The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : How to Destroy the GOP

Text Size

How to Destroy the GOP

By Robert Stacy McCain on 11.14.08 @ 10:34AM

Christine Todd Whitman, who pretty much destroyed what was left of the Republican Party in New Jersey, now wants the national GOP to follow suit. Notice that this kind of advice from these kind of people is the only "conservative" advice you're going to get in the pages of the Washington Post, New York Times, etc.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey has a more thorough fisking of Whitman, in case you want it. I don't consider her worth the time to refute in detail. Conservatives have recognized her as a bad joke for at least 15 years (which kind of explains why she so easily got a job in the Bush administration, I guess).

View all comments (20) | Leave a comment

james23| 11.14.08 @ 10:44AM

Another RINO--oops, Reformer--checks in. Why does the wing of the party that keeps getting its butt kicked, that is now practically extinct, keep calling on the rest of us to be more like them?

Thomas| 11.14.08 @ 11:13AM

Don't sweat it. I consider myself a Conservative and as such will vote for the candidate who expresses my views. I would vote Republican, if the Republican Party would field a candidate who even bothered to pay lip service to the Party's platform [which is distinctly conservative]. I, and most other Conservatives, will not vote for liberals, no matter what party they belong to. I voted against Obama, but there were still many Conservatives that could bring themselves to vote for John McCain. So, should the Republican Party collapse tomorrow, conservatives will still be conservatives. The ball is in the Republicans court. If they want to have a viable political party in two years. THEY had better get on the stick and change things. For Conservatives are the decedents of the original revolutionaries. All they need is the right stimulus to prove it.

Alenda Lux| 11.14.08 @ 11:47AM

I get so tired of this argument. Social issues (abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, etc) never came up during the election. It was a non-issue. Social cons still like to have someone who holds their values, but even these ignorant rubes knew enough that the economy was the most important issue this year. I argue against the "Dump the social cons" or "Dump the RINOs" arguments here:

http://alendalux.blogspot.com/2008/11/cats-and-dogs-living-together.html

Thomas| 11.14.08 @ 11:55AM

Alexa,

I too am becoming weary of this issue. But, you are mistaken, there is no argument. Let me try to make this crystal clear to you. Conservatives are conservatives first and Republican, Libertarians or any other party second. Conservatives have been asked to compromise their values for decades. Even when politicians, and that includes Republicans, run an a platform of Conservative principles, they end up betraying those principles.

So, one more time. The Republican Party can choose whatever leadership it likes. Conservatives will leave if they do not like it. If the Republican Party can win elections without the Conservative base, go ahead. We don't care anymore. Just decide what you want to quickly, so Conservatives have some time to find an organization that will support their interests. A political party serves its constituency, not the other way around.

Thomas| 11.14.08 @ 11:58AM

Alenda,
I apologize for mis-naming you in the previous post.

John| 11.14.08 @ 12:41PM

Wow what a loser. I wish there was a why to get her to join the Democrats. She came to Maine to Pump up the troops for McCain on the last weekend and no one showed up to see her. Shes old news and her and her cronies will distroy the Republican party. We need to get back to our roots not abandon them.

Agent Orange Peel| 11.14.08 @ 1:43PM

The RINO at the top of the ticket caused no real excitement among the Republican party or the general electorate this year. but rather it was the social conservative on the bottom of the ticket
On July 13 before Sarah Palin arrived The RCP National Average of polls was Obama 46.4 McCain 42.6

On July 27 with still no Sarah Palin on the scene it was even worse for the RINO as the RCP National Average of polls was Obama 46.7 McCain 41.7 and the RCP electoral count with no toss ups included was Obama 322 McCain 216.

On Sept 14, fifteen days after the selection of the social conservative, Sarah Palin, as McCain's running mate it was a different story for the RINO as the RCP National Average of polls was now McCain 47.4 Obama 45.3 and the RCP electoral count with no toss ups included was Obama/Biden 273 McCain/Palin 265.

It was the social conservative not the RINO that gave the Republican party a chance to win this year in spite of the all the strong head winds blowing in the face of the party. Liberals understood that truth and that is why the demonization of Sarah Palin became the name of the game among Liberals, and the Liberal Media.
Too bad that demonization also included such notable "conservatives" as Peggy Noonan, David Frum, and David Brooks.

Alenda Lux| 11.14.08 @ 1:51PM

Look, I don't want to kick Whitman out of the party. There's a place for her in the party too. She instituted a 30% cut in income taxes (with the help of her friend Steve Forbes), rolled back sales tax increases imposed by her Democratic predecessor, supports expanded use of nuclear energy, etc.

The point is, just as I wish conservatives would drop this "RINO" nonsense, I also wish she and the other social liberals in the party would end the talk about dumping the social cons. Ed Morissey has it right over at Hot Air: "Dismemberment doesn’t bring strength. It almost always creates a corpse."

