The American Spectator

Eric Dondero| 5.4.09 @ 7:51AM

It's a simple equation. For every liberal Republican sell-out like Specter the GOP loses, the Party gains two to three times Libertarian and Constitutionalist voters, who previously would not support the GOP, because of its squishiness on principle.

There's more votes to be mined on the Hard Right, than the squishy Center.

Oscar Grouch| 5.4.09 @ 7:55AM

Peggy is just looking for her next appearance on Hard Ball and Meeting the Press. She is what the media loves: a Republican who "evolved".

Crusader| 5.4.09 @ 8:03AM

Just how much room is there in the dem's tent for opposing voices? How those "blue dog dems" doing? Did they get their tails out from between their legs yet?

Republican party is getting more conservative? Good, maybe I'll vote for them next time instead of the Constitution Party candidate.

John| 5.4.09 @ 8:10AM

Never let your enemies dictate the battlefield to you.

The GOP, for the last 20 years, has been snake-bitten by "Peggy Noonan" and "David Brooks" and "Christopher Buckley"... We wanted to be loved SO MUCH... that the party leadership chased the stuffed hare across the field.

The stuffed hare was put there by those who would have us cavorting in a field over a fantasy, than actually doing out jobs.

Open Primaries (where the Dems get to choose Republican Weenies to run against.) are completmented by Convention Fights where the grass roots/rank and file Republican delegates choose up leaders, and the Establishment undermines them becuase.... The Establishment is enamored of the Left. It so wants to be accepted as being legitimate by the Left that it would do anything to prove its worthiness.

Like run a Tom Ridge mushpie in Pennsylvania, against a Conservative Stalwart like Toomey. The Establisment loses before it even gets out of the starting gate. If the GOP screws over Toomey for Ridge, Ridge will absolutely lose the General Election in the Fall. He will lose to any Democrat Ham Sandwich... including Spectre... because he will lose the RIGHT; and the Center Left (read mushy - do and believe what the media tells them to do and believe) would never vote for any Republican (RINO or not) because it just isn't what their media masters tell them is nice and good and clean.

The GOP either relearns Lesson #1 from the Reagan years - The Republican Party wins on the Right, fights for draw in the mushy middle, and never wins the Left.. SO must win the RIGHT.

The last four years, the GOP has forgotten Reagan Rule #1... and has barely won the Right by too close a margin to make up for the draw in the middle... and the media has pushed the middle left.

The math works out that either the GOP goes to the Right in a big firm and Reaganesque way... or it risks losing everything.

r/John

ame| 5.4.09 @ 8:10AM

I do not like Noonan's writing for three reasons: 1. Noonan's vanilla posture on almost everything of any import (her Sarah Palin article was nothing more than the usual low-life nonsense opinion trash) - Noonan is always "maybe yes or maybe no," "maybe up or maybe down" and any idiot can write that. What is particularly annoying about Noonan is her refusal to take a stand based on morality and/or ethics and educate the public through that lens - Noonan always opts to walk the line and her refusal to commit to what she believes is right smacks of cowardice. One thing the United States does NOT need in the media is another wimp who cannot take a stand that is true and educates the public, which is both her duty and her responsibility given her media exposure.
2. Noonan's ridiculous yet universal acceptance of the "civility" in politics and in critical assessment because Noonan's priggish attitude toward that accepts and promotes one of the most dangerous premises of liberalism: politically correct language, which, ironically, denies us our first amendment right to free speech that Noonan should cherish, protect, and most importantly promote since her "position" as a "writer" for major publications gives her the advantage of doing so, much less the obligation. Politically correct speech shuts people up and as any one with even a shallow understanding of literature and history will confirm - shutting people up is the first rule of dictatorship: in essence, silence is death. The current media hype concerning the fact that people don't like "negative" campaigning, when, in fact, negative campaigning is a perfect way in which to tell the truth about an opponent, is yet another attempt to silence those who do not agree with the prevailing idiocy of the media to which Noonan belongs. When has Noonan ever written a slam against the "Fairness Doctrine" that drips with Pelosi's and the Left's saliva? Camus warned of language that was so dissembled and so equivocated (Clinton and Obama) that the truth could never be told, discussed, revealed, acted on because under those conditions language could not be trusted and, therefore, men could not be trusted. Noonan's writing mimics dissembling in its see-saw emptiness.
3. Noonan's absurd contention of civility in politics and its longing for bi-partisan working also bodes death for a democracy. Democracies thrive on contention and standing your ground and partisan backbone for what you know is right and the refusal to concede just to co-operate. "Going along to get along" is always annihilation, always concession, and always deadly. What we always get from Noonan and a host of other spineless "journalists" is expediency - a lot of damn claptrap tripe piffle newspaper article not worthy to wrap a sardine in. What Americans desperately want, need, desire and have a RIGHT to expect and get is insightful vision based on sagacity. Noonan should heed Cicero: the function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil. What Noonan does is write between the two producing neutral gray - that's not wisdom. That's cowardice. Noonan reminds me of Obama - a facilitator who doesn't want to get his hands dirty - a sham poser - a "blank slate" on which, in essence, NOTHING is written.
Noonan is so typical of today's valueless, inconsequential, null and dull reporting, which allows so perfectly an adjustment to Mark Twain's observation that It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress AND THE MEDIA. The only criterion for a "journalist" today is to wear an elitist yellow stripe down the back.
4. Noonan is a sycophant, a drooling lobotomized Obama "groupie" who is either too stupid to analyze the Statist Obama or too cowardly to do so.
Either way, she's as useless and as pathetic as Father Jenkins of Notre Dame.

