What Next for the GOP? [Archive]

View Full Version : What Next for the GOP?

Seamus Fermanagh

11-05-2008, 05:45

Please discuss.

Note, by "minority" I meant political minority, not ethnic or cultural.

CountArach

11-05-2008, 05:47

If they can work with the new power blocs (like making inroads with latinos) they can reconstruct themselves as a southern/western party.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-05-2008, 05:48

Move to the left.

seireikhaan

11-05-2008, 05:52

The GOP MUST turn back to its roots. It must root out the neo-cons and social conservatives who turned off so many after the last 8 years. They must stop wrapping themselves in the flag and bragging about how patriotic and how much they love it and act as though that is the sole determiner for political qualification.

Instead, they must preach the message of fiscal responsibility, on both a governmental and personal level. They must nominate a person for the next election who can attempt to push back for the young vote. They need someone who is youthful, energetic, and can clearly and forcefully argue for a smaller, more efficient government without turning a discussion into how to "combat the democrats".

However, I do not see anyone amongst the current power members of the party who fits this mold. Until they can find such a person, I believe they will take a backseat to the new Democratic majority.

CountArach

11-05-2008, 05:56

However, I do not see anyone amongst the current power members of the party who fits this mold. Until they can find such a person, I believe they will take a backseat to the new Democratic majority.
Romney would probably fall udner that category, but that depends on if Obama is past the culture wars or not.

seireikhaan

11-05-2008, 05:59

Romney would probably fall udner that category, but that depends on if Obama is past the culture wars or not.
Romney forsook his ability to do so with this season's campaign. If he had run as the man his background stated he was, in combination with his monetary muscle, I think he would have trounced the rest of the candidates in the primary easily. Instead, he allowed himself to succumb to the neo-con Republican brand. His chance passed.

PanzerJaeger

11-05-2008, 06:58

JAG

11-05-2008, 07:02

If they return to their ultra Conservative 'roots', they will keep getting battered in elections. They need to move forward and create new blocks of support and challenge their thinking.

Strike For The South

11-05-2008, 07:03

Ditch the Palins embrace the Pauls

Koga No Goshi

11-05-2008, 07:03

I would hope for the third option as there is nothing wrong with the basic premises of conservatism, but I would bet on Reps becoming a permanent minority.

The Dem gains despite the 9% congressional approval rating demonstrates that all of America's problems will be the fault of Republicans long after Republican control is a distant memory.

And to be honest, there just aren't that many people who put their principles over their own self gain. Most Americans would rather have free health care and all sorts of benefits handed out to them at the expense of the people who pay 90% of taxes. The ideals of personal responsibility, individualism, and making your own way have been losing steam since people have started realizing what they stand get free... they just don't realize that all that Barack has promised isn't really free at all.

There is nothing wrong with the basic premises of conservativism. The problem is that the entire Republican establishment is not conservative, they're Big Church Gov't on social issues and Big Wal Mart/ Wall Street Nanny Gov't on economic issues.

I wouldn't have a tenth of the revulsion I have for Republican leadership in our government if it weren't constantly intervene in the bedroom, constantly intervene in the economy FOR big business and AGAINST lower income and middle class working Americans guising itself as "conservativism."

The Republican Party has not stood for less government, it's just stood for less government for the people who most need government protection to remain free and able to access opportunity.

Divinus Arma

11-05-2008, 07:11

Ditch the Palins embrace the Pauls

Yup.

Divinus Arma

11-05-2008, 07:14

They need to embrace social freedom and ditch the evangelical kooks.

Yoyoma1910

11-05-2008, 07:18

Ditch the Palins embrace the Pauls

I like voting libertarian, but most other people do not seem to. So I don't see this happening. I suppose most people don't see the point of having a government that weighs less than ones wife?

:shrug:

Strike For The South

11-05-2008, 07:18

I like voting libertarian, but most other people do not seem to. So I don't see this happening. I suppose most people don't see the point of having a government that weighs less than ones wife?

:shrug:

You can hope over to Orange and secede

Yoyoma1910

11-05-2008, 07:23

You can hope over to Orange and secede

Last time that happened our two states got separated from the rest of the group, and everything fell apart. It's like the two kids in the buddy system who got left behind by the tiger cage at the zoo.

Strike For The South

11-05-2008, 07:26

Last time that happened our two states got separated from the rest of the group, and everything fell apart. It's like the two kids in the buddy system who got left behind by the tiger cage at the zoo.

Good sir you forget Arkansas....who am I kidding

Yoyoma1910

11-05-2008, 07:34

Good sir you forget Arkansas....who am I kidding

I once read they have the largest flea population in the U.S.

ICantSpellDawg

11-05-2008, 07:40

I would love the GOP to be more like Ron Paul.

We need the government as an organizer - not a nanny.

The political parties exist on the bell curve - in order to understand where they need to be they should look to the right side of the bell curve that is un-represented and find out an altered narrative view that will win elections going forward.

Look to youth, intellect and ideas rather than solely old-bag hip shooting. Battles are being waged in the courtroom and yet we aren't cultivating constitutional lawyers to the extent that the democrats are.

Recruit the best and brightest into GOP politics. Focus on the good aspects of tradition through a better set of eyes and come up with a few traditionally inspired radical ideas. Paul Ryan's roadmap is a good pool as an example of something to dip into for a revitalization of the party. Bobby Jindal can help the party reach out to minority votes and get their opinions on tradition inspired initiatives that may harmonize well those functioning initiatives already in the loop.

Sarah Palin can hone her national level political acumen into something formidable and inspiring the next time around. She is a gifted and charismatic woman and should work to prove that those Gibson and Couric interviews were blips in her early days on the national scene. Show the American people that the G.O.P. seeks and rewards innovation while respecting tradition.

And finally encourage bright professionals like Romney to overcome has-beens like McCain and Dole in the freaking primaries. It is a no-brainer that guys who look like they are going to die and are incapable of making a coherent argument due to age are probably not going to take the cake in the long run. Use better judgment in selecting candidates.

