The American Spectator

sinz54| 4.7.09 @ 10:02AM

You are absolutely correct. SOME issues are non-negotiable: Keeping America strong, preserving freedom. But the GOP is going to have to decide whether social conservatism is non-negotiable.

Is a Human Life Amendment, which would ban abortion nationwide even in the most liberal parts of Vermont and San Francisco, consistent with "preserving freedom"? I don't think it is, and the Human Life Amendment should be removed from the GOP platform.

Before you retort that the freedom of the fetus means something, remember that there are tens of millions of us who do not consider a first-trimester fetus, with no detectable brain-wave activity, to be a "person" with Constitutional rights.

So what about that? Can the GOP be a big enough tent to welcome folks with both views into the party? Or are we "RINOs," to be purged from the party?

J David| 4.7.09 @ 12:58PM

The conservatives are going to leave the RINO Party. It is corrupted with baby-killers homo-huggers, and power-drunk spenders of tax-payer money, and illegal-slavery promoters. It is a mockery of conservatism, and represents NOTHING but Commie-Lib Lite. The RINO Party is a fly-blown, walking zombie that is long-dead already, with no conscience and no real purpose but to give libs hypocrites to mock.

Red Phillips| 4.7.09 @ 1:28PM

"Would it be a sign that the GOP is on the road to recovery to consider it a plus that somebody who represents an economically moderate, anti-Iraq war state offers economically moderate, anti-Iraq war views? If not, then it would seem some issues are non-negotiable after all."

Excellent point. Interventionism is non-negotiable for Frum.

What should be fun is that as Frum tries to insinuate himself into moderate and reform (not necessarily the same thing but often so) circles he is going to run into an increasing number of people for whom hawkish interventionism is a (the?) main issue. For example, I saw that Austin Bramwell wrote something at The New Majority.

Frum's self anointed task is undoable.

BD57| 4.7.09 @ 2:30PM

Frum isn't trying to interpret, he's arguing for a position - "Republicans should repudiate social conservatives" - and seizing on anything he can find to support the argument.

I have a hard time seeing how his math works - he seems to believe there's a cadre of 'moderates' out there that would (a) become loyal Republicans; and (b) outnumber the social conservatives that would leave the party, if ONLY Republicans would ditch social conservative positions.

I don't see it. Neither party can win with its base alone - nor can they win WITHOUT their base.

I'm sure there are principled moderates who've thought through their policy preferences and decided neither party satisfies them. I also suspect (a) they're a minority in the "moderate community"; (b) rarely are there enough of them to decide an election; and (c) they're unlikely to be won over to one camp or the other, regardless of what portion of the party's base is sacrificed.

The vast majority of "moderates", IMO, don't really care that much about public policy or politics and don't really pay all that much attention to it until there's an election, at which time circumstances beyond the parties control - "How are things going? Which candidate presents himself (eventually "herself") better? Which candidate screws up?" - largely determine which way they go.

I'd love to see Frum explain the math - - - make an argument from numbers that Republicans would gain more votes (and show where they'd come from) from jettisoning social conservatives than they presently have with them.

Red Phillips| 4.7.09 @ 5:44PM

I think folks like Frum assume that the base leaving, at least in mass, is not a possibility. They figure that the number that leave or set on their hands will be less than the new numbers added. They believe most social conservatives will stick with the GOP because they have "no where else to go."

The problem Frum has, even if this is true, is that most decided moderates are moderate on social issues and foreign policy. But Frum is a radical hawk on foreign policy and supports a radical hawkish foreign policy. He wants the new GOP to be economically moderate, socially moderate, but full tilt ideological interventionist. Where are these people? They don't exist. Most hawkish interventionist are also so cons and economic conservatives. That is why the neocons like Frum got in bed with them to begin with.

Mary| 4.7.09 @ 6:40PM

A Young One.

Frum and I are at odds. I have no fealty to the Republican party, and I feel no connection whatsoever to the "conservatism that can win" brand that Frum is hawking.

If he is trying to position himself as some sort of head intellectual, he'll succeed with some but not enough to help sway an election.

The Country is polarized and the Country is changing from a Republic into a social democracy. I'm willing to see that happen on the watch of a democrat president and congress, but I won't enable a Republican candidate to disavow what I hold to be true.

I will pay my taxes. If I lose my job, I will be resourceful. I will be law abiding. I will teach anyone who is willing to listen that Europe exists because we saved it, and that a benefactor is hated more often than not because he is a reminder of the inferiority of he who was once in great need.

America liberated but never occupied, and we have a president who thinks that all of that doesn't matter as much as reminding the world that we are "arrogant, dismissive and divisive." Who is he, Jackie Chiles? Very well. We'll see what impudent sons rising against their fathers can accomplish.

I will not help Frum. If he pushes a candidate to hard I will be hard-pressed to vote for him.

I like Mark Sanford. I like most everything he represents. I'm willing to forgive defects, even big defects. Pre-emption cannot be taken off the table, but President Bush may have erred in taking on Iraq.

I will work for Mark Sanford. I will donate generously to his campaign. My hope is that he remembers his father, and if he runs, he surrounds himself with people like him.

I consider Frum a foe.

Mary| 4.7.09 @ 6:42PM

Make that "arrogant, dismissive and derisive."

Mary| 4.7.09 @ 6:46PM

And make that pushes too hard.

Joe Marier| 4.8.09 @ 10:43AM

Frum has said nice things about Sanford, and said before the election that the RNC should stop spending money on pro-Iraq War McCain and start spending money on anti-Iraq War Gordon Smith. He also said that Tom Ridge, not impeccable on national security in the least, should have been the vice-presidential candidate.

What was it you were saying about non-negotiable?

Red Phillips| 4.8.09 @ 11:10AM

Joe, I think it is possible that Frum might moderate a little bit on specific aspects of foreign policy because he is no dummy, and he has to recognize that foreign policy is a big reason the GOP is out of favor. (Although his preferred Presidential candidate was arguably the most hawkish or second most hawkish behind McCain of all the major candidates.) What are non-negotiable for him are internationalist interventionist assumptions in general and our special relationship with Israel.