Eric Damon| 5.4.09 @ 8:20AM

I commented on this situation at NewsBusters.org, and will quickly paraphrase what I said there. In a nutshell, the GOP has got to get away from the big tent theory if they want to be viable, especially if the big tent means that the Party abandons its core principles to gather the 'moderate' voters.

A friend of mine at TownHall.com described it this way: The GOP chasing of the moderates is like trying to herd stray cats under an umbrella in the rain; no matter how long you chase them you cannot corrall them. The better way to do it is to plant your umbrella in a particular spot, and allow the cats to come to you if they want to get out of the rain. That means that the GOP has to be what it claims to be, instead of trying to be whatever the voters want it to turn into in order to draw them in.

It seems that Noonan has outlived her usefulness as a 'conservative' commentator and has become just another voice parroting the line of thought from the left...and being a former Reagan speechwriter doesn't cover you for that.

grzmlyk| 5.4.09 @ 8:20AM

It's time to kick Peggy out of the tent.

Go join Ariana Huffington, David Brooks and Christopher Buckley, Peggy, and be a proud "tent pole" for Obama. You are no longer welcome to articulate my political philosophy, and "tent pole" is increasingly the only job you're for which you are qualified.

Apparently, dinner with Obama has the same effect on wobbly conservatives that attention from one of the Jonas Brothers has on credulous, ingenuous tweeners.

Democrat Lite? How'd that work for the "compassionate conservatism" of Bush? How'd that work out for McCain? How did it work out for Specter?

What is it about the lengthening shadows of life that turns so many erstwhile conservatives daffy?

Go join The Party of the Cult of Obama, Peggy. Frankly, even when you were an ostensible conservative I thought your writing was too precious and cloying.

Then again, if we take Peggy's advice, one of us might be chosen to hang the sign on Obama's first re-education camp. You know, the sign that reads "work will set you free."

Red Phillips| 5.4.09 @ 8:36AM

The GOP does not need to "go after moderates" as if the political playing field is etched in stone. But it does need to expand. It needs to expand by convincing the moderates to become conservatives. If we have been drifting left as a country, which I don't dispute, then there is really no reason we can't drift right. Historic and demographic trends don't favor that, but to not fight for it is to give up.

Peggy Noonan and the rest of the snobocon crew are infuriating.

Bob| 5.4.09 @ 8:50AM

Vadum -- it is YOU and your brethren here at AmSpec that don't get it! You and your ilk are so wrapped up in reactionary attachments to Reagan that you completely miss the point. Perhaps you are one of the lemmings that listens to Limbaugh and Beck. There is NO evidence that the PARTY has become more liberal. In fact, on social issues the party has become MORE conservative as moderates continue to leave the party. Your argument seems to be the spending by George Bush and the TARP. Spending is NEVER reduced. You seem to forget that Reagan also increased spending dramatically. Was the party liberal back then? And please don't give me the tired old refrain that Reagan WANTED to reduce spending but he was not allowed. It's called leadership. He could have vetoed a lot more if he were really serious.

