The American Spectator

Real American| 4.28.09 @ 3:01PM

"Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats."

How many of those were from Operation Chaos?

Sean Higgins| 4.28.09 @ 3:22PM

"Iraq, Katrina, and the economic crisis have cost Republicans far more seats than the Club. "

Saying there are more disasterous things for the Republican Party than the Club for Growth is not much of an endorsement for the club.

Mary| 4.28.09 @ 3:35PM

So yes, if the Democrats get to pass nationalized health care they should erect a statue in a certain Republican's honor. That Republican's name is George W. Bush.

Perfect!

I think you've touched on this a couple of times, but the disgust with the Iraq War can't be underestimated in terms of what drove these people from one party to another.

The conservatives who are looking for a winning formula don't want to admit this, but until they do they can't begin to understand how to rebuild the GOP.

There's been more sectarian violence there in the last few days than I remember for a long while. I feel sick at the thought of Iraq not becoming a success.

I supported the war effort. I still support it because I want the U.S. to win. But to pretend it's plain that this is something we should have done is not all that easy anymore.

I'm actually glad to see Cheney trying to defend the actions of his administration. In some ways, the lack of leadership in the Republican party demands that he does.

Dan| 4.28.09 @ 3:35PM

We are where we are because of the men of the Bush family, father and son.

They were the ones who oozed a sense of embarrassment over Reaganism, and the policies of Newt Gingrich.

Whereas Gingrich and Reagan delivered victories and majorities, Bush men gave us groupies, corruption, incompetence and a bad name.

Besides of course ushering us all into the political wilderness.

This wasn't Toomey, this was in the wind long before Toomey even considered the Senate.

W. James Antle III| 4.28.09 @ 3:47PM

"Saying there are more disasterous things for the Republican Party than the Club for Growth is not much of an endorsement for the club."

In today's Republican Party, being a minor problem rather than a major disaster is an endorsement!

Mary| 4.28.09 @ 4:12PM

They were the ones who oozed a sense of embarrassment over Reaganism, and the policies of Newt Gingrich.

Remember "voodoo" economics? A couple of years ago we were shopping around for a third party administrator and one of the companies we were interested in were presenting their proposal. An issue arose regarding their pricing and the company's head honcho sarcastically blurted out "voodoo economics." I was the only person in the room who understood the remark.

Bush The Good, as one of my co-workers refers to him, would have gone nowhere without Reagan. He lacked the vision thing when he lost his bid for re-election. But when did he ever really have it? He was the kind of republican who had been in the minority for too long to remember.

I think Governor Palin pulled out more votes for McCain than he would have otherwise been able to do. Whatever she lost him, he would have lost by a greater percentage had he opted for anyone else. He admitted it himself, not so long ago. His team supposedly viewed her as high risk/high reward.

A candidate who can't produce passion in the base is a candidate who is going to lose. Kerry is a good example of this, as is McCain.

BJC| 4.28.09 @ 4:27PM

How remarkable the double standard! The Republican "purgers" of the Club for Growth are excoriated, while the "We hate social conservatives" party-purgers of the so-called "New Majority" preen and posture on their self-styled superiority -- as if they really aren't going to manufacture a permanent-loser minority gadfly faction! Bob Michelism is so attractive, isn't it! But "purifying" the Republican Party in the first instance is about retaining fidelity to stated party platform principles; in the latter case, the "purifying" is about changing those platform principles to their opposite.

Just to be clear, I don't believe the respective efforts are parallel and comparable -- as CFG mounts straightforward primary election challenges, whilst those intent on purging the GOP of pro-traditional morality conservatives launch their attacks on party regulars to force them out not as elected officials but even as party members in good standing. To me, that makes the "New Majority" types thoroughly indefensible.

