The American Spectator

james23| 11.19.08 @ 12:04PM

shorter post: "Kathleen Parker is absolutely nuts." The fury of a woman scorned....

William R| 11.19.08 @ 12:17PM

The GOP went down in flames over the war in Iraq. Young people flocked to Ron Paul and no one is more of a social conservative than the congressman from Texas. To be blunt, the Neocons ie Weekly Standard crowd took the party over the cliff. National Greatness Conservatism.

Bob| 11.19.08 @ 12:38PM

Klein, here's where your logic fails. McCain knew he had to appease the social conservative base. That's why he specifically went after endorsements from people like Pastor Hagee. That's one of the reasons his strategy concentrated on "character" rather than the economy -- which was a mistake. If he had concentrated on the economy, and didn't have to cater to the social conservatives, he would have picked Romney as a running mate -- the only candidate who understood macro and micro-economics.

Were there other factors at play? Certainly, but polling indicates that Palin was the biggest drag on the ticket followed by Bush. By picking Palin, because of the social conservatives, he lost the benefit he should have gained from moderates and independents. Furthermore, he alienated more libertarian oriented Republicans who have strong fiscal conservative roots but are socially moderate/liberal.

In addition to that, the pick of Palin and her "real American" comments alienated many of the 80% of the electorate that lives in cities including the young, Hispanics, and African-Americans. Now I don't know, and either do you, whether he could have made up the 7 percentage point difference by paying less attention to social conservatives, but all of the evidence shows that it would have been closer.

Crusader| 11.19.08 @ 12:52PM

Pavlov's dog strikes again.

How to explain the fact that after Palin but before the generated economic "crisis" McCain was leading Obama? Isn't that the opposite of "drag?"

Bob have you ever lived in a city? My birth city (Philadelphia) went 83-17 for Obama. If you don't think the fact that a) Phila is majority black and b) Obama is black and c) Blacks vote overwhelmingly dem anyway (90-10 for Gore, 88-11 for Kerry) were the factors here you are ignoring reality (understood this is daily ops for libs, but just wanted to point it out anyway). To put another way if you think the "Raheems" and "Takeeshas" in North Philly and other big cities voted Obama because Palin said something about "real Americans" to a group of people in the midwest you are, well, stupid.

Speaking of, when are "conservative" pundits going to call it like it is? Heard too many times that with the election of Obama that "racism is dead" in America. Really? When 95+% of Blacks vote for a guy simply because he is (half) black, that's racism folks. You can all be "proud" that America elected a (half) black guy president but would you be proud if Farrakhan or Sharpton were elected?

What's the difference then?

linda| 11.19.08 @ 12:58PM

Kathleen Parker has gone over the edge. Does anyone really care that she voted for Obama? No. She has become a whiny, snotty soul who just can't get over herself and her "big brave stance" against those horrible Christianists. Bah!
Move over, Sullivan! Kathleen is vying for your spot.

David| 11.19.08 @ 1:00PM

As a conservative Republican, I was prepared to vote for McCain despite his many moderate positions on social issues. At first, I thought Palin would unify Republicans and win over many of the Hillary women. She was very convincing at the convention. But being an American first and a Republican second, I---and scores and scores 0f my Republican friends and associates---switched to Obama/Biden. There is not a single justification for having Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency, and even over turning Roe V Wade would not have been just cause to have such an incompetent in Washington. Moreover, surveys show she lost over 80% of the Hillary women who were ready to pull the lever for McCain...that is until they heard Palin speak unscripted. Please, don't anyone out there take her side...please...I already know your agenda...or your ignorance.

William R| 11.19.08 @ 1:06PM

Obama got fewer votes in Ohio than John Kerry. The enthusiasm for McCain just wasn't there and voters just just saw more of the same. Amnesty for illegals and endless war in the Middle East. Recipe for disaster. The Reagan coalition isn't dead even though Bush and the National Greatness Conservatives did their best to kill it.

Bob| 11.19.08 @ 1:14PM

Crusader, you really need to learn how to do analysis. Go to RCP and look at the polling trends. McCain certainly gained when he named Palin. At that point, Obama was losing almost 30% of the Hillary vote. McCain gained that Hillary/anti-Obama vote. However, you'll see the first drop occurred just after the Gibson interview. The second drop came after the Couric interview. After that, only about 3% of the Hillary voters continued to support McCain.

Those who claim this was all about the economy can't do analysis. The economic argument gave Obama a consistent lead over McCain almost from the beginning according to the polls.

