR do to deal with the fundamental threat to this country, the entitlements, the New Deal/Great Society legacy he had been handed? Name one thing any of you. ONE

You can't. Lord and Shirley were part of that most wonderful of administrations. What did they do to get their boss to address the single most pressing problem that down the road was going to destroy this country? Is destroying it now? Yet here they are telling us how great he/they were. I'm not buying this stuff and neither should any of you.

nathan| 12.4.12 @ 9:35AM

And call me all the names you want. It won't change the facts here. Reagan like his mentor, WFB and National Review, so very much neocon (I know I read it much of my life) was externally, not domestically oriented. So they were more concerned about winning battles abroad, many that we had no business fighting in the first place, than dealing with domestic boring issues which weren't all that appealing to them. "Winning the Cold War" sounded much cooler than "Ending Medicare". And hangin' with Thatcher and Pope John Paul was just so much more fun than fighting horrible fights in congress to get rid of food stamps and other uncostitutional programs which he may not have even realized were unconstitutional. (That "benevolence" spending Madison talked about.) And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he even sign a gun control bill? And go to Iceland prepared to agree to getting rid of ALL weapons?

At the end of the day he never focused on the most serious issue before us paving the way for ACA. Rolling back the New Deal/Great Society would have made passage of ACA difficult if not impossible. And don't tell he couldn't do it. If not him then who?

Stkman| 12.4.12 @ 9:52AM

I can tell you who Natahn. Obama. That's right Obama. Not only is he going to end all social programs, he's going to end every program when he totally bankrupts the country. He's not a Democrat, he's a destroyer. He's out to destroy this country and the Republicans appear content to let him do it.

JD| 12.4.12 @ 4:00PM

Nathan,

I understand your frustration, and I do not argue that Reagan was perfect. However, do you believe he COULD have done as you desired? I don't think so.

No politician (not even Obama) gets everything he wants. Reagan got more than anyone else in memory, from the conservative perspective. He is revered for that. No one said he was perfect.

Truth is, if we could get what Reagan got again today, it'd be far better than I expect we'll actually do. But you're absolutely correct in saying that the goals of the modern Right often seem left of the historical Left. It's a testament to how far left we've moved, even as Leftists dishonestly claim we're moving right.

N8tivTxn| 12.4.12 @ 10:05AM

Craig Shirley's "ruminations" on immigration were as vague as those of any politician I've ever heard, but Lord tells us, Craig pulled no punches in our conversation???

Of course, the real task of the Feds, BORDER ENFORCEMENT is now conveniently dropped from the GOP list of talking points, if you'll notice.

Are we sure Shirley isn't planning on running for elected office in the future?

Louis Jenkins| 12.4.12 @ 10:39AM

Going on the Chris Matthews show? I may be out of my league, but that's about the most ridiculous comment I've heard here lately. Beard the lion? Shake the snake? Grin down a grizzly bear? That would be far better!! Matthews is a loon. You can reason with a bear, just don't try telling a joke or some story, as long as you realize he's hungry, and keep some running room between you and the bear.

Occam's Tool| 12.4.12 @ 11:45AM

Bash our enemies (where DID those WMDs in Syria come from, eh?).

Keep other spending low, and reform entitlements.

Cut tax rates down to Reagan level and make them permanent to encourage the economy.

That is all that needs be done.

Drunken Sailor| 12.4.12 @ 12:33PM

You mean the media isn't telling us where Syria got it's WMD's? I am shocked to say the least.

When Assad uses them I wonder if anyone will report the shells have Iraqi manufacturer markings on them.

Surely not. Oh wait just a minute.

In 2006, former Iraqi general, Georges Sada, who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book detailing how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria, before the US-led action to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s WMD threat, by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

As reported in the New York Sun on January 26, 2006:

“‘There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,’ Mr. Sada said. ‘I am confident they were taken over.’”

“Mr. Sada’s comments come just more than a month after Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam ‘transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.’

That can't be right. Our fearless journalist would have been all over that wouldn't they?

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 10:32PM

For most of Reagan's reign, the top rate was 50%. In 1986, it was lowered to 28%.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 1:24PM

I am sick of antiintellectual candidates on the right. Akin, Mourdock, Angle, ODonnell, Buck. Until the GOP accepts aborition in the case of rape and can say without fear from the base that the earth is 4-5 billion years old, it will lose. Canadian and Australian conservatives have no issues with abortion and evolution and if you've noticed both countries are rated higher on the Index of Economic Freefom than is the good ole USA.