Never defer to democratic narratives. It is disgraceful to hear Republicans buy into the genius narrative created by Obama. Reagan had a narrative and it would have never have accepted Obama's. We need a new covenant that rejects what democrats take as a given and posits a totally different world view and linear progression.

Koga No Goshi

11-05-2008, 07:44

Look to youth, intellect and ideas rather than solely old-bag hip shooting. Battles are being waged in the courtroom and yet we aren't cultivating constitutional lawyers to the extent that the democrats are.

Recruit the best and brightest into GOP politics.

I agree with you. But I think the panic you'd get... and it's not without reason I'm sure, is that it's hard to reconcile intellectualism with the pandering to just the opposite that a significant third or more of the GOP base requires in order to hit the polls. That whole crowd Sarah Palin hugely energized-- how do you get them with some soft spoken, intellectual Constitutional law scholar? And having to tell them, like spoiled children, no, you can't use law like just a bludgeon to legalize what you like and criminalize what you don't like, that that's not what conservative principles are about?

That's the predicament your party is in, I don't envy it.

PanzerJaeger

11-05-2008, 07:53

Crazed Rabbit

11-05-2008, 09:08

If they return to their ultra Conservative 'roots', they will keep getting battered in elections. They need to move forward and create new blocks of support and challenge their thinking.

Ha! It's their abandonment of that, the ideals espoused by Reagan, that's led to their big defeats.

Anyway, I posted this in the final election thread:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122541628923186751.html

But the risk is that Tuesday's results will cause panic, and exacerbate the reactionary, backward-looking behavior that has already done so much damage to the party.

Republicans love to recollect Ronald Reagan, though they forget why. Reagan's strength was looking to the future -- and framing the issues of the day for Americans. When the focus had been balanced budgets, he made the issue the need for economic growth. When the debate had been détente, Reagan turned it into the need for a strong America. That tradition continued with the Contract with America, welfare reform, government reform, tort reform. George W. Bush tackled education.

Reagan's other great strength was not distinguishing between red and blue America. He offered a set of principles, and invited anyone who broadly subscribed to those principles into his political house. The result was that unlikely coalition of fiscal conservatives, defense hawks and social conservatives. These were the days of Reagan Democrats, of victories in states that now seem unwinnable to the GOP.

The further Republicans have moved away from this playbook, the further its fortunes have declined. The GOP was thrown out in 2006 because it had failed to evolve on the new issues facing Americans -- spiraling health-care costs, dwindling energy supplies, out-of-control entitlements. It spent its last years divvying up pork. As it has hit the electoral rocks, the party has also turned inward, harping on immigrants and gay marriage.

CR

LittleGrizzly

11-05-2008, 09:16

There is nothing wrong with the basic premises of conservativism. The problem is that the entire Republican establishment is not conservative, they're Big Church Gov't on social issues and Big Wal Mart/ Wall Street Nanny Gov't on economic issues.

I wouldn't have a tenth of the revulsion I have for Republican leadership in our government if it weren't constantly intervene in the bedroom, constantly intervene in the economy FOR big business and AGAINST lower income and middle class working Americans guising itself as "conservativism."

The Republican Party has not stood for less government, it's just stood for less government for the people who most need government protection to remain free and able to access opportunity.

A mix of what this guy said, and a ron paul type candidate, i probably wouldn't mind the republicans so much then, infact if the republican party did manage to change that much then i would probably vote for them other democrats (ill have to wait and see with obama but going on thier past) the McCain of 2000 has an appeal for me, as does ron paul, even as a lefty i would vote one of these than a lefty who is jut thier for powers sake...

AlexanderSextus

11-05-2008, 09:49

to reiterate, they have to be like ron paul. I would vote GOP if Ron Paul won the candidacy in '12:yes:

Kagemusha

11-05-2008, 10:00

My humble Euro weenie opinion is that the GOP needs to distance itself from the religious extremist nutjobs and warmonger neocons and become the voice of the deep ranks of conservative citizenry, instead of representing the extremist loonies. There are lot good things in conservative values, but these things can be found mostly in moderate conservatism. Extremism, let it be conservative, liberal, religious or any other extremism, hardly ever creates anything good.

CountArach

11-05-2008, 10:04

I hate to say it - Ron Paul would never win an election. Ever.

LittleGrizzly

11-05-2008, 10:42

I think if he won the republican nomination after the democrats having 8 years like the republicans just did, unfortunatly its winning the republican nomination which is the impossible bit...

For all the republicans fault i think alot of the blame has to goto Obama, though im sure the complete lack of fiscal sense, imperial war mongering and degradation of civil liberties didn't help...

If the Republicans operated on something like the platform most republicans on this board want they would be a half decent party

I think the main problem with this is

But I think the panic you'd get... and it's not without reason I'm sure, is that it's hard to reconcile intellectualism with the pandering to just the opposite that a significant third or more of the GOP base requires in order to hit the polls. That whole crowd Sarah Palin hugely energized-- how do you get them with some soft spoken, intellectual Constitutional law scholar? And having to tell them, like spoiled children, no, you can't use law like just a bludgeon to legalize what you like and criminalize what you don't like, that that's not what conservative principles are about?

There seems to be a huge base essential to conservative electoral success which almost seems anti-intellectual, i thought it was intresting that college educated males went mainly to obama, of the different groups they discussed only white males without a college education went more for mccain than obama (the groups were blacks, hispanics, college education and not college educated)

Pannonian

11-05-2008, 13:02

TinCow

11-05-2008, 13:13

Can't answer because my answer isn't up there. It depends on what the Obama Administration does. If it turns out to be a true bipartisan group that really does try to represent the entire country, not just the 52% that elected them, then the Republicans will have to go back to conservative basics because there will be nothing else for them to run on. If Obama turns out to be a typical partisan politician, they can continue as they have been and will win or lose based on Obama's performance.

GeneralHankerchief

11-05-2008, 17:08

What the Republicans need to do, first and foremost, is assure that November 4th, 2008, is the high-water mark for the Democrat Party.

