-
Tebowing and ‘Polarizing’
June 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In his latest Bloomberg column, Ramesh Ponnuru agrees with Matt Steinglass below that Republicans decided they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections because they weren’t conservative enough. Ponnuru argues that this is a misreading of the electorate.
To some extent. Certainly, most independents didn’t start voting against George W. Bush’s GOP because Republicans had been spending too much money (though some did). But Republicans in 2006-08 faced a comprehensive problem: their base was dispirited, their opposition energized, and swing voters had swung against them. This combination of factors helps explain John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Republican overspending was a contributor to the base’s disenchantment, even if it wasn’t what was driving Democrats bananas and swing voters away. Why didn’t this show up in the first term, when the overspending was initially taking place and Bush remained popular? Just as winning can paper over a divided locker room in sports, it can play a similar role in a political coalition.
Moreover, many conservatives were willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt because of the war on terror (9/11 alone is a good reason not to read too much into Bush’s first-term popularity), taxes, and judges. By 2006, with Iraq seeming lost, Katrina having damaged Bush’s reputation for handling a national crisis, and Harriet Miers having been nominated to the Supreme Court, that benefit of the doubt was gone. What had once been quiet grumbling about the Medicare prescription drug benefit turned into vocal criticism.
Something similar is at play with Barack Obama and the progressive left. Liberals weren’t happy when Obama compromised on the Bush tax cuts, let go of the public option, signed off on the Patriot Act, and stayed in Iraq until the Iraqis kicked us out. But criticism was muted until Obama became a political loser in 2010. That doesn’t mean a more left-wing Obama would have avoided a midterm rout. But it might have solved the portion of his political troubles caused by his base being dispirited.
View all comments (10) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/15/overspending-and-republican-lo
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bumr50| 11.15.11 @ 4:33PM
Ramesh Ponnru, his colleagues at the National Review, and to a greater extent the Weekly Standard have been arguing for a new Bush I style, globalist conservatism for as long as I can remember.
Guess what?
It doesn't work!
"Moderation" is what's gotten us where we are today, on the verge of Statism with Marxists openly parading in the streets!
Wake up!
PattyMor| 11.15.11 @ 4:45PM
Bush and his henchmen (particularily Karl Rove) let the Marxist Media attack him relentlessly for four years and they didn't respond or fight back. Might as well hired a doormat for Prez.
Dai Alanye | 11.16.11 @ 11:36AM
Dubya's gentlemanly behavior and hesitation to counter-attack did his administration as much damage as any other factor. Whether walking past the Occupiers or in national politics, you can't play like a gentleman when dealing with thugs, and the Dems and media are loaded with thugs. Look up Emmanuel, Rahm and Sullivan, Andrew for examples.
C Bowen | 11.15.11 @ 5:02PM
We are talking about the same George Bush who insulted his base, called them racists, because they didn't support Amnesty? This after
Not called the Stupid Party for nothing, but then Ramesh has always been running these misdirects.
Brendan| 11.15.11 @ 11:24PM
In 2003, I was talking to an "independent" friend, who complained about the republicans spending too much. I agreed. I told him that the republicans would pay - probably not in 2004, since Kerry was pretty unacceptable, but in 2006 or 2008.
But, I warned him, when the democrats get in, they will over-react, and grab too much. Having been out of power in the house since the Days of Newt, they would go insane on spending and make the republicrats look like pikers. They did.
Ramash is annoying, and out of touch, as is almost everyone over at NRO. I wouldn't pay much attention to them. You guys have a better site.
John| 11.16.11 @ 2:06AM
Just get rid of those public sector unions (SEIU), and the Republicans will rule another 100 years.
Raley| 11.16.11 @ 4:10AM
What the hell made you reprint a column from Ponnuru where he's got an opinion about someone else misinterpreting something?
This guy's last 2 published books were dedicated to these topics....
1. Obama's Rage - published after that 2 year campaign where his complete lack of it was a reoccurring story.
2. How liberals are to blame for making al Qaeda mad because they support liberal positions like women's rights.
I mean seriously, what's a guy gotta do to get dropped from the taken-seriously-list ?
Because apparently insinuating Republicans and al Qaeda were on the same page in terms of conservative positions wasn't enough.
martin j smith| 11.16.11 @ 7:46AM
The Republican Party lost because they had no values and they had a President that was a coward in so far as he did not stand up for himself. That is a NO NO. They also lost because they behaved like losers. They are the turn the other cheek attitude and in that sense acting like Socialists contributed to their loses. Another reason they lost ( related to acting like losers ) is that when they had a majority they let the Socialists run all over them. Sorry the Republican Party Leadershit is lousy,I have not faith in them and I offer my vote of NO CONFIDENCE !!!!!!!!.
The Republican Establishment is currupt and are willing to make deals against the interests of the American People. That is the reason they lost.
LC JB | 11.16.11 @ 9:05AM
I agree Martin. The Republican Establishment is directly responsible for where we find ourselves today. I think I can speak for a lot of us here, that we're sick and tired of hearing about 'unelectable' conservative candidates, when their message is exactly what we want to hear (and see in action). This continuing policy to only support moderates ( a la Romney) as they (the RINOs) are the only ones that can catch the indies and late decision makers. The indeed deserve the Party Of Stoopid moniker. This bull crap of reaching across the aisle has only bought us abuse. Time to find the testicular fortitude, throw out the moth-eaten concept of who they think is electable and be REAL conservatives, not a party that is merely demonrat lite.
martin j smith| 11.16.11 @ 10:54AM
And let me add one other point; John ( phony ) McCaine. Enough said ?