You should stop listening to the social conservative apologists and start learning how to do analysis on your own.

Crusader| 11.19.08 @ 1:22PM

Bob, don't deflect this off on me. You said she was a drag, but she vaulted McCain into the lead in mid September. I was just pointing out your stupid definition of drag.

Way to work in social cons to your every post BTW.

Crusader| 11.19.08 @ 1:23PM

Welcome David, another lib troll like Bob masquerading as a conservative.

Jeanette| 11.19.08 @ 1:25PM

I see the Palin bashing is continuing and I think this only helps Sarah Palin.

Kathleen Parker is a traitor and is getting paid...remember she voted for Obama- a socialist. What conservative you know would embrace socialisim?

Palin is a threat to the Ol' Good of Boys" that still dominates the Beltway scene. Also Pawlenty, Romney and the rest are not true conservatives and will never be, they blow with the wind.

The Democrats won by the grassroots who are more Liberal then the Clintons. They went after Hillary Clinton using sexism but really because they felt she was a traitor to the progressive agenda and was too moderate.

Now, I see the Consevatives are falling into the trap of RINOs are right against their base and rebuilding their base after the horrible job George W. Bush did to kill the Republican Party.

The Democrats are scared of Palin because she can communicate the Conservative POV and support it with her actions, that most American still likes and admire. In other words ,she talks the talk and walks the walk, I actually listens to her while most other conservatives twist in the wind to conform to what they think we want to hear, instead of what they are.

Remember Romney's flip flops.

Sarah Palin is a threat to the Democrats dogma on the hold of the Women votes and they can't define her based on her records or actions...so they make things up or set her up...but she is a THREAT and they will try to destroy her before she gets too powerful.

All these attacks are doing is giving her "street cred" because why the attacks on someone so stupid and ill prepared?

Bob| 11.19.08 @ 1:36PM

Crusader, I showed you analytically why she was a drag. You just want to disregard the fact regarding the Hillary/anti-Obama vote.

Jeanette - we don't want the Republican party to go left, we want to maintain conservative principles and insure that we are not the party that enlarges government on social issues.

William R| 11.19.08 @ 1:40PM

My problem with Palin is that the Neocons might have already captured her. When she was first nominated all the stories about her being a Ron Paul Pat Buchanan Republican were all over the web. But now it appears Randy Scheunemann has got her attention. More disaster down the road.

Alenda Lux| 11.19.08 @ 1:57PM

I don't think McCain picked her b/c of her social conservatism alone. Sure, that was helpful, but there were a dozen other social conservatives out there who would not have been as controversial as Palin on the readiness issue.

Palin is a social conservative, but she has never governed as such. She's never brought up abortion, vetoed a bill denying same sex couples benefits given to other state employees and has said she would play no role in determining what schools taught, or forcing them to teach anything. That is hardly the record of someone looking to impose a theocracy on the country.

I think the campaign wanted to portray her more as the reformer, taking on a Republican governor, an Alaskan Republican Party chair, a Republican attorney general and a Republican governor. She also endorsed her Lt. Gov in his primary race against Don Young. She's reduced earmark requests and vetoed spending bills.

The campaign did not do a good job of building this narrative. They tried to claim her reform credentials by citing the plane sale and earmarks. But unlike John McCain's seemingly impossible record, she has requested earmarks (of course, even with McCain's record, very few people object to earmarks for necessary state infrastructure programs - it's the ones that go to stupid projects the government shouldnt be funding and they way they get passed that upsets people). Then, in the first weekend after she was announced, the media and liberal blogs succeeded in depicting her as a fire breathing radical (abortion, anti-contraception, book banning, creationist, abstinence only, etc) even though none of them were true except for her abortion position. Then they started criticizing her for only being the mayor of a small town, so in her convention speech she hit back on the small town stuff. This was a great speech, but they had her continue on giving a shorter version of the speech as her stump speech, which made people think she was a culture warrior, which then made everyone think her position on all those social issues had been depicted correctly. Through all this, the campaign never hit back and had her keep up with the small town stuff.

But that's different from social conservative issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. and with the exception of one pro-life speech, Palin never brought up these issues.

She actually had a strong record on policies from Alaska on which she could have run, including scrapping an agreement on the pipeline by her predecessor that had specifically been negotiated in favor of specific oil companies and oil service companies and replaced it with a newly negotiated deal in the state's interest. She could have talked about increasing competition in health care industry to keep prices down, or lowering tax rates on unemployment insurance, etc.