Agent Orange Peel| 11.14.08 @ 2:03PM

Linda Lux, I agree with you and Ed Morissey but sometimes conservative writers find the term "RINO" useful to gain the ears of Republicans who think certain other Republicans are traitors and who use the term "RINO" to denote them.

Kim| 11.14.08 @ 2:36PM

I strongly suggest educating the voting public of the political history of the Left and Right. Liberals are not 'liberal'. Conservatives are not 'conservative'. What must be done? A quick refresher in Adam Smith, the French Revolution, the works of Marx, the Bolshevik Revolution and the fall of Communism and the Berlin Wall would be a good start.

Thomas| 11.14.08 @ 3:29PM

Kim,

Interesting teaser there. Would would you expound on it, please?

Agent Orange Peel| 11.14.08 @ 4:28PM

There must be something in the "water" over here at The American Spectator. I see I made the same mistake as Thomas.

So, Alenda,

I also apologize for mis-naming you in my previous post.

Bob| 11.14.08 @ 4:38PM

Agent Orange -- You and others misread the polls and analyze in your own image rather than look for the correct analysis. If you remember the primaries, about 30% of Hillary Democrats said they would never vote for Obama. When Palin was introduced, she was able to garner the X-chromosomal vote. IT WAS NOT BECAUSE SHE WAS A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE, IT WAS BECAUSE SHE HAD BODY PARTS DIFFERENT THAN YOURS!!!! Then when she opened her mouth and nonsense emerged and people realized that she was a social conservative, those Hillary voters came back to the Democrats.

You guys really need to learn how to do analysis...

Agent Orange Peel| 11.14.08 @ 6:03PM

Bob, where do you suggest we begin to look for "the correct analysis"? I certainly hope it it not you for your's is the poorest analysis that I come across so far today in my internet readings.

Thomas| 11.14.08 @ 7:19PM

Orange Peel,

Bob has a point. I would much rather have had to watch public addresses from Palin than McCain. Other than that, Bob's only used a percentage once in this analysis. On the other hand, it is possible use Bob's analysis in a negative manner. If your enemies spend all of their time trying to destroy a single person, then that person must represent a singular threat to them.

ruth| 11.14.08 @ 10:41PM

Jerk! And you know who I'm talking about.

Bob| 11.15.08 @ 7:30PM

Orange, please tell me you can think for yourself. Palin's first interview with Gibson was on September 11th and if you go to the RCP average, you'll see that's when McCain declined quickly.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Then McCain took another big fall at the Couric interview on September 25th.

It is clear that the fall was due to those two interviews like I indicated in my analysis. If you take a look at the polls prior to her pick, you'd see the Hillary vote that didn't immediately go to Obama. There is absolutely no evidence that her social conservative views TEMPORARILY attracted the women's vote. Why? Because if it were her views, the women would have stayed with her. No, it was that after they saw her in an unprepared arena, she took a nosedive.

I'd suggest listening less to the Fox and Friends idiots and do some analysis on your own.

Agent Orange Peel| 11.16.08 @ 4:36PM

Bob your,"There is absolutely no evidence that her social conservative views TEMPORARILY attracted the women's vote."

re: I didn't state in my 12:43 PM that Sarah Palin's
"socical social conservative views TEMPORARILY attracted the women's vote."(which further proves my 5:03 PM about you)

To continue my analysis started in my 12:43 PM:
On Sept 21, the RCP National Average of polls was Obama 47.6 McCain 45.4 and the RCP electoral count with no toss ups included was Obama/Biden 273 McCain/Palin 265.

href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/election_
2008/presidential_elections_no_toss_ups-9-28-2008.html">On Sept 28, the RCP National Average of polls wasObama 47.9 McCain 43.1 and the RCP electoral count with no toss ups included was Obama/Biden 301 McCain/Palin 237. (To see this paragraph and the preceding one in context, see my 12:43 PM)

What happened between Sep. 14th and Sept. 28th that sent McCain/Palin sinking from their September 14th high? The #1 answer to my question is in principle:

href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/business/16paul
son.html?scp=5&sq=Sept+16+th+2008&st=nyt"> Sept 15, 2008 "Wall St. in Worst Loss Since ’01 Despite Reassurances by Bush"

href="http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/17
/on-the-financial-crisis-its-not-just-weak-oversight/?s
cp=1-b&sq=Sept+17th++2008+american+economic+crisis&st=n
yt"> September 17, 2008 "On the Financial
Crisis:"...

href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/business/19fed.
html?scp=1&sq=Sept+19th++2008+american+economic+crisis&
st=nyt">September 18, 2008

Agent Orange Peel| 11.16.08 @ 4:53PM

Now why didn't that 3:36 PM post come out right?

The first three paragraphs came out right, but the rest didn't and some paragraphs didn't even show up. The paragraphs beyond the first three in spite of what you see on the printed page were coded the same as the first three paragraphs.

Maybe God was sending me a message: Don't try to reason with Bob for he is a hopeless Obama sock puppet case.