Obama may have a very long honeymoon with the public after winning a victory that was refreshingly easy after the past two razor-close elections. However, Obama will not be up for re-election in 2010. The heavily Democratic Congress will. From experience, Pelosi and Reid will probably be eager to flex their new muscles for two years and ram through a bunch of legislation. The Republicans, having dodged a bullet in the Senate by making sure the Dems didn't get 60, will be able to block the worst bits of legislation but won't have anything remotely resembling a mandate to do so, meaning they are still essentially at the mercy of the Dems.

Mainly, the Republicans need to not lose any more seats in 2010, either holding steady or (preferably) gain a couple. Nothing large, just setting up for later years. They cannot afford to come any closer to Magic 60.

In 2012 (and starting years before), they need to really work hard to mount a serious challenge for the Presidency. By that time, the honeymoon for Obama will almost certainly have waned and the Republicans would do well to mount a legitimate threat. I think the best option for this would be Bobby Jindal, currently the Governor of Louisiana. Jindal, an Indian-American, will blow the "Republicans are only the party of older white men" stereotype out of the water. He has a proven track record as Governor, competantly preparing Louisiana for Hurricane Gustav, which, as you may have noticed, did not catastrophically impact the state. I think Jindal, with a Biden-like figure as his running mate, say George Voinovich, could really make some inroads. Even if Jindal loses, the Republicans need to make a serious dent in the Democratic majority in Congress in 2012.

We're looking at 2014 for the year that Congress is reclaimed. If the Republicans get Jindal in, keep preaching the needs of fiscal conservatism (which will ring true under four years of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi), the best-case scenario is the Republicans knocking Obama out of office in four years for a competant, nontraditional (for them) candidate and then taking Congress in 2014.

That is the path they need to follow. But I think we'll see very early on, maybe within a few months, if this is where they'll head or not.

drone

11-05-2008, 18:13

How the GOP does in the future depends mainly on how the Dems handle their newly acquired power. If they overreach, 2010 will swing more seats to the GOP. Pelosi will probably be the GOP's best friend. If the Dems act responsibly over the next two years, the GOP will have a hard time regaining ground.

Hooahguy

11-05-2008, 18:43

to quote Neal Boortz from here. (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html)

WHERE DO REPUBLICANS GO FROM HERE

What is clear is that the Republican Party has failed on so many levels. I'm not talking about John McCain, I'm talking about the Republican Party. A party that was supposed to reflect the Conservative values of limited government, fiscal restraint, among others, got completely drunk with power. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed.

Republicans also failed to communicate a message that people could understand. Only in the last days, when Joe the Plumber arrived, did a light bulb flicker. But it shouldn't have taken one man in Ohio to do it. John McCain should have spent months hammering Obama's Marxist tendencies -- his 95% tax cut lies -- his cutting capital gains for small businesses. As a party Republicans failed to rally a base that reflected its core values. Maybe that is because those core values no longer exist for the Republicans in power. Just take a look at the past eight years. But somehow, before the next election, they must figure out which direction they want to take their party, and they must believe it, market it, and most importantly – live up to it.

If the Republicans don't learn from this, that is their own fault. They created Barack Obama. They created a Congressional Democrat majority. But they also have the power to re-create their party. Some pundits are worried that this "new direction" will be more socially Conservative. Perhaps that's exactly what we need! My preference would be to see a move back to basic principles of individualism, freedom, economic liberty, self sufficiency and pride in our Country ... with a highlight on individualism. Barack Obama is merely a continuation of the leftist war against the concept of the individual. Democrats look at us as tools ... tools to be used to create some sort of an egalitarian society. Can the Republicans make this point to the voters? Hint: Republicans need to look to the Libertarian Party for some ideas on how to promote the idea of individualism and fight the concept of the individual as government property.

Lemur

11-05-2008, 18:51

Wow, Republicans created Barack Obama. Who knew? And why should I pay to a "writer" who is incapable of using the word "Democratic" correctly? Last I checked, only the most nose-thumbing partisan hacks were still on that linguistic kick.

If writers like this are going to provide the blueprint, I expect to see the Republicans in the wilderness for a long, long time.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-05-2008, 18:53

I expect every bit of bad news about the economy to be blamed on president obama.

Koga No Goshi

11-05-2008, 18:59

There seems to be a huge base essential to conservative electoral success which almost seems anti-intellectual, i thought it was intresting that college educated males went mainly to obama,

There's nothing "almost" anti-intellectual about it. The history of anti-intellectualism in America is long and well documented both by Americans and third party social observers and writers.

of the different groups they discussed only white males without a college education went more for mccain than obama (the groups were blacks, hispanics, college education and not college educated)

This is precisely what was pandered to, along with the religious right and the economic elite/corporate constituencies, by the McCain campaign. But when I mentioned that in the election thread a lot of people got personally offended and said Obama's campaign targetting was no higher. The results, of course, don't bear that out at all.

GeneralHankerchief

11-05-2008, 19:12

Your possible 2012 GOP primary (http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/nov/05/the-2012-gop-field-first-call/).

According to the blog post, we're looking at candidates from four establishments of the GOP: The Populist (either Huck or Palin), the Establishment Conservative (the author suggests Jeb Bush, but that'll never happen in a million years, so it's Romney), the Full-Spectrum Conservative (Jindal), and the National Security Candidate (Gen. Petraeus). Admittedly, I can't see Petraeus or Jeb running, and the author makes a good point about Jindal's waiting a while before he tries for the Presidency.

As promised, here's my initial thoughts on what the Republican field will look like in four years. Obviously, there are many variables along the way, ranging from how beatable Obama looks to the 2010 midterms; I'm just forecasting with the known knowns we have today. As usual there will probably be 10 or so candidates, but from where we sit today there look to be four slots from which to put together a credible primary campaign:

(1) The Populist Candidate: With its Washington leadership beheaded, the GOP is likely to become more of a populist and culturally conservative party in the next four years. Mike Huckabee showed this year the power and the limitations of a pure populist campaign, far exceeding expectations with nearly no resources or name recognition (although Huck was out of step with the populists on one of the major causes of grassroots frustration with DC, immigration). Against the backdrop of a tax-spend-regulate Obama Administration, a crucial challenge will be squaring populism with the GOP's need to appeal to economic and fiscal conservatives to expand out of the Huck-size niche. Realistically, the populist candidate is likely to end up as the most moderate serious candidate in the field.