In other words, the campaign almost entirely mishandled and wasted its strongest asset...and she was still as popular as she was.

More here:

http://alendalux.blogspot.com/2008/10/in-defense-of-sarah-palin.html

Dan| 11.19.08 @ 2:01PM

William - she never supported Buchanan. She wore a button because a presidential candidate was visiting the town of which she was mayor.

Not only did she write an op-ed to the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman explaining that she didn't support Buchanan and why she was wearing the button, but she was also an Alaska co-chair for the Steve Forbes campaign that year.

Dan| 11.19.08 @ 2:14PM

I don't understand the hostility to Pawlenty. The guy is a conservative. Remember when the Minneapolis bridge collapsed and everyone blamed it on him (even though it was recently proved to have been structurally unsound from the start)? That's because they wanted to show perceived negative consequences of his tax cuts. He balanced a $4.3 billion deficit without raising taxes. He's argued for tougher immigration enforcement:

"Governor Pawlenty proposed tougher penalties for anyone creating, selling, or even holding fake identity documents. He proposed bigger fines for businesses hiring illegal immigrants.

The governor also wants to set up a team of 10 state immigration officers to crack down on ID crimes, human trafficking, drugs, and terrorism. And Pawlenty asked legislators to overrule laws in the state's two major cities that critics say provide safe haven to undocumented people.

In Minneapolis and St. Paul, police are not allowed to ask for someone's immigration documents, unless it directly relates to their investigation. A police officer on a routine traffic stop, for example, can't ask questions about the driver's citizenship.

Governor Pawlenty says such laws hinder police. "

He is also socially conservative, converting to evangelical Christianity. So what is the objection to this guy?

As for Romney, he may have moved right on abortion for the election, but that alone doesn't make him non conservative. These guys may have a policy or two you disagree with, but I think it's important to differentiate people like them from Kathleen Parker of the last 3 months who appears to have just gone bats**t crazy and turned into something of a media wh*re.

Bob| 11.19.08 @ 2:14PM

Alenda

1. You can't govern as a social conservative in Alaska and get elected. Alaska is one of the most libertarian states in the union.

2. Palin did not bring up social conservative issues because she was not allowed to speak on her own and the campaign new they needed to get the independent/moderate vote in order to win.

3. It's easy to have a reformist agenda when you are the only state that is flush with money from the oil industry. Now, with the recession, the lower price of oil, and the inability to buy votes by giving each of your taxpayers money, we'll see what she is really made of.

4. Palin's popularity in Alaska has dropped from 90% in the spring to 63% now. When she faces the problems above, my guess is that it will drop to below 50%.

Again, if you were to do an analysis of polling trends versus Palin events it would CLEARLY show she was a drag on the ticket.

David| 11.19.08 @ 2:16PM

" Sarah Palin has been the most popular governor in America and has twice the experience of Obama and Biden combined."

And we expected to secure the Hillary voters with that kind of ludicrous declaration?

W. James Antle III| 11.19.08 @ 2:38PM

"That's one of the reasons his strategy concentrated on 'character' rather than the economy -- which was a mistake."

Bob, I can tell you on good authority that they went with a biographical campaign because they thought they could win a biographical contrast with Obama while the issue environment didn't favor them. They were never going to run on the economy for reasons that had nothing to do with social conservatives.

Alenda Lux| 11.19.08 @ 2:49PM

Bob

1. Shouldn't the fact that she got elected governor of "one of the most libertarian states" in the country, defeating not just a much, much better funded sitting governor in the primary, but also crushing a popular former governor in the general election, you know, suggest something about her? But you know her better than Alaskans, right?

2. We heard for at least the last month that Palin was incapable of staying on message. So you're telling me in all that time, she never once went off message to talk about her alleged evil plot to turn America into a theocracy? She also never brought social issues up in the governor's election.

So let's review here. She didn't campaign on social issues in the Alaska governor's race. She's never brought up social issues as governor. She vetoed a bill that denied same sex benefits to state employees (despite the fact that 68% of Alaskans voted to ban same sex marriage) b/c the state Supreme Court had ruled in unconstitutional. She did not campaign on social issues during the presidential election. But you somehow have the inside scoop that she is a theocon just itching to impose her religion on the country? I'd ask you to explain, but I don't want to see you dig yourself any deeper of a hole

3. So how is it that, when the state was flush with oil money, just about the entire state government was corrupt? Seems to me its much easier to be corrupt than a reformer when the free money is flowing. Also, the Alaska Permanent Fund has been around since 1976, and has been paying dividends to the people of Alaska since 1983. It's hardly something Palin started. That said, simply working a budget with oil prices where they are will be difficult for the government. We'll see how she does.