In addition, you don't seem to understand that Bush/Rove were pushed by the polls. They tried to keep a coalition together by supporting some policies for moderates. Not surprisingly, Bush was elected twice. You all claim that McCain was a liberal, but if you go to his site, he is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, for reducing taxes. His platform was further right than Bush's -- and he lost. And again, please don't give me the lame argument that he didn't "act" as a conservative. In comparison to Obama, he was about as far right as you can be. If going right is what Americans want, then Obama would not have won by such a large margin.

Vadum, your logic not only escapes me, but it is totally absent.

The problem is not right or left, the problem is issues. The important issues today are the economy, healthcare, jobs, and hope for the future.

The far right position on the economy is to cut taxes which is tired, old rhetoric. We know that cutting taxes is not stimulative in the short term. The numbers used to support that position make not sense and the vast majority of Americans no longer believe that tax cuts are stimulative. They don't buy it because Bush cut taxes significantly and we are in the worst economic environment since the Great Depression. You don't address this by denying the data -- you develop a conservative plan. Currently the "plan" is to cut taxes with no spending which is about the dumbest position on the planet. There is NO Republican economic plan that makes any sense. Freezing the budget is NOT a solution -- it is a cop out. Cutting taxes was meaningful with Reagan because the marginal rate was 91% and inflation was high. But now, inflation is low and the marginal rate is 36% -- cutting taxes is meaningless.

What about healthcare? How are Republicans going to reduce costs? No one believes you can cut costs by letting insurance companies run wild. Making coverage private rather than public means that when people get in trouble medically, they will probably lose their coverage. Most people aren't worried about what they are paying now -- they are worried about what happens to them if something goes wrong. That is the purpose of insurance after all. Under the current Republican privatization, if you get in an accident or get a serious disease, your only option is bankruptcy.

As for hope, you lose all hope when you listen to Republicans. Reagan brought hope. But Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and all of you are nothing but doom and gloom. Why would you vote for a leader that didn't believe our best days are ahead of us?

Lastly, demographics are changing and the strict position on social issues are closing down the party. Young people and minorities have a much more tolerant view of abortion. They are much more concerned about the environment. But what they really worry about are jobs -- and the Republicans have no proactive policy for increasing jobs. In addition, the gay marriage issue is a losing one for Republicans. There are even a number of AmSpec writers who don't have a problem with it.

So, Vadum, stop looking backwards and look towards the future...

Becky| 5.4.09 @ 9:03AM

The smaller the tent of government, the larger the wide open space of liberty for its citizens. Trying to run a republic with democratic methods is what has got the country off track.

Both parties do not complain of how much is spent so much as how it is spent.

If abortions are legal, but does not involve government funding, what should the problem be?

The idea that a right has to be purchased and provided for by government is a perverse one. I believe the original bill of rights did not concern how the government would provide, but how it would protect the exercise of those rights.

I want a gun, should the government provide me with one?

Aaron| 5.4.09 @ 9:13AM

Put Peggy right there in the same box with Frum and send with return receipt to the O campaign.

John| 5.4.09 @ 9:30AM

"You all claim that McCain was a liberal.."

Who ever said McCain was a liberal?! He's as moderate as they come, but liberal? I don't think I've seen anyone tag McCain as liberal.

And therein lies the problem. The so-called conservative elitist pundits (Brooks, Noonan, et al) and the talking heads plus armchar quarterbacks like commenter "Bob" who push for moderation.

It was the punditry who at this time last year SWORE that the sure path to success for the GOP was to nominate a moderate like John McCain. Well, they got what they wanted, and the GOP got what it deserved. It didn't help either that McCain ran one of the most bizarre campaigns ever.

Vadum makes a good point---the NRSC ENDORSED SPECTER ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO! How is this "ostracizing" him?!?

It was out of political expediency that Specter left the party and to that all Republicans should say good riddance.

That being said, the "Christian conservative" need to get a grip---learn to accept half a loaf, for crying out loud.