And, Dan, you are so right! Ronald Reagan finally won me over from being a conservative Democrat -- as he himself had been -- but the Bushes quite often disgusted me. From the Bush(41) kickoff of being "kinder and gentler" to the Bush(43) reprise packaged as "compassionate conservatism," these fellows and their fellow travelers "oozed a sense of embarrassment over Reaganism." (Reaganism works every time it's tried -- kinda like abstinence! And Reaganism wins every time it's adequately espoused and defended!)

r wisher| 4.28.09 @ 5:01PM

Both Bush men were and are decent people. Maybe wrong-headed, but decent. The problem in the Republican party existed long before either of them were President. Both parties are corrupt. Corrupt in thought and in their desire to claim and keep power. We were warned two hundred years ago. When politicians figured out they were no longer held to their promise to serve the public good they did what most men and women do, they used their position to stay in power. Specter, who is nearly eighty, never considered stepping aside and let someone else serve, only how to remain in power, no matter what side he is on. That shows me he has no moral obligation to his citizens. Like I said, we were warned about his type two centuries ago.

Paul McGrath| 4.28.09 @ 5:32PM

It should also be remembered that Bush saved Specter's skin way back in 2004. Without that, we probably could have got rid of him then. Another thing to be thankful for. Thanks, George. Thanks a lot. For everything.

Dan| 4.28.09 @ 5:46PM

R Wisher,

yea we were feeling all that love from the "decent" Bush men as they were doing their level best to put the screws to us.

Immigration reform.

Alberto Gonzales.

Harriet Meirs.

Andy Card, {who played a role in the selection of Souter, as well as that of Meirs}.

Karen Hughes.

Scowcroft, Rice, Powell, Armitage and Wilkerson.

Letting Iran proceed for 8 straight years without interruption, towards completing and perfecting their Manhattan project.

Cozying up to the squalid and depraved house of saud.

Slowly but surely purchasing into the Arab narrative.

The Dubai Ports deal.

Can I note again IMMIGRATION "REFORM," which was the process whereby an indigenous electorate is suplanted with one more conducive to the liberal message.

"New tone."

"Bipartisanship."

I could go on and on and on. The idea of the Bush people was to burnish their own credentials and reputation at the expense of the people who put them in high office, by enacting portions of the Democrat agenda with a few weasels like Specter, and then having a huge "signing ceremony."

The only way we could qualify them as "decent" is by taking into account how bizarre our society has become.

Dan| 4.28.09 @ 5:49PM

And R. WISHER, you're overlooking how much the "corruption" you decry was ADVANCED and maintained by the devotees of the establishment, the men of the Bush family.

Ran| 4.28.09 @ 7:39PM

Mary - not to be too far off topic -
"I'm actually glad to see Cheney trying to defend the actions of his administration. In some ways, the lack of leadership in the Republican party demands that he does. " Agreed!

"A candidate who can't produce passion in the base is a candidate who is going to lose." One exception: The Teleprompter. This guy is producing passion for community activism like no leader in modern times... it's just that the activism is in opposition to just about everything the Teleprompter believes. He can have Spectre.

Ran| 4.28.09 @ 8:37PM

Ran, I'm with you. I don't give a hoot about Specter. He was a democrat first and when times became tough for them, he became a republican. As Rush said today, what's the first order of business for a politician? To get re-elected.

DeMint said today that he didn't give a hoot either that Specter left. Said he'd rather have 30 principled than 60 fair weather senators.

And, Ran, speaking of the TelePrompTer; did you see this?

Don't know if you're a fan of the Three Stooges, but this calls for Moe calling someone a puddin' head and begging him to "pick two."

Mary| 4.28.09 @ 8:39PM

Ran, you probably figured it out, but prior post was my response to your response.

Don't know why I put your name where mine should have been. Got confused. Nevermind. :)

R. Dittmar| 4.28.09 @ 9:03PM

“I think you've touched on this a couple of times, but the disgust with the Iraq War can't be underestimated in terms of what drove these people from one party to another.

The conservatives who are looking for a winning formula don't want to admit this, but until they do they can't begin to understand how to rebuild the GOP.