4. As of last week, she had a 68% approval rating, still making her one of the most popular governors in the country. She lost some support because she was on the ticket opposite of The One, who the pro-Palin democrats in Alaska supported. A drop from an absurdly high rate of 87% is not difficult to explain. I agree how she handles the budget situation will further affect her approval ratings.

merlot| 11.19.08 @ 3:16PM

This is a call to arms, true Republicans! We must rally around Sarah Palin! The future of our country is at stake!!

William R| 11.19.08 @ 3:23PM

Well Dan, according to Pat, Palin and her Husband held a fundraiser for him back in 1996

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9rZkJfKoEU

Chris| 11.19.08 @ 3:32PM

I think you are missing the point. The GOP became very good at winning elections and then proved that the people they USED to win elections precluded them from effectively governing a nation of 300+ million people.

Now that Americans are not scared of their own shadows (no thanks to the drum beats of the right) they are looking past the fear and seeking someone, anyone, who seems like they might actually have a brain and the ability to apply critical thought (and elitist thing) to our problems.

So, Kathrine's point is valid in that you may be able to win an election with the no-nothing, anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-education religious right, but you will NEVER be able to govern effectively as long as you elect someone who has to legislate their issues or, worse yet, actually believes they are important to the functioning of this country.

And, since you had your shot for 12+ years and did nothing but drive this country into the ground, I don't think the majority of Americans are going to elect anyone who cannot think past their earmarked Bible.

Bordo| 11.19.08 @ 3:51PM

Ms. Parker is catching a lot of flak for stating the obvious. Conservativism in the U.S. has evolved into a movement defined by aggressive anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, and religious fundamentalism. It has made enemies of entire professions and classes of people. And Sarah Palin is the perfect image of this brand of rightwing thought. . .a pleasant but ultimately shallow and undereducated figure incapable of speaking in anything other than bumper sticker slogans.

An intellectually curious conservative movement is a boon to the nation, and I say that as a liberal. I believe Ms. Parker is arguing that the movement doesn't necessarily need to jettison its evangelical base, but that it should not be ruled solely by that segment unless the GOP wants to become a regional party based in the southeast. This means moving away from the b.s. of "God, guns and guts" and into the realm of real thought, real ideas, real solutions.

And for this she is pilloried?

OldCity| 11.19.08 @ 4:03PM

Alenda...Montogmery County, outside of Philadelphia has a larger and more diverse population than the entire state of Alaksa. And, to boot, they don't a have a Montgomery County secessionist party.

The point that I've seen many try to make is that Palin did not preserve the broad support she had at her nomination. Her failures were hers. She did not, no matter how hard anyone tries to rationalize, do well on TV. She showed her ignorance and her unpreparedness. Further, by telling rural (southern) Americans that they are "real America" axiomatically offends the vast majority of Americans who live in cities on either coast. We, now, are the real Americans and we are a culturally and religiously diverse group. We can be politically conservative and not agree with the social (read religious) conservatives who have perverted conservatism in myriad ways.

That, and, you know, she's a moron.

Bob| 11.19.08 @ 4:05PM

Alenda -- good point about her libertarian leanings. If she continues down that path, it will anger social conservatives, but in my book, will be a point in her favor. If you notice, I have tried (not always successfully) to stay away from her IQ and talk about her lack of knowledge. Until we see more of her, we don't know if she is smart or not. I did not say she veered off message -- I said that she was on message and that was the problem. She didn't seem to go off the reservation until the campaign ended. Her lack of intellectual curiosity regarding how our nation operates, however, is a big flaw that bothers me a great deal.

Antle -- you make a good point that they decided to use the character issue early. My point was that Palin fed into the character argument nicely, especially with social conservatives. I had a long argument with Quin off line regarding the lack of effectiveness for such a strategy and its effect of losing more votes than it would gain.

The big issue, IMO, is that hard core conservative principles, especially with social conservatives, goes against demographic trends and the growth of the minority populations. I don't believe the Reagan coalition approach will continue to work because those coalitions no longer add up to 51%. Obama was smart in this respect and pushed for an overarching narrative. Inherently, this type of narrative must remain broad. You put forth "principles" rather than "solutions". He was mocked for this approach, but it did work quite nicely.