As things stand today, Sarah Palin is the obvious populist candidate and, for now, the very-very-early frontrunner for the 2012 nomination, given her now-massive name recognition (the woman's every TV appearance is a ratings bonanza), amazing talents as a retail politician, appeal to the base, and the GOP tendency towards nominating the next in line. Granted, only two candidates in the part century (Bob Dole and Franklin D. Roosevelt) have won a major party nomination after being the VP nominee for a losing ticket (not counting Mondale, who'd already been VP), those two waited 12 and 20 years before doing so, respectively, and recent history has been unkind to those who tried (Edwards 2008, Lieberman 2004 - see also Quayle 2000).

I'll expand another day on the challenges facing Gov. Palin - the short answer is that inexperience is the easiest thing in the world to fix, but she'll have to face tougher budgetary times in Alaska in light of falling oil revenues, she'll have to withstand what is likely to be an ongoing national campaign by the Democrats to take her down or hobble her re-election efforts to cut off the likeliest threat to Obama, and she'll have to develop and sell her own, independent agenda and demonstrate a greater breadth and depth of knowledge on national politics than are required from the running mate slot. Upside in the primaries: the socially conservative, moose-hunting hockey mom could potentially be well-suited to the early GOP primary/caucus electorates in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan.

(2) The Establishment Candidate: The GOP by tradition tends to fall in behind whoever is the candidate of the establishment - of country clubs and boardrooms and Beltway insiders. Part of being a Republican, of course, is having the maturity to understand that being the establishment candidate is not a bad thing. But an angry grassroots is going to take some serious persuading to pick another establishment figure.

The best establishment candidate should be Jeb Bush, for a variety of reasons, but four years won't be enough - if any length of time is - to rebuild the Bush brand within the GOP, let alone the general electorate. That leaves Mitt Romney as the logical next step; Mitt is currently out of office and thus less equipped to get more experience, but he'll have the money and energy to spend four years staking himself out as a consistent conservative voice and putting the distance of time between 2012 and the flip-flop charges of 2008. South Dakota Senator John Thune is also sometimes mentioned, but after 1964, 1996 and now 2008, the GOP has hopefully learned its lesson about nominating legislators for President, especially sitting Senators. Newly re-elected Indiana Governor and former Bush budget director Mitch Daniels (see here and here) will have his name come up but more likely as a VP nominee.

(3) The Full-Spectrum Conservative: The Fred Thompson role from 2008 but one that will pack a lot more potential appeal in 2012. Bobby Jindal is the best of the lot, but while he's already got an impressive resume, Jindal's so young (he's 37, which makes him the age Romney was in 1985), so he can afford to wait out several more election cycles; he's up for re-election in 2011, which makes running in 2012 very problematic; and he really and genuinely wants to stay in Louisiana long enough to make real changes in his beloved home state's legendarily corrupt and dysfunctional political culture. The other main contender for this slot is South Carolina's Governor Mark Sanford, now in his second term as Governor after 3 in Congress. SC is the most favorable turf for a candidate of this type among the early primary states, so with Sanford running as a favorite son he could basically block out any other challengers, and if he doesn't run for re-election in 2010 (offhand I don't know whether he's term-limited), he'd have a logistical advantage over Palin, who will presumably still be in office as governor of a geographically remote state.

(4) The National Security Candidate: After four years of Obama, there's also likely to be strong sentiment for adult leadership on national security. Traditionally, the GOP has tended to prioritize this issue (in 2008, both McCain and Giuliani ran primarily as national security candidates). But especially with Senators in disfavor, the supply of candidates with more national security credentials than a typical Governor is short - most of the Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld types in the party will be past their prime by 2012, and I continue to doubt that Condi Rice could be a viable candidate for a multitude of reasons. The name you're likely to hear is CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, but Gen. Petraeus - who I assume will remain on active duty for another year or two, at least, and who President Obama dare not fire - has no political experience and no known domestic-policy profile (we don't even know if he's a Republican). My guess is that if we nominate a governor in 2012, Gen. Petraeus will be much in demand as a running mate. After that, I'm not sure who will even try to fill this slot in the primaries.

Sorry, but that's the list; the no-more-McCains sentiment among the base will make it impossible for someone like Tim Pawlenty to mount a credible campaign as a moderate, nobody will bother trying to re-create the crippling damage inflicted on Rudy Giuliani from running with a record as a social liberal, and no Ron Paul type candidate (especially Ron Paul) is ever going to make a serious dent. It's those four slots or bust.

And I, for one, am definitely not committing yet to who I'll support as between Palin or a Sanford or Jindal run or maybe somebody else (obviously I'm not a Mitt fan). There's two long years ahead of us before that choice begins to arise.

Koga No Goshi

11-05-2008, 19:18

.......

If that author thinks running Jeb Bush or Mitt or Sarah Palin in '12 is sufficient reform away from what just got totally backhand-smacked last night, I hope he doesn't represent the brainpower of the GOP.

GeneralHankerchief

11-05-2008, 19:24

Koga No Goshi

11-05-2008, 19:28

I don't really know too much about Jeb so I can't say for sure about him. But I do know that he has absolutely no shot of winning anything on a national stage; his name is now poison.

Mitt, before he got sucked into the evangelical trap, ran as a fiscal conservative and was the "I understand the economy" candidate. I think, had he gotten the nod, things might have gone a lot differently in terms of response to the financial crisis. One way or another, Mitt would have had a plan, which is something I can't really say for President-elect Obama or Senator McCain.

As for Palin, she was 4 years ahead of her time. Put her running a state for long enough and you're experienced, no matter how small the state is. Even with four more years of training, I think she's too damaged goods to try for a national office nowadays.

Anyway, this wasn't the author's choice, just a prediction of who would run.

Agreed. The point was not are these candidates experienced enough or qualified enough in terms of Washington standards of who is fit to run for President on a major ticket. I think IF the GOP is thinking along these lines, it is thinking way off-target in terms of what, exactly, got rejected last night.