Stkman| 12.4.12 @ 3:25PM

I have to agree with GobBluthe on that one.

JD| 12.4.12 @ 3:54PM

Accepting abortion only in cases of rape is the least defensible of all positions.

The only reason to outlaw abortion is that it kills a person. If you don't believe it kills a person, then you shouldn't outlaw it in any case. If you believe it kills a person, then you should outlaw it in every case.

To oppose abortion except in rape cases is to say "I believe it's murder, but I think it's ok to murder sometimes". Or "I don't think it's murder, but I want to ban it anyway to inconvenience women." Neither is defensible.

The pain caused by having a child due to rape is the rapist's crime. Period.

Stkman| 12.4.12 @ 4:23PM

I'm not saying I except abortion. What I'm saying is we are never going to win that argument, never. Everyone knows it's wrong including those women that have them. What I am saying is maybe we should leave it between a woman and God. Maybe we should take a different approach altogether, such as teaching our men to be responsible. Maybe doing something like that may help us win for of the female vote.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 5:57PM

""Accepting abortion only in cases of rape is the least defensible of all positions.""

It is the position of 85% of all Americans. You purists might be right in principal, but the average low information voter doesnt agree with you. In fact they vehemently disagree with you. So much so that Senate candidates with such a position can lose by 5 and 13 points respectively in states Romney carried by 10. What you purists dont get is that your position will result in you losing everything. There will be no outlawing of Abortion in cases of rape. There can be outlawing of partial and late term abortion, but only if the purists dont send us over the cliff. So the question is do you want to outlaw late term abortion, because abortion in cases of rape will NEVER be outlawed. Its up to you.

Dobbs| 12.5.12 @ 7:39PM

Being in the majority has nothing to do with being right. And "purists" push no one off a cliff and into the moral abyss, where the Democrats preside.

Doctor Right| 12.4.12 @ 4:36PM

It's not that simple.

First of all, rape is not always easy to prove. Therefore, you have to trust the woman claiming to have been raped to allow the abortion to proceed.

Second, whenever you draw a line in the sand, the Left always finds a way to bend it. To that end, they'll attach rape to the health of the mother - first, the physical health, then the mental health - and claim an exemption.

Finally, allowing for abortion in the case of rape is inconsistent with the Pro-Life position. Either life is sacred, or it's not. A baby that results from rape did not ask to be conceived. Additionally, they didn't ask to be killed, either.

Here's a better idea:

HARSH treatment for convicted rapists, including surgical castration AND (for multiple violations) the death penalty.

Maybe that would deter the bastards.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 6:03PM

Your post is mental masturbation. Abortion will never be outlawed in all 50 states or at the federal level. The best the pro-lifers can hope for is overturning Roe and send the issue back to the states where it belongs. Most states wont outlaw abortion. Anything pushing beyond the overturning of Roe is fantasy and a waste of time.

AKraver| 12.4.12 @ 10:29PM

those who excuse murder are murderers... like you

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 10:31PM

And youre a loser. A utopian one at that.

Doctor Right| 12.4.12 @ 4:37PM

How do you now the earth is 4-5 billion years old?

Seriously...how???

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 5:59PM

Science class. Now you show me where the earth is 10,000 years old and man walked with Dinos.

I guess you havent lost enough. Perhaps when you have 15 senate seats and 45 House seats youll be happy.

AKraver| 12.4.12 @ 7:42PM

screw you. The age of the earth is not a political question and you and other morons like you are accepting the premise the Libs want you to accept.

If I'd been Rubio I'd have told that reporter:

"go to hell. I'm trying to help manage this country and you stick me with off-topic questions. Instead of worrying about what happened thousand millions or billions of years ago why don't you pull your head out of your ass and worry about what's going to happen when you're buddy Obama wipes out the middle class. Or what happened on Christmas eve 2009. Or what's going to happen in 2014. I live in the real world, so why not ask me some real world questions.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 10:30PM

And the media would have had a field day with you. Its a simple question, answer it. You think your idiotic answer would play well with swing voters??