Mary| 5.4.09 @ 9:45AM

I was never a huge fan. AME gets to some of the reasons why.

But that aside, here are her thoughts on Ronald Reagan:

The battle for the mind of Ronald Reagan was like the trench warfare of World War I: never have so many fought so hard for such barren terrain.

She told us what she saw at the revolution headed by an idiot, ostensible or otherwise. Please don't misunderstand, I don't think Reagan was an idiot, but Peggy Noona couldn't have really thought much of him to have written something like that.

Bo Darville| 5.4.09 @ 9:49AM

I never had a problem with the GOP having some guys like Linc Chafee, Jim Jeffords, et al... some more liberal candidates that could win in uberliberal states. I think they should be tolerated and accomodated. However, they should reciprocate and be nice back. It seems that after Santorum and Bush went to the mat to save Specter, he should have maybe been a little more reluctant to give the Democrats the 60th.

Ran| 5.4.09 @ 10:27AM

Matt, I'm with Eric Dondero on this.

"too much ferocity, and bloody-mindedness"

If Noonan would only apply that sort of energetic rhetoric to the President who uses threats such as “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that. My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

We have real Administration firings of private enterprise CEO's, real Administration threats made to bankers, real Administration theft of bond-holder equity in the auto industry and sigificant emerging Congressional threats to freedom of speech... and Noonan complains about Republicans holding to rightward principles?

We are passionate and we are angry, true, and yet we are clear-headed about the real and present dangers to our country's prosperity, freedom and security that this Administration and Congress represents.

Not a single, strong principles-first word from Peggy in defense of our Liberty? Damn, but Noonan has lost it.

Eric nailed it: There's more votes to be mined on the Hard Right, than the squishy Center.

KevlarKevin| 5.4.09 @ 10:27AM

Bob, you are an idiot. Always blathering on and on with your tangents, dealing w/ stuff the writer isn't addressing. Besides, your facts are wrong time and time again, you buffoonish liar. The top marginal tax rate when Reagan took office in 1981 was 70%, not 91%, and in 1989 when Reagan left office the top marginal tax rate was 28%. Don't believe me? Look it up: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
No one is listening to you. You are a troll engaged in disinformation, trying to demoralize conservatives. Go f*** yourself.

JJ JR| 5.4.09 @ 10:30AM

Y'all,

Three cheers for Ame--well said girl. I like your pluck.

I believe Peggy is now the female David "Rodham" Gergen. It's been tough for Peggy living up there for years on the Island of unabashed, ignorant liberalism (Manhattan). You stop getting invited to cocktail parties and you've got to conform!

Hey Peggy, your idol, Ronald Reagan, is looking down on you in amazement!

genecar| 5.4.09 @ 11:14AM

According the most recent Pew polling, people, particularly young people are becoming less supportive of abortion, not more. As for same-sex marraige, it was precisley minorities such as Hispanics and African-Americans who tipped the balance against it in recent polls in states such as California. I don't know how the GOP can build support in these minority communities, but moving away from social conservatism hardly seems wise.

JP| 5.4.09 @ 11:28AM

Bob,
I think there's a bit of spin going on. The RNC or GOP in general didn't kick anybody out. Specter found out through internal polling that Toomey was gaining on him with Pennsylvania Independent voters. It was Independents (who cross over party lines) that were abandoning Specter.

In recent years, conservatives have taken the blame for liberal Republicans losing thier seats. This is nonsense. In states like New Hampshire, New York, Minnisota, and Oreogan, liberal voters have crossed over to the Dems and voted against the "Rockefeller Wing". Yes, New England Republicans are becoming an endangered species, but you can't blame Dobson or Limbaugh.

I would even go further and state that from 2002-2006, the "moderates" pretty much steered the domestic agenda. From the Perscription Drug Benefit (Plan B), No Child Left Behind, and McCain Feingold, the "moderates" got pretty much what they wanted. The federal goverment spent more money under Bush and the GOP run Congress on community outreach programs, aide to Africa, federal housing assistance, highway and infrastructure (the 2005 $500 billion Transportation Act), biofuels ($250 billion ethanol subsidies), than any other recent President or Congress. This is the Compassionate Conservatism that moderates like Collins, Specter, and Chaffee lectured about.