Neither of the parties can claim the "moral highground" anymore. If social conservatives believe that to be the case, they will increasingly become less important.

I believe there are over-arching conservative principles (that lacks religion), that can appeal to a broad range of the population. However, the Pawlenty approach is flawed in that it is force fit in nature, i.e., the principle is backed into rather than a leading guideline. Jindal comes closer but his thoughts are still in their infancy.

The Republican party needs a holistic approach to ideology, not a cobbling together of panders to different coalitions. I'm sure most of the social conservatives would disagree with this because they like pandering more than any group I've seen. Dissing conservative pundits is just plain stupid as all parties need some intellectual thought.

I'm retired now, but I've spent my entire career developing new businesses for large companies.

Thomas| 11.19.08 @ 4:15PM

Excuse me, folks, but there is no way that Conservatives, social, fiscal or any other type caused the McCain loss to Barack Obama, except by possible not voting for McCain.

Bob makes a big point of how many alleged Hillary supporters didn't vote for McCain and blames this on Palin [who he repeatedly identifies as a social conservative only to say a social conservative can not get elected in "libertarian" Alaska, thereby identifying her as a libertarian], when there is no evidence that Hillary supporters would cross party lines and vote for McCain anyway.

Others have said that because Republicans have governed as social conservatives for the last twelve years, that voters turned away from the GOP. Yet, if you ask virtually any person who fits the description of a social conservative, they will look at you as though you have lost your mind? What conservative programs have been put into effect lately?

The Republican Party has spent the last twelve years trying to woo the moderates and independents in this country, at the expense of the conservatives, and have continually lost ground. When they run a truly conservative candidate, that candidate invariably wins. Most people, in this country, will vote for the most conservative person on the ballot, if he is not some kind of a moonbat. It is interesting to note that Barack Obama ran to the right of John McCain in the general election. It was only when he slipped up that it became apparent that some, if not all, of his positions on national issues were very liberal. John McCain ran as himself, a liberal moderate, and Barack Obama ran as a moderate, slightly right of McCain, and Obama was elected.

No, the Republican leadership got the candidate matchup that they wanted, a liberal moderate [McCain] vs. a true liberal [Obama] and when the moderate Dems didn't cross the party line and the Independents, who don't normally follow campaigns until the last month, didn't see any reason to vote for McCain. If the conservatives had a better turnout for the Republican ticket, it may have won. But a lot of them stayed home. Big mistake on the Republican leadership's part. Let's see if they compound it with more of the same strategy.

Bob| 11.19.08 @ 4:59PM

I think that our GOP will be irrelevant for a generation after our nomination of McCain and his pick of Palin as a running mate. Of course Bush didn't help either.

John Philip Green| 11.19.08 @ 5:07PM

I think she's right, actually.

The GOP lost for a variety or reasons, most of which you mentioned. But I think the "Republican perspective" on social issues is now too synonymous with that of evangelicals. For a national party to win broadly in our new demographic reality, it needs to be more flexible and accepting.

William R| 11.19.08 @ 5:09PM

Trying to blame Sarah Palin for the GOP disaster is absurd. Five years of war in Iraq and the stock market meltdown are responsible. Voters saw in McCain someone who wants to expand a war that the public has grown very tired of.

David| 11.19.08 @ 5:35PM

I think, when the dust clears, it was Palin. McCain, while not perfect, is honorable, experienced and would be a good leader...and leadership is key today. Had he picked Romney, he still would have gotten the evangelicals because at the end of the day, they would never vote for Obama ( sadly, even if Obama were an evangelical.) Romney would have provided insight and credibility on the economy. Palin sounded like a fool every time she spoke, with no strategy for domestic and world concerns ever put forth.

William R| 11.19.08 @ 5:35PM

Bob, with all due respect, it was minority voters responsible for Prop 8 passing in California. Whites by the smallest margin voted against it. 54 percent of Latinos and 70+ percent of Blacks voted for Prop 8. So lets stop the nonsense that social conservatives are responsible for the delcline of the GOP

Alenda Lux| 11.19.08 @ 6:09PM

All,

Broad generalizations and a false dichotomy fail to account for differences between "compassionate conservatives" like Bush, Huckabee, etc. and, for lack of a better term, "conservative conservatives." Many of the latter group have the highest ratings from fiscally conservative groups like Club for Growth and socially conservative groups like Right to Life (Coburn, DeMint, etc.). I'm not trying to argue its either or. I'm a social conservative but don't support Huckabee for president b/c I'm also fiscally conservative. I'm just saying, let's get the right kind of social/fiscal conservative. We don't have to throw off anyone who is socially conservative just to get to ensure any fiscal conservative we nominate doesn't also happen to have socially conservative views.