AKraver| 12.5.12 @ 8:55AM

See, GobBluthe is a typical example of the horrorshow that is public school education.

Not only a troll, but an uninformed troll.

If GobBluthe had had decent teachers (or had an iota of interest in self-education) he'd have learned that the evidence supporting evolution is heavily dependent on subjective "connecting of the dots" by Scientists who already believe in Evolution. He'd have learned that there is a vast VAST body of data which destroys evolutionary theory, but which has been censured and buried by the Mainstream scientific community and Mainstream media.

If GobBluthe had had honest education, he'd understand the concept of "irreduceable complexity" the difference between faith and knowledge. But he didn't, so now we have to put up with him.

It occurs to me: The only way someone could believe evolution is if they think like a Liberal: Control the information, bully those who don't agree with you, pick the facts to support your preconceived notions, don't even attempt to make logically valid arguments, engage in ad hominem attacks.

PolishKnight| 12.4.12 @ 2:22PM

News flash: Reaganism is dead and so is limited Constitutionalism. Heck, it died back with Lincoln when the Union and ending slavery (via forced military service of Irishmen) became an overriding mandate.

Reaching out to Hispanics and gays will not win elections. Half hearted attempts to limit immigration and stop gay marriage in a few states won't win elections either. The right needs to defend their primary electorate (whites and/or men) with the same enthusiasm they show when sending American troops to Iraq or Afghanistan to protect the rights of local warlords. This will increase their voter turnout as well as dismantle the biggest entitlement in the democrat playbook.

But do keep trying guys. In the meantime, gay marriage moves forward and abortion remains legal anyway. Hopefully the rich will be taxed too!

JD| 12.4.12 @ 3:55PM

You're a very dishonest person.

PolishKnight| 12.4.12 @ 4:59PM

You might want to accuse me of not respecting the basic conservative/tea party platform, but it's not dishonesty. Perhaps cynicism. Cynicism is the opposite of dishonest. It's actually harsh honesty to the point of pessimism. But even then, there's empowerment in seeing a situation with what it is and moving forward with an action plan and I provided one.

If Romney had gone on the offensive with an agenda to address civil rights for whites and/or males then it's possible he might have won the election. He certainly already lost. However, trying to "reach out" to Hispanics wouldn't have won. McCain already showed that.

None of that is dishonest.

Doctor Right| 12.4.12 @ 4:31PM

I can tell you the state of the GOP in one word:

Shit.

Case closed.

Tom of the Missouri| 12.4.12 @ 4:58PM

Mr. Lord,

You often do the Lord's work in trying to stop the destruction of the country by supporting conservatives and conservative principles for which I am truly grateful however shirley ;-) you are not serious about this Shirley guy. Mr. Shirley thinks the problem with the last election is that all Republicans wanted to do was bash Obama. The way I remember it is that all establishment or Rhino Republican's wanted to do was bash conservatives while creating and reinforcing the false narrative that Obama was just a misguided nice guy. Some examples of bashed conservatives include Gingrich, Perry, Akin and Murdoch. I personally think it is too late for the Republican party and I for one am finished supporting Rhino Republicans and even semi-Rhinos like Shirley. If it is obvious they don't see the problem or only do so marginally what is the point. The best result we have had in the last half century was electing or even nominating one conservative to the presidency which was preceded and followed by a bunch of big government statist Rhinos. I wish someone would credibly show me with some how this result is is going to improve in the future in a time frame where there is a chance of making a difference.

Tom of the Missouri| 12.4.12 @ 5:00PM

continued...... It truly is time to get radical with real conservatives. If that means a new conservative party (where a purge won't be necessary) or a peaceful secession movement I am not sure, but I think one of those choices is our only hope to ever restore our freedom in my or my child's lifetime. I am tired of tolerating inarticulate leftist statist Republicans and am ready to get on with a new freedom movement with a leader that can truthfully articulate all of its principles. I would rather lose fighting the good fight than ever "win" again by just slowing down the certain destruction. Time has run out on the latter option since I strongly feel the destruction will now be coming soon anyway. We also already have some great potential leaders in the likes of Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Mark Rubio and others. The Republican establishment now controls the HOR and is in the process as a write this of excluding and marginalizing the conservatives in its ranks. During the election that Rence Prebius guy publicly promised to financially support the conservative Michele Bachman and then failed to give her a penny. Bachman and her likes are of course is greatly responsible for the Republicans even having control of the house. That is what we are getting for our support of their party and their Rhino candidate Mitt Romeny. .......