Snarlin' Arlene is the Dems problem now. What is ironic is that the Dems would have won in 2010 anyway. Toomey would have beat Specter, but lost in the general election. But Specter is so unpopular his seat is now in play. This is the first strategic mistake the Dems made.

largebill| 5.4.09 @ 12:13PM

The GOP did not kick Specter out. He left because a poll of Pennsylvania voters told him they were done with him. Why were they done with him? Because of his awful vote in favor of the massive porkfilled "stimulus" bill. I didn't like his position on a whole host of issues, but it was the spending crap that pissed off the voters in his home state.
The GOP has not moved to the right. The GOP and pretend spokesmen like Noonan have drifted to the left to be accepted by the in-crowd. Many career politicians and media hacks have never held a real job so they are still acting like they're in high school trying to fit in with the cool kids.

Bob| 5.4.09 @ 12:37PM

Kevlar, so you finally got something right! I guess there is always a first time. It was 91% in 1960. However, since you have such a limited mind, you didn't realize that whether the marginal rate was 70% or 91%, my argument still holds that tax cuts made more sense when the marginal rate was 70% than it does now. And by the way, when Clinton came it it went up to 40% and GDP rose faster than it did under Reagan. Thank you again for showing your lack of knowledge of economics and proving my argument.

JP, if I implied that the GOP "kicked" Specter out, as someone told him to leave, then you're right, there was no overt act by party officials. However, do you remember when Steele talked about running "true conservatives" against Specter? Furthermore, with the GOP now condensed to 21% of voters, you are left with the hard core social conservatives. Therefore, as Specter has said, the party has changed. In 2004, 36% of voters were Republicans. Now I disagree with Specter on the stimulus package, but I'd bet you if he were a social conservative, they would have wanted him to stay anyway. Do you disagree?

The numbers are clear that the GOP has moved closer to its base and therefore right. You can't argue with that given the data. Those that don't agree, haven't looked at the polling differences between the 2004 and 2008 elections. To make that declaration without looking at the data is both anti-intellectual and just plain dumb.

Mary| 5.4.09 @ 12:57PM

Peggy is just another sell-out like someone here said....she looks forward to her MSNBC PAID appearances. She's more than willing to abandon all principles for it! Laura Ingraham does a great bit whenever Peggy writes her moronic columns that hint at her airhead positions.She's either imbibing in a few cocktails or slipping into alzheimers. Either way she has lost all credibility to many.

JP| 5.4.09 @ 1:32PM

Bob,
I wouldn't put too much into what Steele says. He and the RNC are not in the same position as the DNC was vis-a-vis 2005-2006. The RNC couldn't engineer a campaign for dog-catcher. It will be up to each states organization to find candidates and pull behind them.

New England will be difficult, as even during the good years of 2002-2006 the GOP was losing ground. New York's GOP party is a joke compared to where it was in 1993-1994, and even in New Hampshire the GOP is steadily losing ground.

Even if someone was able to contend for an important House or Senate seat, the RNC is short of funds due to poor fundraising.

So, there it is in a nutshell. If the GOP will re-establish itself in New England it will be because of Democratic mis-steps, over-reach, and/or a general unhappiness with Obama.

Basil Plumley| 5.4.09 @ 1:34PM

This is a great thread. Internet high-fives to Eric Dondero-John-ame-KevlarKevin and the usual compliments to Mary and Ran.

Bob, once again, you do not disappoint. You are quite the entertainer. You get caught lying and instead of a simple "mea culpa", you insist on demonizing the person who caught you in a lie. Well, that is par for your course, Bob.
Perhaps, you can explain the mini-recession that began in March of 2000?
Maybe, you could explain things like "easy credit", the "dot com boom", and government statistics. Hopefully, you can explain things better than a sock puppet or a "wonder" dog.
After all, someone of your education and brilliance should be a master of this domain.

Bob| 5.4.09 @ 1:42PM

Basil -- so you consider a misquote a lie? In fact, when Kevlar corrected me I said he was correct. However, since your comprehension is so limited, I guess you didn't realize my argument still held whether the number was 91% or 70%. Lying is what YOU do when you talk about me.

