The American Spectator

J 2 the B| 6.11.09 @ 11:09AM

GOP Corleone:

Don Vito: Newt (voice of the past, respected but feared, the family listens to him)

Michael: Bobby Jindal (calm, comes out of nowhere, forced to lead)

Sonny: Rush (hot headed, spouts off, feared, respected)

Tom Hagen: Sarah Palin - (the outsider, the calming voice, sees the bigger pictures)

Fredo: Specter (does he count anymore?)

Tim| 6.11.09 @ 2:19PM

With all due respect, the current situation is more like Gilligan's Island.
Skipper: Rush Limbaugh
Gilligan: Bobby Jindal
The Professor: Newt Gingrich (can make a radio from coconuts but can't plug a hole in a wooden boat)
Thurston Howell III: Mitt Romney
Mrs Howell: John McCain
Ginger: Ann Coulter
Mary Ann: Sarah Palin

Roy| 6.11.09 @ 2:37PM

>>Mrs Howell: John McCain

LMAO!

Bob| 6.11.09 @ 4:10PM

RSM, do you really understand the intellectual argument Frum was making? His basic argument is that conservatism has not progressed with society -- it remains solidly anchored in the past. Therefore, it is losing its relevance. All we hear from you and others is Reaganism and "true conservatism". The social conservatives want to return to the 50's. Furthermore, the thought "leaders" in the party are less educated and more isolated than ever before. That's why intellectual lightweights like Palin are acceptable. The growth of cable television further isolates "true believers" as they only watch Fox News and listen to Rush, Hannity, Levin and Beck. The Republicans who are actually involved with their communities are located in Washington and most of you think they are worthless -- but they are the ones with constituent feedback. They see ALL people, not just the nuts that tune into Fox or Rush. You can be isolated today like never before.

Furthermore, you see the emergence and PERMANENT growth of minorities with a very different point of view of America than the 50's.

Conservatism, in order to remain relevant, must advance with the changes in culture.

Now, I don't totally agree with Frum on his solutions, but this analysis of our evolving society is clearly a factor. The demographics are such that you will not see a return to the past. Therefore, if the party does not redefine conservatism relevant to the future of our society, it will lose any future power. Furthermore, this increasing personal and media isolationism is leading to an ideology not based in reality.

The Frum analysis is solid. How you take that into the future is where I disagree with him.

BD57| 6.11.09 @ 4:29PM

mmmm ... Mary Ann ...... :)

Red Phillips| 6.11.09 @ 8:05PM

"His basic argument is that conservatism has not progressed with society -- it remains solidly anchored in the past."

Because that is what conservatism does. It tries to conserve things. It fights "progress" because it doesn't see all "progress" as inherently good.

"Conservatism, in order to remain relevant, must advance with the changes in culture."

Then it will cease to be conservatism. Conservatism cries halt or calls back. That is the point.

Conservatives need to work on convincing folks that all this "progress" is a bill of goods. Not give into it as inevitable.

"Furthermore, you see the emergence and PERMANENT growth of minorities with a very different point of view of America than the 50's."

"The demographics are such that you will not see a return to the past."

This is exactly why curtailing immigration, both legal and illegal, is imperative if conservatism is to survive. There is nothing inherently less conservative and more radical than importing a brand new electorate.

BJC| 6.11.09 @ 8:10PM

I've been musing today -- in reaction to the hoopla about the political views of the Holocaust Museum shooter -- over how the Leftists never disavow their loons, while there's an unseemly eagerness to keep slicing off different sectors of mainstream conservatism to appease the critics from the Left.... I have no good thoughts nowadays about Kathleen Porker, Piggy Noonan or David Frump. It's as the Libertarians say, about the *initiation* of wrongs -- and these conservative-bashers are the ones who started the internecine assaults. Ditto for Boob, who in my (speculative) view may be the worst of the agents provocateurs posting hereon and inciting Right-on-Right attacks. I skip directly over any posts from this Right-basher without wasting any more of my time on him. Sorry, Boob, but you've got only one trick -- you hate social conservatives -- you spread a lot of manure around, and there's not even a pony!

This all reminds me of Ben Franklin's famed quote, "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." With a nod to ol' Ben, "They that can give up essential integrity to purchase a little temporary DC 'respectability' -- or invites to Georgetown cocktail parties -- deserve the reputation of neither integrity nor respectability."

Missy| 6.11.09 @ 10:53PM

Kathleen Porker, Piggy Noonan, David Frump?

That cracked me a new one. Thanks, I needed that.

Dan| 6.12.09 @ 2:00AM

Let's cut the crap and cut to the chase.

Frum is all comfy and cozy like with sacraments solemnizing sodomite couples. For him, that's the wave of the futer, against which Republicans will beat their "heads" in vain.