Tom of the Missouri| 12.4.12 @ 5:02PM

...... Again, please show me that realistic strategy of reforming the Republican party in a time frame where it would have snow ball's chance in hell of making a difference in my and my child's lifetimes, else I am moving on to support an alternative strategy.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 6:10PM

The problem with stating a new party of reforming the GOP is that conservatism is in the minority. Oh I know there are polls saying the plurality are conservative or most oppose Obamacare and want smaller govt, but the only poll that matters in election day. And the right lost. The USA is a center left country with a large right wing, but not large enough to win anymore. Conservatism doesnt appeal to most women, hispanics, immigrants, the young, at least not for now. When the money runs out it might. When the Dems can no longer purchase votes or those groups have to pay "their fair share" conservatism might have a rebirth. But make no mistake, the Permanent Democratic Majority is very very real. Since 1992 the GOP has won only 1/6 elections in the popular vote.

AKraver| 12.4.12 @ 7:34PM

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Someone save us from the Psuedo-conservative Reaganites!! For all that pure and sacred, Reagan was NOT a conservative. He was a progressive with Good Sense, morals, and decency.

One reason we hate liberalism is because it is a horrid philosophy. The other reason is that many Liberals are childish, insecure, illogical, immoral, two-faced nasty bastards. But republicans line up to kiss the arses of ANY liberals who don't behave like immoral children.

Reagan was moral and decent. He had character. But he quadrupled the size of the Federal Government. Exploded the national debt. Used US troops without the authorization of Congress (per the strictures of the Constitution). Spent like a drunken sailor.

Why can't conservatives get that!!?!?? Reagan was not a conservative. His words WERE fresh and invigorating after a decade of mealy-mouth phonies, and his words represented good old fashion common sense.

But he was still a progressive.

Tom of the Missouri| 12.4.12 @ 8:33PM

Mr. or Ms. AKraver,

I am not sure weather you are a Liberal troll or just a disgruntled loser Rhino, but I certainly know you know nothing about Reagan and possibly don't even know the meaning of the word Progressive, unless of course you are one just posing as a conservative.

As a little lesson on Reagan I suggest you start by watchng this: http://youtu.be/qXBswFfh6AY

Regarding your budget talk Reagan's spending, which of course was and is dwarfed by that later done by GW Bush and Obama, mostly involved rebuilding the greatly neglected military. Many of us think that while expensive was necessary and that it paid great dividends with the end of the Soviet Union, etc., His policy and tax changes also created massive increases in government revenue from the massive increase in employment and prosperity that his changes brought forth.

He also made actual real cuts as opposed to cuts in growth of some discretionary spending and tried to do a lot more including attempts to shut down entire cabinet departments like Education. I am not sure exactly what was Progressive about that.

Was he perfect? No. Was he a Messiah to us conservatives like Obama is to some? No. Was he the best example of a conservative that was ever elected in my lifetime? Yes. If you are a troll why don't you have some decency and go away?

Tom of the Missouri| 12.4.12 @ 8:50PM

One last thing AKraver,

I suppose you could also be a Libertarian or Ron Paulite dreaming of the perfect small government society. If you are 19 years old and just read Ayn Rand for the first time I smile, forgive you and recommend you maybe next read Edmund Burkes's take on the French Revolution, a little Fredrich Hayek or even Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments. After that you might begin to understand the difference between a conservative and a libertarian.

If you are a grown mature person I guess I just have to pray for you.

God Bless

AKraver| 12.4.12 @ 10:04PM

I am a conservative who despises the amorality and individual-worship preached by Ayn Rand. I am a follower of austrian economics. And I believe that one of the most instructive documents available to us in the current crisis is Common Sense, by Thomas Paine.

I just look at the Constitutional description of the Legal role of the President and Reagan doesn't match up too well. Most every speech I've heard by Reagan was most excellent. Too bad he didn't follow through with action.