Let me give that a very hearty second. Bush comprehensively destroyed nearly all the Republican’s political capital with his fumbling in Iraq. And to make matters worse, the bulk of his fumbling occurred immediately after he was expressly given one last chance to get things right by his election in 2004. There’s a very good case to be made that taking out Saddam was a good thing to do but right from the outset it was clear that as a card-carrying member of the bluebloods, Bush was going to be far more concerned with satisfying P.C. elite opinion rather than wrapping it up successfully. All you have to do to see this is remember back as to how – even after telling us that the Iraq invasion was essential to protecting Americans – he still pussy-footed around for years on end trying to satisfy the weasels at the U.N.

When 2006 rolled around there was absolutely nothing to show but a bunch of American soldiers put in harm’s way and killed in an apparent effort to curry favor with kleptocratic ingrates in Bagdad and Riyadh. With no domestic policy agenda to speak of or debate or defend, conservatives were left with nothing to discuss in the way of issues other than Iraq. And given Bush’s bumbling, they ended up seeing their defense of a grand scheme to remake the Middle East turn into arguments like “After only six years of fighting it’s now sort-of kind-of safe to drive from your hotel to the Bagdad airport if you’re a high-ranking member of the Iraqi government with a reinforced limo. We must stay the course!” You’re absolutely correct that the GOP is going to have to come to grips with the magnitude of the fiasco in Iraq – at least in private – before they can even expect to be taken seriously. I’ve actually become darn close to dismissing as misguided anyone trying to explain the electoral debacle as due to anything BUT Iraq.

Ran| 4.28.09 @ 9:08PM

Hey Mary,
Great vid! That was so pathetic.

I prefer a good argument.

Tom Paine| 4.28.09 @ 9:10PM

One of the things that bothers me about you people is that you don't seem to have a very clear understanding of your own party or its history.

The Republican party once was home to fiscal and foreign policy conservatives as well as more moderate politicians from the Northeast. You have no representatives in the House from New England; you retain two senators.

Your lack of historical sense even includes more recent history. Hundreds of thousands of Democrats voted for Ronald Reagan (my working class family were among them), but they didn't all of a sudden become clones of Ralph Reed or Tom DeLay. Reagan swept into a second term because he made people feel like he was the president of the whole country. The idea that he was so popular because he was as "conservative" as Rush Limbaugh is simply not true. It's just not historically true.

If you don't miss Arlen Specter, it's because you don't understand American politics. It also means you can't count. If you think you can win big elections being the party of Ann Coulter and Joe the Plumber, you're insane. The numbers just aren't there. Two thirds of minority voters vote Democratic, and there numbers are increasingly determinative.

But more importantly, presidential elections are more and more being decided in large suburban areas around cities like Denver and Philadelphia. These voters don't listen to Rush Limbaugh (they work), they don't like Sean Hannity, and they don't read the American Spectator. But they do vote for Republicans like Specter.

Anyway: it's your goose you're cooking. Better take your time and enjoy it.

Mary| 4.28.09 @ 9:33PM

I’ve actually become darn close to dismissing as misguided anyone trying to explain the electoral debacle as due to anything BUT Iraq.

Well stated, and me too.

Mary| 4.28.09 @ 9:35PM

Ran, that was great!

Mary| 4.28.09 @ 9:54PM

I know this is not quite on topic, but I do think it's important to think through some things.

I think the truth is that the strongest tie between factions in the Republican party was that of national security. Included in that was a resurgence of pride of Country that Reagan brought about.

But since before the election of President Obama some very bad blood was let among “conservatives.” I’ll recap just bit:

• Almost immediately following the announcement of Palin as VP candidate; Frum rejects her. He may have already known a lot about her, but he sprang in opposition to her so quickly that it gave the impression it was a visceral thing.

• A few weeks after the election Frum writes at NRO that Rush was a very important part of the Republican party and its victories but that now one needed to avoid him.