Sodomites and pearl divers are just like Black Americans. On the one hand we'll have the Tuskagee Airmen, and on the other, the local "colour" at San Fran's parade of degenerates. And there's no moral difference between the two groups.

That's Frum.

Now he wouldn't have put it so bluntly. He'd have done his level best to avoid speaking so plainly on the topic. But that's his vision of the future. Cultural relativism.

To which I say, well, I think you all know what I'd say to him, and such like him.

We're the Grand Old Party, we were born from the Abolition Movement, and some of us are not shy about letting domestic policy to be informed by moral truth. And we're not hesitant about using the word "truth" or "moral."

Aaron| 6.12.09 @ 8:02AM

Kudos RSM, best post in a while... you and Antle are why I read AmSpec.

@Tim - Mrs Howell: John McCain, that will keep me going all day!

Bob| 6.12.09 @ 8:50AM

Red & Company,

It is clear why you and others are tainting conservatism. You admit you want to live in the past and "conserve" things. But conservation also means living in moderation and protecting your assets. If conservatism is to remain relevant, it must adhere to the second definition. Over time, you and the other reactionaries will just die off because as every year goes by, the average age of Republicans is getting older.

Secondly, it is clear that you and others don't believe in learning and applying that learning to the future. Your anti-educational rants may be red meat to the uneducated on this board, but in the non-isolated real world, they just mark irrelevance and doom.

Good luck -- you'll need it.

Tim| 6.12.09 @ 1:36PM

Bob
Forst let me thank you for being a dissenter here without becoming a childish monkeyspank. I need name no names.
Anyway my answer to you is that there are no new ideas under the sun, and the new ideas of Obama look a lot like the new ideas of Franklin Roosevelt.
Much like boom and bust business cycles, the political heat will burn out one day and a "new" Reagan will have his day.
In support of this I offer the lesson of 1994. Some Republicans were talking of a "permanent majority" just as some Democrats in congress switched parties and some pundits were pronouncing the party dead.
The Republicans were indeed a mighty force but they squandered their strength and got soundly whipped.
My friendly advice to you Democrats is that you spend less time worrying about "helping" Republicans find their way and invest in stopping the party from becoming an arrogant, out of control and out of touch juggernaut. Which is how these cycles end.

Bob| 6.12.09 @ 2:43PM

Tim, I am a Republican, not a Democrat. Because I am a fiscal conservative and social libertarian, the nuts here call me a RINO. I also believe it looking and data and determining the truth, not divining the truth through an isolated belief system.

Your example of Democrats going into the hinterlands and then emerging is a good one. But you need to take that a step further. They did it by running a 50 state strategy. Because they determined it was better to win than stick to a strict ideology, they recruited candidates that could win in their respective areas notwithstanding their ideology. So they brought on conservative Democrats -- many of which were pro-life, it conservative areas. Obama's foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan looks a lot like Bush's much to the chagrin of the left. Obama does not support gay marriage but does support civil unions (which in my book is the same).

So the Democrats won by expanding the base and appealing to independents while running away from a strict ideology. If you believe there is nothing new under the sun, then the Republicans can win in the same way after they spend their 40 years in the desert and expand the base through moving to the center, especially on social issues.

Missy| 6.12.09 @ 3:03PM

Another poster called you a weathercock, Bob: You turn every which way depending on the direction of the latest gust. Sounds apt to me.

You have no moral underpinnings, you're only motivated by what is currently in vogue.

Case in point: You said Conservatives' opposition to gay marriage will doom us as a political movement. After I pointed out that Obama also rejected gay marriage you now say civil unions are just as good. You're such a phony.

You don't belong on this site--we have integrity. Besides, you're a troll.

Tim| 6.12.09 @ 3:53PM

He's not a troll. Not in my opinion. Sure I disagree with him often but haven't you seen real trolls here? They get profane, they make no sense, they insult.

Bob| 6.12.09 @ 4:42PM

Missy, I have distinct points of view and do not waver. My moral underpinnings are based upon letting people believe what they want to believe. I believe it immoral for you and anybody else to force your morality upon me. That's why I am a social libertarian. From a secular point of view, I dare you to tell me the difference between marriage and civil unions. They both confer the exact same rights to individuals. Therefore, there is no difference in reality. If you don't understand that, you do not know how to use your brain. Personally, I would like to see "marriage" taken out of secular society and all unions be called "civil unions".

The fact that you must call anyone who disagrees with you a "phony", shows your lack of reasoning ability. People are entitled to their beliefs.

The fact that social conservative points of view hurt the politics of Republicans is just fact. I want Republicans to win again. That means accepting differing points of view and concentrating on secular initiatives like fiscal conservatism, individual responsibility, limited government, and fighting only when attacked, i.e., no pre-emptive wars. You should concentrate on those things that bring us together, not those things that separate us.