People are already predicting that one possible GOP reaction is going to be "we weren't Republican enough", and go even harder back to the far-right base. But I think if it does that, it is, at least for a considerable time being, going to remain marginalized.

This is what I alluded to earlier. John McCain talked about tax cuts (for the wealthy.) If the GOP's response to his loss is... we need someone who says TAX CUTS in a different inflection and at a much louder volume.... then they will only start winning again when the Dems do something major to screw up, or the electorate gets sick of them, or the electorate gets complacent and unalarmed about how bad leadership can be like they did by the end of Clinton's admin.

Louis VI the Fat

11-05-2008, 20:21

MCain bet his campaign on the extremist block of the Republicans. Maybe he didn't have a choice, but lose he did.

I still wonder what the outcome would've been if McCain had moved to the centre. The 'Clinton Democrats' didn't automatically rush to Obama. Independents and centrists, states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana were up for grabs for a centrist Republican.

I am not a poll God like CountArach, so I am not sure if McCain could've won by moving to the centre like Obama did. But from anecdotal evidence, and even personal preference, I say there were a lot of centrists up for grabs, who were open to a McCain presidency until they were driven away by Palin, by McCain's pandering to the extreme right, by flag waving and 'country first' signs, by a dirty campaign, by McCain ditching his reputiation as an independent Republican.

According to the blog post, we're looking at candidates from four establishments of the GOP: The Populist (either Huck or Palin), the Establishment Conservative (the author suggests Jeb Bush, but that'll never happen in a million years, so it's Romney), the Full-Spectrum Conservative (Jindal), and the National Security Candidate (Gen. Petraeus).Those are old answers to yesterday's problems. For example, 'National Security' candidates work best when there's a fearmongering president in power.

Besides, it's the economy, stupid! This decides the fate of Democratic candidates.

Spino

11-05-2008, 20:52

I hate to say it - Ron Paul would never win an election. Ever.

Well... not one held in the last 50+ years, that's for sure. Paul's philosophy & political temperment is better suited for an America long forgotten or one that exists in the far flung future.

Hooahguy

11-05-2008, 21:14

Seamus Fermanagh

11-05-2008, 21:27

I chose the fallback, re-think and return to conservative basics for a reason: Time.

Obama is as close to a lock for two terms as we've had since FDR -- maybe since GW. It is utterly irrelevant who the GOP nominates in 2012 except to that person (whose hope of the presidency terminates with that loss -- my bet is that Romney will pass Palin and take it on the chin for the GOP). Short of video featuring President Obama and Usama in flagrante delicto, Obama is a lock. The Dems may lose some ground if their "attack dog wing" goes on a big vengeance spree, but if they follow the more disciplined pace of their President (and I think they will as he's "the one") they will pick up further seats in 2010 and will secure the "one-party cloture" lock on the Senate. It is from that point that the GOP will move forward -- or fade into obscurity.

The GOP needs to dial WAY back, accept minority status as the norm for 8-10 years (which means filibustering and the like on CRUCIAL issues only, and not as an ongoing jab at the eyes of the Dems; it means NOT doing deals with them but suggesting good legislation and valuable ammendments and making them vote it down), and go back to its roots to rebuild. Smaller government, government at the local level must not remain slogans, but must be basic litmus tests for would-be GOP leaders. Tax cuts must be ignored in favor of dialing down the size, scope, role, and spending of the Federal Government. THEN, once the debt starts to shrink, then and only then can we think about tax cuts for anyone -- and those tax cuts should be a fundamental alteration of the tax system, not just a new rate for the big earners.

This is not, in other words, a project of any brevity. The first years will be bleak and then gains measured slowly for some time. We are likely talking about aiming for 2020 or even 2024 -- and we need to be OUT of the executive for that stretch, not climbing on top of it and trying to claim credit for it with an "Eisenhower" adminstration. That's JAG's answer, and it would benefit party first and ideas last. We must eschew that route and effect real change.

Tribesman

11-05-2008, 21:28

hes libertarian and very intelligent.
Isn't he the idiot that thought mocking a disabled child was good entertainment ?
Doesn't sound very intelligent does he

Hooahguy

11-05-2008, 21:30

Isn't he the idiot that thought mocking a disabled child was good entertainment ?
Doesn't sound very intelligent does he
do you mind backing up that claim?
b/c theres probably much more to that story than you just said.

and AFAIK, no that was Howard Stern, if ur talking about when Stern had a mentally challenged person on his show to mock him.

Tribesman

11-05-2008, 21:52

do you mind backing up that claim?

Try the FCC they were the ones that got the complaints about Boortz

Spino

11-05-2008, 21:57

What's next for the GOP? Self reflection? Soul searching? Re-evaluation of principles? Yes. Maybe. No. More importantly... why bother?

The Democratic party has done nothing to change since its landslide losses to Reagan and its minority years during the GW Bush administration. It learned absolutely nothing from its losses and if anything, has become more stubborn and arrogant and moved further to the left than ever before. One could say that the Democrats are back in power due to nothing more than a cyclical change of events. The Republican party has had enjoyed a great deal of momentum for a very long time now and was due for a fall. Now add GW Bush & the Neo-Conservative movement and boom, fall from grace and we're back to a pre-Reagan Democratic dominated political landscape.

Correction. The Democratic party did learn one thing from those lean years... they learned to move hard to the center/center-right during an election year... only to snap back to the left once elected. Such a strategy worked wonders for Clinton & Obama, no?

Should the Republicans change? Yes, absolutely. Will they? Probably not. Once again I fall on my tired generational argument. The generation currently running the country and dominating both parties possesses neither the will or the ability to engage in true self reflection and re-invent itself. As they saying goes, 'You can't teach an old dog new tricks' and for the controlling generation whose oldest members are in their mid-60s it is a tall order to expect them or their leaders to change their ways. So look for the Republicans to do exactly what the Democrats have done; bide their time until a major factor like the economy, terrorism, etc. takes its toll on the American people thus compelling them to look for new blood and new answers. Once in power it will be more of the same. Wash, rinse, repeat. Same old :daisy:.