I agree Palin's poor interviews were her responsibility. I also don't think that's "her," so to speak, b/c You Tube has plenty of good interviews she's done on CNBC and C-SPAN on everything from health care to energy. I agree she'll have to do better next time, and I've said, continuing to do interviews with you in the kitchen in a dress cooking moose stew is not the way to do it. (Incidentally, she's only done that for national interviews, not local Alaska interviews, I don't know why since I think the kitchen interviews are a mistake). I have every confidence, given her pre-VP nominee interviews, that she will be able to redeem herself with a lot of people (obviously, not everyone - but potentially enough) in the next 4-8 years. Obviously, foreign policy will need the most work, not b/c she's dumb, but b/c like every governor, she doesn't do foreign policy beyond trade missions and fishery treaties.

My larger point here, however, was that she is not a fire breathing radical and has not governed as one. Is she personally socially conservative? Yes, but she's not even close to what people like to stereotype as "southern evangelicals" who supposedly want to turn the country into a theocracy. As Bob said, if she continues to govern like this (and I hope she does), she might win his support. I don't think she'll lose much social conservative support either. For one thing, they love her now. But more important, it's as much about (if not more so) not losing gains you made as it is repealing Roe v. Wade. Bush put as much as he could into supporting social cons with Born Alive, partial birth abortion ban, and Roberts and Alito. The fact that that's as far as he was even able to get, however, proves a point. Most social conservatives are actually quite pragmatic. If the economy is tanking, they're not going to rail on about abortion. That's what you saw this election - with the exception of one or two moderately funded 527s, social issues didn't come up other than the local west coast debate on Prop 8. I think 4% os voters said moral values was most important to them in voting this year. They may still be important to people (they are to me) but we do still know how to prioritize.

I also suspect if Obama is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, it will be too far even for the abortion moderates who don't support Obama's quite radical views on abortion. If that's the case, the people who were worried about the economy most this year, and who wonder whether social cons are drowning out the other voices in the party, will mostly be just as concerned, if not more so, with Obama's policies on these issues (removing funding for teen pregnancy crisis centers but funding abortions with taxpayer money and mandate abortion coverage in health care??). I suspect a lot of people will then see that Bush's policies (again, partial birth abortion ban, providing care for children that survive abortions, continuing the Hyde Amendment) were really not that unreasonable as far as compromise goes.

Thomas| 11.19.08 @ 6:44PM

This is a nice exercise in speculation, so I'll jump in.

The Republican party is in the midst of a metamorphosis. By the summer of '09, it will have desided which identity it favors, Conservative or liberal/moderate. If it chooses the latter, it will have no chance either in the midterm elections or the next Presidential. The Conservatives will either stay home or gravitate to a new party. Conservatives are conservatives first and party members second. We'll all just have to see which way it goes.

Those of you who are Republicans, remember this. The Party has taken the conservative wing for granted since 1994. Bush barely won against to very liberal Democrats and McCain lost against another very liberal Democrat. They have all but lost Congress and now face social changes that may precipitate extreme domestic and international changes. If the Party succeeds in totally alienating the conservatives, it will disappear.

ruth| 11.19.08 @ 7:28PM

Bob = David. Bob needed a little moral support.

Alenda Lux| 11.19.08 @ 7:41PM

Thomas,

Now that I've defended social cons against the criticism they're getting, let me defend the other side. But first we have to clarify terms here. When we say liberal/moderate, do we mean social liberal/moderates who are nevertheless fiscally conservative? Or do we mean social liberals who are also undisciplined on fiscal issues? If we mean the former, we mean people like Schwarzenegger and Whitman. If we mean the latter, we mean people like Lincoln Chaffee. I don't really have an interest in defending the Chaffee-ites, though I have no interest in expelling anyone from the party, I just don't see the party moving in that direction. I will defend the Arnolds and the Whitmans, even though Whitman is perfectly willing to kick me out of the party for being socially conservative. Whitman cut taxes by 30% in NJ (with the help of her friend Steve Forbes), supports nuclear power, etc. There's plenty of room in the party for her type of Republican, in my book.