• Brooks calls Palin a “cancer” and “lacking the human capital.” What does it mean to lack human capital?

If Palin were on the ticket right now, I’m not sure I’d vote for her. I feel compelled to state that so that I won’t be judged a relentless partisan. I hope she can overcome the obstacles that I see in her way. She's got a lot going for her. All she needs to do is bone up some on some issues outside those most important to her, and then just be herself. She will have to contend with the inferiority complex she seems to engender in other women. It's an unfortunate byproduct of being really good looking and fecund, in a plastic and sterile world.

But back to Frum and Brooks; do you really think you can speak like they did and it’ll all be forgotten?

And Rush? Rush is Rush? He’s a radio talk show giant who I didn’t listen to for over a decade until people like Frum began to try to marginalize him. How do you dispose of Rush as very helpful to the movement at one time, but now an untouchable for reasons that have more to do with appearances than anything else? Who does that except a person who doesn’t understand the first thing about loyalty to someone who helped your cause?

Do you ever see democrats cannibalize one another like this?

The Godfather should teach you everything you need to know about stupidity, cupidity, compromise and loyalty.

Specter promised he would make sure that the provision in the stimulus package that set in motion prepartion for a health care advisory board would not stand, a board that in all likelihood would determine cost/benefit analysis of medical treatment. To the best of my knowledge that provision went through.

He's a democrat. He is where he belongs.

Michael Dooley| 4.29.09 @ 7:00AM

Newsweek this morning asks what does Specter’s defection say about the GOP? (Another question they do not ask is what does Specter’s deflection say about his honor? It should be remembered Specter started his political career as a Democrat until the label became inconvenient.)

What it should say is that the GOP head counters' strategy of feeding all the "R's" from the same breadbasket is fool's gameplan.
Specter has been a backstabber from the word "go" and could always be counted upon to throw the game when the Party was ready to deal the Democrats a significant defeat.

BUT...because Specter had a little "r" after his name, the GOP threw precious money and support to perfidious Al.

Will the GOP learn its lesson?" HELL, NO! If Al Frankin decided to put a little "r" behind his name they'd throw money at him, too.

Michael Dooley| 4.29.09 @ 7:19AM

Hey, Tommy Paine:

"Reagan swept into a second term because he made people feel like he was the president of the whole country. The idea that he was so popular because he was as "conservative" as Rush Limbaugh is simply not true. It's just not historically true. "

Amazing how the radical, rightwing nut Reagan of the 1980's has become the All-American Love God of the 2000's. Tommy, Reagan has hated by a huge portion of the public precisely because he was a conservative and made no bones about it. Remember how Bush the First came into office promising a "kinder, gentler" conservativism in contrast to the eight years of Reagan?

Reagan was regarded as a "divider"--a sin against "we unite the people" liberals. But the majority saw their way to elect him anyway. The remaining electorate didn't exactly throw a good-sport kegger afterward.

Keep your revisionism. Put it in your pipe. Smoke it.

Bo Darville| 4.29.09 @ 5:05PM

It seems to me that the GOP needs to communicate better to get beyond the shrill and loud message coordinated between the left, Democrats, and media. I think most people in America generally agree more with the GOP's position on most issues but don't realize it.

Jim| 4.30.09 @ 5:57PM

CFG is also responsible for the most liberal democrat in Florida who defeated the CFG clown, Ric Keller. Remember, in his initial race, Ric Keller defeated a moderate Republican, with a bunch of cash for CFG. The moderate would still be in office today if Keller was not such a clown. The moderate beleived in lower taxes, pro growth, less govt, and national secty. That was not enough for CFG. They wanted the moderate to go hand and knee to the CFG table and he told CFG to pound sand, and now we have the most liberal house member in Florid representing Orlando. Now, what is the long term goal here? This is how 10 year program worked out. In 20 years there will be no republican house members in flroida if cfg keepss it up