MCain bet his campaign on the extremist block of the Republicans. Maybe he didn't have a choice, but lose he did.

I still wonder what the outcome would've been if McCain had moved to the centre. The 'Clinton Democrats' didn't automatically rush to Obama. Independents and centrists, states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana were up for grabs for a centrist Republican.

I am not a poll God like CountArach, so I am not sure if McCain could've won by moving to the centre like Obama did. But from anecdotal evidence, and even personal preference, I say there were a lot of centrists up for grabs, who were open to a McCain presidency until they were driven away by Palin, by McCain's pandering to the extreme right, by flag waving and 'country first' signs, by a dirty campaign, by McCain ditching his reputiation as an independent Republican.

Those are old answers to yesterday's problems. For example, 'National Security' candidates work best when there's a fearmongering president in power.

Besides, it's the economy, stupid! This decides the fate of Democratic candidates.

Well McCain's history of being a moderate Republican didn't help. He lost but it wasn't a landslide. He had the political misfortune of being associated with a party whose brand had been damaged by an unpopular war, an unpopular president and a massive, global mortgage/credit meltdown that they had very little to do with (and in fairness, did not do enough to stop when they had the chance). I'm pessimistic enough to say that even if McCain had selected a strong running mate like Romney, Giuliani, Thompson or hell, Huckabee, he still would have lost albeit in a much closer race. However you can bet your buttocks that without Sarah Palin the media would have then relegated the VP selection factor to the traditional back burner as it has in the past. Seriously, the media went positively postal on Palin even though she was no better or worse than Quayle or Gorebot ver. 1.0.

Yes, I also wonder how McCain would have fared had the economy been strong and rolling along at a good clip. As the saying goes, 'people vote with their wallets' and clearly most voters were clutching theirs tight when they stepped into the voting booth.

On the other hand Obama's obscenely well funded hype machine kept harping on the 'four more years of George Bush' ad nauseum. Who knows how many sheeple bought into that and jumped on the Obama bandwagon? Sounds snobbish but talk to any successful advertising/marketing executive and they'll show you tangible proof that effective branding does work.

Beyond the issues Obama's past and personal associations would have sunk most candidates but his campaign managed to beat his party's favorite daughter and kept on truckin'. Credit his hype machine, his political savoir-faire and the fact that never before in our history have black folks been hipper or cooler than they are now. If the last 16 years have shown us anything it is that the average American voter is less likely to take into account a candidate's personal character, let alone their real position on the issues than ever before.

Them post-war generation chickens have come home to roost...

Tribesman

11-05-2008, 22:04

Well McCain's history of being a moderate Republican didn't help.
That is because he appeared to abandon his history and campaign as if he was Bush III using Bush IIs crew and methods .

CountArach

11-05-2008, 22:18

That is because he appeared to abandon his history and campaign as if he was Bush III using Bush IIs crew and methods .
Spot on.

As the campaign wore on the polls showed that more and more people thought he would continue Bush's economic policies.

Hooahguy

11-05-2008, 22:28

Try the FCC they were the ones that got the complaints about Boortz
o ya, i remember that!
he was joking though. if you heard the broadcast, that is.
he got some nasty emails after that and the next day clearly expressed that he was, in fact, joking, and later caleld the people who he offended and apologized.
no ones perfect, i guess.

Koga No Goshi

11-05-2008, 23:07

The Democratic party has done nothing to change since its landslide losses to Reagan and its minority years during the GW Bush administration. It learned absolutely nothing from its losses and if anything, has become more stubborn and arrogant and moved further to the left than ever before. One could say that the Democrats are back in power due to nothing more than a cyclical change of events. The Republican party has had enjoyed a great deal of momentum for a very long time now and was due for a fall. Now add GW Bush & the Neo-Conservative movement and boom, fall from grace and we're back to a pre-Reagan Democratic dominated political landscape.

That's because, I believe, the Dem Party loses not as a direct result of how "left" it is-- that decides the issue only for ideological right-wingers-- who would not be voting for a Dem in almost any circumstances anyway. But rather because of both misdirection and a propaganda war to both say the Dems are left and equate left as a bad thing, even in the center and among moderates. Zogby studies back during '04 showed that Republicans misidentify which platforms belong to which parties much, much more often than Democrats do, and tend to believe that Democratic platforms which "sound good" floating around without a party attachment, are actually Republican platforms-- and vice-versa with the bad sounding stuff. In short, on the right, there has been a pounded in notion from talk radio and dinner table discussions that if it's a good, desirable or smart idea... it's probably Repubican. And if it's a dumb, unworkable idea, the left probably loves it. A very simple ingroup/outgroup outlook on the issues.

We lose in the propaganda, rhetoric, and lockstepping on the same talking points war -- we rarely lose on the issues themselves. 99% of Republicans all using exactly the same catchy buzzline that they are for middle America will resonate with the voters-- regardless of whether or not those Republicans have a voting record which bears out the rhetoric.

gaelic cowboy

11-09-2008, 08:56

MCain bet his campaign on the extremist block of the Republicans. Maybe he didn't have a choice, but lose he did.

I still wonder what the outcome would've been if McCain had moved to the centre. The 'Clinton Democrats' didn't automatically rush to Obama. Independents and centrists, states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana were up for grabs for a centrist Republican.

Mcain could not move to the centre cos all the party people in the GOP who do all the slog and lick the envelopes and make the phonecalls are right or hard right and think the centre is a dirty word.

As long as the base of the party are these kinds of people it will be a marginal party who requires the other side to mess up instead of offering an alternative.

Since Mcain could not be expected to change the GOP overnight he needed adependable base to work and get out the vote hence Palin was chosen in the end to ensure republicans voted for MCain at least.

All the Demographic change in the US is making these hard right religous types irrelevant and quicker than they ever imagined

Oleander Ardens

11-09-2008, 14:37

I too believe that the "conservatives" have won recently because they were able to talk nicely about values and markets but walked unashamingly openly and covertly for the rich and very rich. How most Americans were able to swallow so much bigotry and dishonesty for so long is beyond me, but gives certainly credit to the political cunning of the neoliberals since Reagan.