While I will go to the mat for social conservatives, I nevertheless reject the argument of those in that wing (like I said previously, I don't think its all that big a section, but they are passionate and vocal) who think Bush ignored them. I'll repeat, we got the partial birth abortion ban, the ban on federal funding on embryonic stem cell research, the Born Alive Infant Protections Act, the support for the state referendums on same sex marriage, Roberts, Alito and now Bush is going to bat on protecting hospitals accepting any federal money from being required to provide abortions. There was little else Bush can do. He couldn't block private funding for embryonic stem cell research, he couldn't issue executive orders to ban abortion or same-sex marriage. Bush has actually done a lot for social conservatives, and I think people will realize this if Obama keeps his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

At the same time, for social moderates in the party, I really don't think that you can say what Bush did was extreme. I repeat that I think most social conservatives are pretty pragmatic people and recognize what Bush can do and what the limitations are on the president. Even these conservatives have gone the federalist route, taking on these issues at the state level. Sometimes their referendums pass, sometimes they don't, in which case they go back and try again to change minds.

I think conservatives are trying to fix (or discard) a relationship that fundamentally isn't really broken, and I think most people would realize that if they took a step back and looked at things more clearly.

Peter| 11.19.08 @ 9:17PM

Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Obama, Biden and McCain combined. Palin should have been on top of the ticket. USA will return to its Christian roots in 2012!

Jindal? Another muslim who claims to have converted to Christianity? No way!!

David| 11.19.08 @ 9:53PM

Peter, By your logic, the kids selling lemonade have more experience than most congressmen.
Be real. Palin's experience in Alaska doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Her inability to articulate any point of view on vital domestic and foreign issues illustrated her lack of curiousity, which is more telling than her lack of intelligence.
This Eliza Knowlittle was found out by 66 million Americans who slammed the door on her. Sarah Palin is the most repulsive, grotesque reactionary ever to seek high office. Not only did she lose the election...she was the biggest embarrassment in national politics since Quayle. Everyone knows it, but not everyone will admit it. I wonder why. And stop already with the false notion that she delivered a great speech on energy and special needs children. Do you you really think that nitwit crafted those speeches? How many excuses are you going to make about her inability to put two coherent sentences together every time she had to speek without a teleprompter. And why are you making those excuses anyway. What's the purpose in trying to put that incompetent back into the national spotlight? Do you really want to lose again in 2012? What's the goal here?

Alenda Lux| 11.19.08 @ 10:10PM

David,

We can disagree on Palin, but ignore Peter. Either he's a troll trying to make conservatives look like racists, or idiots, or both, or he's just simply a racist, or an idiot or both. Either way, ignore him, because he doesn't represent conservatives in general, or Sarah Palin fans more specifically.

David| 11.19.08 @ 10:26PM

You're right Alenda...sorry for the rant. And you and I do disagree on Palin. I must admit your piece on your blog was a valiant defense of her, but I think it was largely exaggerated. I say that because we tend to overlook, in my opinion, more viable candidates...including the likes of Ron Paul...because of the alluring star power of Palin.
I do not believe that she will emerge with substantially more substance in 2012. And why go through that effort ? And here's the thing...some white knight will come along ( a la Clinton in '92), someone relatively unknown, but articulate, well versed on the issues, a schmoozer who can make each divergent faction believe he stands for them...maybe good looking like Romney...since with Palin it was worth a few points...and then we'll be in the running.

Thomas| 11.19.08 @ 11:31PM

Alenda,

Thank you so much for "defending" conservatives. But, you do not understand them. Bush did, in fact preside over a Congress that did the things you mentioned. I would argue however, that he did not give us Alito, rather conservatives gave themselves Alito.

Now, lets talk turkey here. The federal government has increased dramatically under Bush, disregarding the military build up that took place after 9/11/2001. The borders have not been significantly strengthened. Illegal immigrants still roam unconcerned across this country. He gave us increased social programs, such as "No Child Left Behind". He attempted to push through one of the largest public health plans in history and even passed part of it. And on top of that, Bush proved unable to control his own party in Congress on a variety of other issues. Now he has sponsored the 1.2 trillion dollar mystery bailout. On Roe v. Wade, and make no mistake this is a central issue with most conservatives, Roberts was the one who stated that "Roe is settled as legal precedent". And most conservatives, who regard the abortion of a human fetus as murder, will never be satisfied as long as continues. In fact, the abolition of abortion has been part of the party platform since the Reagan administration, yet it is ignored.