As for explanations, when you learn how to read data and understand issues, perhaps we can have a discussion. I find it interesting that you said you would not comment on my postings and then do it all of the time. Who is the liar?????

Basil Plumley| 5.4.09 @ 1:45PM

@ JP
Part of the problem with the GOP and the so-called "Blue States" is that the GOP has effectively ceded these areas to the Dems. The GOP will have to infuse these areas with money and manpower to re-establish itself.
Howard Dean and the Dems did this in the so-called "Red States" in 2005 and it paid off in 2006 and 2008.

The GOP would be in a position to take advantage of "Democratic mis-steps, over-reach, and/or a general unhappiness with Obama".
Of course, if the GOP want to advance, they better have a coherent conservative message and not rely on the RINOs who are basically in bed with the Dems. Give the people a real choice and real leadership and watch what happens.

Basil Plumley| 5.4.09 @ 1:51PM

@ Bob

Let's replay what you said to KevlarKevin--Kevlar, so you finally got something right! I guess there is always a first time. It was 91% in 1960. However, since you have such a limited mind, you didn't realize that whether the marginal rate was 70% or 91%, my argument still holds that tax cuts made more sense when the marginal rate was 70% than it does now. And by the way, when Clinton came it it went up to 40% and GDP rose faster than it did under Reagan. Thank you again for showing your lack of knowledge of economics and proving my argument.

Sounds like anger at getting caught in a lie rather than contrition. Keep up the arrogance and pomposity Bob; they are such endearing traits.

KevlarKevin| 5.4.09 @ 1:58PM

Bob, you deceitful moron: you continue to be wrong by saying your "argument still holds that tax cuts made more sense when the marginal rate was 70% than it does now." You are using this marginal utility fallacy in order to suggest a huge tax cut benefits the economy (and govt. revenues) so much that a comparatively smaller cut is of no benefit at all, therefore we shouldn't cut taxes at all. Nice try, wanker.
Also you focus on individual income tax rates and don't take into account the benefit that would be realized if corporate tax rates (we have among the highest such taxes in the world) were to be slashed. You have a one track mind.

Bob| 5.4.09 @ 2:11PM

Kevlar -- my position on corporate taxes has always been to get rid of them completely and replace them with a consumption tax. But then, since you don't listen much, you didn't know. Consumption taxes are more efficient than corporate income taxes and have the advantage of taxing all companies -- foreign and domestic.

Instead of assuming where I stand on corporate taxes, you could have asked.....

Basil -- the liar responds again.... It is the argument that is important. The fact is that the change in marginal tax rates does not affect the argument. My anger is that you and others just don't have the ability to think....

Basil Plumley| 5.4.09 @ 2:31PM

Sorry Bob, but today as usual, you are the liar. Methinks, thou doth protest too much.

BTW, if you would be kind to point out exactly any lies I have made, I would be grateful.
However, it appears you have taken a page from Josef Goebbels and figure if you repeat a lie often enough, it will be true.
Sorry, Herr Bob, not on my watch.

Basil Plumley| 5.4.09 @ 2:42PM

BTW, Bob, you said-Basil -- so you consider a misquote a lie?

Um, Bob misquoting someone else is not a lie. However, you did not misquote anyone.
Misquoting yourself? That's what makes you so entertaining.
I suppose you misquote yourself in your diary?
Priceless! Absolutely, priceless!!
Keep it up Bob, I need a good laugh.

For the Record| 5.4.09 @ 4:57PM

Basil, Kevlar, Check out Quin's opinion of Bob.

KevlarKevin| 5.4.09 @ 8:34PM

Wow. Thanks, For the Record.

Basil Plumley| 5.4.09 @ 10:32PM

Wow! Just, wow!

Ran has mentioned this in passing but nothing beats reading the original reparté. Thank you, FTR.

biniki| 9.1.09 @ 9:51PM

bikini
bikini swimwear

ugg boots| 9.3.09 @ 5:42AM

ugg boots
classic ugg boots

NFL jerseys| 9.4.09 @ 11:38PM

It is a wonderful article,I like it!Welcome to read following news: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,Adobe Photoshop CS4,cheap uggs.