If Obama has enough political wisdom it might be possible to hammer the Republicans just by success, hoping in the rational sense of the American voters. A hope that might be futile for the Democrats, because George Bush has so deeply ruined the countrly that he might have to spend much political capital for though choices...

Hard to see what the GOP can do anything to counter the pragmatism of the democrats, their ideology was a disaster, but of course they can try to paint themselves as true Americans and the rest as danger. It worked so long, the party has pushed hard to the right, so I really can't image the emergence of a bipartisan, moderate and pragmatic leader on the right anytime soon. Perhaps after a couple of defeats...

Fragony

11-09-2008, 14:39

gaelic cowboy

11-09-2008, 15:37

What is this the pax-probama? What is it with this sudden republican need to change anything the basics are a house made of bricks, it's as solid as can be, but it should focus only on economics because republicans just have the right idea.

edit: And what is it with all this 'new future' nonsense, a black man got chosen for president yes, that is exceptional, considering, so at least consider how hard this can slap you in the face. This shouldn't be seen as a revolution of any sorts that is dangerous thinking.

Of course your right man its not the new future at all is it unfortunately its actually the new reality.

Republicans must change because their base doesn't care anymore about good sound conservative principles its obsessed with moralism and terror.

The centre is where its at and the centre is where the value of good conservative principle will resonate.

But if they continue to fight about say Darwin or Roe V Wade they will continue to float right and then they will be depending on voters rejecting Obama not accepting the GOP

KarlXII

11-09-2008, 18:30

to quote Neal Boortz from here. (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html)

Lol @ Obama's Marxist tendencies.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-09-2008, 18:56

Of course your right man its not the new future at all is it unfortunately its actually the new reality.

Republicans must change because their base doesn't care anymore about good sound conservative principles its obsessed with moralism and terror.

The centre is where its at and the centre is where the value of good conservative principle will resonate.

But if they continue to fight about say Darwin or Roe V Wade they will continue to float right and then they will be depending on voters rejecting Obama not accepting the GOP

I disagree. Though the need to re-think and re-focus is obvious given recent results, I believe that most conservatives (and most GOPers) would relish a return to the basic principles of conservative governance.

Smaller Government. Government at the most local possible level. Fiscal responsibility.

Lemur

11-09-2008, 19:15

Smaller Government. Government at the most local possible level. Fiscal responsibility.
That reminds me of a convo with the wife. She asked me what Republicans believe in. I explained, using very similar language. "Wow, then why aren't we Republicans?" she asked.

"Because they don't do any of that," I replied.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-09-2008, 21:56

That reminds me of a convo with the wife. She asked me what Republicans believe in. I explained, using very similar language. "Wow, then why aren't we Republicans?" she asked.

"Because they don't do any of that," I replied.

:shame:

ICantSpellDawg

11-10-2008, 01:24

Lemur

11-10-2008, 02:34

ICantSpellDawg

11-10-2008, 02:39

Actually, yeah, if the Repubs would get serious about small, responsible government, and if they would stop trying to legislate the bedroom, and maybe distance themselves a little bit from the religious nuts, I would seriously consider joining them.

And, to be fair, if the Dems would get serious about fiscal responsibility and distance themselves from the teachers' union (well, actually from all the unions) and stop being captive to a thousand little grievance groups, I'd consider joining them.

I am not worried that either event will happen.

You are a smart and reasonable guy. Get involved in the local GOP! If you believe that their underlying ideals are good but their leadership is poor HELP THEM CORRECT IT! Your ideas are not agaisnt what it means to be Republican. If you don't like the general stance on abortion or Gay marriage, urge moderation from within.

Let's all remember that these parties weren't placed here by God - they were created by the people. Independents have cracked quite a bit of ground in Vermont and other areas of the Northeast while people like you and me have helped make some areas of local politics inspiring for Republican and Democratic leadership. They crave new ideas, but we are sitting here on forums arguing as passive observers.

If you like some GOP ideals but dislike those in power now - the time is ripe to get involved. We have more of a chance to make a difference when the going gets tough. Nobody who spends countless hours on these forums can use "i'm busy" as an excuse. I know for a fact that we are most definitely not busy.

We would all be well served if the members of our forum got involved.

Uesugi Kenshin

11-10-2008, 20:39

You are a smart and reasonable guy. Get involved in the local GOP! If you believe that their underlying ideals are good but their leadership is poor HELP THEM CORRECT IT! Your ideas are not agaisnt what it means to be Republican. If you don't like the general stance on abortion or Gay marriage, urge moderation from within.

Let's all remember that these parties weren't placed here by God - they were created by the people. Independents have cracked quite a bit of ground in Vermont and other areas of the Northeast while people like you and me have helped make some areas of local politics inspiring for Republican and Democratic leadership. They crave new ideas, but we are sitting here on forums arguing as passive observers.

If you like some GOP ideals but dislike those in power now - the time is ripe to get involved. We have more of a chance to make a difference when the going gets tough. Nobody who spends countless hours on these forums can use "i'm busy" as an excuse. I know for a fact that we are most definitely not busy.

We would all be well served if the members of our forum got involved.

Hey Tuff any idea who our independents are?

Socialists baby!

Well most of them are. And I definitely dropped 4-5 votes for the Vermont Progressive Party and their man, Pollina, got as many votes for governor as the Democrat! I'm seriously considering getting more involved with them, but I'm in PA for college right now.

I have to say I doubt the GOP is going to move away from the far-right wing-nuts right now though. It doesn't seem like there are enough moderates in the Republican party or the party leadership doesn't think it's been spanked badly enough to drop that particularly unwilling to compromise section of the electorate.

Lemur

11-10-2008, 21:00

It doesn't seem like there are enough moderates in the Republican party or the party leadership doesn't think it's been spanked badly enough to drop that particularly unwilling to compromise section of the electorate.
That sentiment reminds me of a pithy but mean-spirited line I read elsewhere: The Repubs are like a stalker; rejection just makes them crazier.