It doesn't help conservatism to revise history.
Most of Reagan's spending was domestic and overall he used the government as if he liked Big Government. After all, he quadrupled the size of it. The Constitution says that the responsibility to used armed force lies with Congress, not a president. The people's representatives should be the ones sending our kids into danger, and if they vote for a declaration of War then I'll be 100% behind it. But when Republicans use Reagan as the touchstone for conservatism you do our ideology disservice---and we end up nominating/electing idiots like Romney, Ryan, Rubio, Boehner, McConnel and so on. (Don't forget Justice John Roberts!)

So no, you most incourteous person, I'm not trolling. I just want people like Ron Johnson, Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Jim deMint, and yes, Ron Paul to run our country...

ya know, people with principles, whose word is matched with action.

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 10:28PM

When you say he quadrupled the size of govt, that isnt exactly correct. In real terms how much did Govt Spending as a % of GDP increase between 1981-89?

AKraver| 12.4.12 @ 10:06PM

and you talk up Hayek in defense of Reagan???

what a joke.

http://mises.org/freemarket_de.....ontrol=488

GobBluthe| 12.4.12 @ 11:08PM

What the left ultimately wants is to repeal the American Revolution. One day the majority of Americans will think the War of Independece was immoral and unjust.

Tom of the Missouri| 12.6.12 @ 12:11PM

AKraver and GobBluthe,

In my closing thoughts on our little argument you might be surprised to know that I agree with both of you on many of your libertarian points. I agree that the Austrians have the best ideas on economic systems. I agree on the long run historical state of nature of man which I think Hobbes best expressed as in most cases ""solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Where we disagree is well expressed though in the following two quotes from a couple of gents that did a great deal to contribute the the success of the first couple of hundred years of the successful American experiment in self government:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

In short your apparent suggested solutions as best I can comprehend them are to dismiss moral issues, like for example silently accept millions of abortions per year, and focus solely on economic issues or alternatively stand by and accept the inevitable societal and economic collapse. My thesis is that your ideas alone simply won't work and are the quickest route to a new dark age of a Hobbesian like existence.

Dobbs| 12.5.12 @ 5:16PM

I'm still reading the interview, but one early quote by Craig struck me:

"Eric Hoffer once said all great causes evolved into businesses and eventually descend into a racket."

The same can be said for the Tea Party. The movement that soared in 2009-2010, resulting in the GOP conquest of the House, has now devolved down to "Freedom Works" and an $8 million golden parachute for Dick Armey.

How disappointing is that!

Dobbs| 12.5.12 @ 7:26PM

If there is indeed corruption within the RNC, let it be uncovered and weeded out. Let's first clean up our own house before we clean up the White House.

A major point was not addressed in the column: the incompatibility of conservatives and non-conservatives in the party. People dedicated to upholding the sanctity of human life as their political starting point will never be compatible with those Republicans who don't care a wit about human life. Big Tents only break down into schisms within the tent.

Here in Arizona, the conservatives are in the majority. Yet the mushy mods control the state party machine and trash conservatives. Yet the mods in control spout off as "Reagan Conservatives." It's not only a problem here either. It's a major problem dividing the party.

Dobbs| 12.5.12 @ 7:48PM

Don't know if I'd care to hear what Shirley has to say about what Boehner and his cronies did this week when they purged the finance committee of the conservatives who would have strongly fought the president on the Obama Fiscal Cliff.

What Boehner and Cantor did reminds me of the scene in Braveheart where the men of Scotland showed up to fight the British for their freedom. Only to see the nobleman turn and ride away, having been bought off with land give-aways by the king of England. We're seeing the same thing again today in the U.S. House of Representatives, and it is a shameful sight.

charles hoffman| 12.5.12 @ 8:13PM

Contrary to the author, it's not just "process" that's destroying the GOP; it's their perverse chase for the most outlandish positions in every ideological battle

Even with the venerated Bob Dole on the Senate floor, most Rep Senators voted down the Disabilities Treaty which had been negotiated by GW Bush and was supported by every Vets group and even by the American Chamber of Commerce

That's sick - and it's not process; it's just sick

charles hoffman| 12.5.12 @ 8:13PM

Contrary to the author, it's not just "process" that's destroying the GOP; it's their perverse chase for the most outlandish positions in every ideological battle

That's sick - and it's not process; it's just sick

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|40 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|83 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|32 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 5.24.13

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online