Will Barack Obama make it worse? Of course. But please do not lecture conservatives about the few promises that the Republican party has kept in the last 30 years, we know. We no longer believe in the promises of the Party. If they can get along without the Conservative wing, fine. It isn't likely to make to much of a difference to the conservatives for the next few years anyway.

As for kicking you out of the Party, you can stay. Colin Powell can stay. Everyone can stay. The average conservative doesn't care. I'm not talking about self-styled Conservative leaders, I am speaking of the common people. We are just tired of being lied to, patronized and taken for granted. So, you all decide if you want to be the Party of the middle or the right; the Dems have the left sewed up already. Then let us know. We'll let you know if we'll be voting Republican in 2010.

If this sound harsh, It is because I am very weary of having to explain this to people who are obviously not conservatives and have them patronize me.

Goodnight and good luck.

Alenda Lux| 11.20.08 @ 12:19AM

Thomas,

Thank you for informing me that I am not a conservative. All of my Democrat and moderate Republican friends will probably disagree with you strongly, but fortunately you can set them straight b/c you read a comment I wrote on a blog. Pat yourself on the back for that one.

The party of Reagan was a party of conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. Even if he himself was a conservative Republican, how do you think he got the rest of the gang to stick with him? By calling them RINOs and yelling at them? I want to see a conservative Republican become president. That means a social conservative, a fiscal conservative and a foreign policy conservative. Which is why I would support a Jindal or a Palin or a Paul Ryan or a Jim DeMint. But for the person who runs for House or Senate in CT or CA or VT? I'm ok if they're tax cutters who don't feel the same way about me on abortion. Or social conservatives who aren't sure about a tax cut. Or a foreign policy hawk who wants to beat the terrorists but doesn't share my view on embryonic stem cell research.

Which is why I would have gladly taken Lieberman into the Republican Caucus if the Dems had kicked him out - but I have a feeling "real conservatives" would have just shouted at him, called him a liberal and told him to go away. If they insist on pure ideological rigidity, then I hope they're ready for a long, long time of complete irrelevance. But if you want to bring together a group of people who share something in common, and get, say 75% of what you would like to see done actually done, then we can rebuild the coalition that Reagan did and win elections. Then, we can work to try and convince people about that extra 25%.

But hey, keep on shouting. Maybe call someone a RINO - it might make you feel better. Let me know how it feels to have a government completely overrun by liberals and to be absolutely and utterly irrelevant.

Perhaps you've heard the term "cut off your nose to spite your face?" Think about that one.

David| 11.20.08 @ 9:09AM

I remember once on the Dean Martin show that he was doing political jokes about Nixon but said he preferred Humphrey's politics but ended up voting for Nixon. I'm curious. Would that have made him a DINO ? Anyway, a question for the far right: when Roe V Wade is overturned eventually, what's the next most important cause on your agenda ? Just give me one...not a list.

Bob| 11.20.08 @ 9:24AM

Alenda, you cannot reason with the social conservatives because they are intolerant and will not compromise. You have experienced this phenomenon here. They do not understand the true meaning of "conservative". Religious intolerants, whether they are Taliban or evangelical Christians, want to impose their radical agenda on all. Their desires are not "conservative" in any sense of the word. In this country we PROTECT religious/non-religious rights, we don't force feed them.

Because of this, strict social conservatives can never be part of a coalition. A coalition, by definition, is an alliance of factions based upon a smaller set of common goals where all parties show some level of compromise. They are the real RINO's since they do not necessarily adhere to Republican principles.

The problem is that it is the "true believers", whether they are right or left, are the ground troops for the party. If Republicans can't find a way to excite the fiscal and national security conservatives, then the party will see a permanent minority for the foreseeable future.

Bob| 11.20.08 @ 9:31AM

One more thought. Fiscal conservatives historically have had a "common enemy", simplistic "tax cut" approach to politics. In business we call this a negative positioning since its success depends on a competitor's action. If you notice, most of the topics on this blog are negative responses to the actions of others. What we need is a "positive positioning", i.e., how do we benefit a majority of citizens. What is our positive view of the future? How do our policies engender hope to those minions who are the have nots? Until we find this positive positioning, we will be relegated to the role of reactionaries and not visionaries.

thomas| 11.22.08 @ 12:38AM

Kathleen Parker rocks! She's hot and intelligent. Most conservative talking heads are only the former. Maybe you guys here should start listening to her more closely. You might just be able to rescue a party out of the elephant carcass presently decaying on the side of the political road.