That's fine, though. A little time in the wilderness will probably do some good to the Repubs, and they will emerge as a leaner, more focused party. After all, we don't want the Dems to have a one-party rule for long. It's impossible not to get corrupted in that scenario. We need the Repubs to pull their collective hineys together and craft an intelligent response to the Dems.

CountArach

11-11-2008, 04:13

Here's where the GOP can go (http://ndnblog.org/node/3233). As said by Sen Martinez (R-FL):

The fact of the matter is that Hispanics are going to be a more and more vibrant part of the electorate, and the Republican Party had better figure out how to talk to them. We had a very dramatic shift between what President Bush was able to do with Hispanic voters, where he won 44 percent of them, and what happened to Senator McCain. Senator McCain did not deserve what he got. He was one of those that valiantly fought, fought for immigration reform, but there were voices within our party, frankly, which if they continue with that kind of rhetoric, anti-Hispanic rhetoric, that so much of it was heard, we're going to be relegated to minority status.

Lemur

11-11-2008, 04:18

Looks like Devastatin' Dave (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4GFoIweckPDP1oRhKBlHOwD94CCDU00) was a Congressman all this time. Who knew?

A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

How is it that reasonable, good men like John Sununu were voted out last Tuesday, but this nutball survived?

CountArach

11-11-2008, 04:23

:laugh4:

Wow, I actually lol'ed... the ignorance of basic political terms is hilarious :laugh4:

Now I have the image of some of Obama shaking down Capitalists.

seireikhaan

11-11-2008, 04:29

Lemur- :jawdrop: :no: ~:shock:

CrossLOPER

11-11-2008, 04:35

A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

Marxist or fascist

...

????????

Lemur

11-11-2008, 04:56

Oh, there's more if you follow the link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4GFoIweckPDP1oRhKBlHOwD94CCDU00). This man has clearly never heard of Godwin's Law.

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force. [...]

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Lord Winter

11-11-2008, 05:43

If Obama's sucessful then it may at the very least help us get read of the extreme fringe of the right. I mean eventually there voters have to wake up to the fact that they're complete idots.

Oleander Ardens

11-11-2008, 07:39

If the GOP moves from the far-right to the center, were the Democrats are, than the should do better.

CountArach

11-11-2008, 08:13

If the GOP moves from the far-right to the center, were the Democrats are, than the should do better.
Hooray for One Party rule!

Lemur

11-11-2008, 23:22

P.J. O'Rourke, the conservative writer I have enjoyed most over the years, does his take (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15791&R=13CD722B2E) on what this election meant:

We Blew It

A look back in remorse on the conservative opportunity that was squandered.
by P.J. O'Rourke

Let us bend over and kiss our ass goodbye. Our 28-year conservative opportunity to fix the moral and practical boundaries of government is gone--gone with the bear market and the Bear Stearns and the bear that's headed off to do you-know-what in the woods on our philosophy.

An entire generation has been born, grown up, and had families of its own since Ronald Reagan was elected. And where is the world we promised these children of the Conservative Age? Where is this land of freedom and responsibility, knowledge, opportunity, accomplishment, honor, truth, trust, and one boring hour each week spent in itchy clothes at church, synagogue, or mosque? It lies in ruins at our feet, as well it might, since we ourselves kicked the shining city upon a hill into dust and rubble. The progeny of the Reagan Revolution will live instead in the universe that revolves around Hyde Park.

Mind you, they won't live in Hyde Park. Those leafy precincts will be reserved for the micromanagers and macro-apparatchiks of liberalism--for Secretary of the Department of Peace Bill Ayers and Secretary of the Department of Fairness Bernardine Dohrn. The formerly independent citizens of our previously self-governed nation will live, as I said, around Hyde Park. They will make what homes they can in the physical, ethical, and intellectual slums of the South Side of Chicago.

The South Side of Chicago is what everyplace in America will be once the Democratic administration and filibuster-resistant Democratic Congress have tackled global warming, sustainability, green alternatives to coal and oil, subprime mortgage foreclosures, consumer protection, business oversight, financial regulation, health care reform, taxes on the "rich," and urban sprawl. The Democrats will have plenty of time to do all this because conservatism, if it is ever reborn, will not come again in the lifetime of anyone old enough to be rounded up by ACORN and shipped to the polling booths.

None of this is the fault of the left. After the events of the 20th century--national socialism, international socialism, inter-species socialism from Earth First--anyone who is still on the left is obviously insane and not responsible for his or her actions. No, we on the right did it. The financial crisis that is hoisting us on our own petard is only the latest (if the last) of the petard hoistings that have issued from the hindquarters of our movement. We've had nearly three decades to educate the electorate about freedom, responsibility, and the evils of collectivism, and we responded by creating a big-city-public-school-system of a learning environment.

Liberalism had been running wild in the nation since the Great Depression. At the end of the Carter administration we had it cornered in one of its dreadful low-income housing projects or smelly public parks or some such place, and we held the Taser gun in our hand, pointed it at the beast's swollen gut, and didn't pull the trigger. Liberalism wasn't zapped and rolled away on a gurney and confined somewhere until it expired from natural causes such as natural law or natural rights.

In our preaching and our practice we neglected to convey the organic and universal nature of freedom. Thus we ensured our loss before we even began our winning streak. Barry Goldwater was an admirable and principled man. He took an admirably principled stand on states' rights. But he was dead wrong. Separate isn't equal. Ask a kid whose parents are divorced.

Since then modern conservatism has been plagued by the wrong friends and the wrong foes. The "Southern Strategy" was bequeathed to the Republican party by Richard Nixon--not a bad friend of conservatism but no friend at all. The Southern Strategy wasn't needed. Southern whites were on--begging the pardon of the Scopes trial jury--an evolutionary course toward becoming Republican. There's a joke in Arkansas about a candidate hustling votes in the country. The candidate asks a farmer how many children he has.

"I've got six sons," the farmer says.

"Are they all good little Democrats?" the candidate asks.

"Well," the farmer says, "five of 'em are. But my oldest boy, he got to readin' . . . "

There was no need to piss off the entire black population of America to get Dixie's electoral votes. And despising cracker trash who have a laundry hamper full of bedsheets with eye-holes cut in them does not make a man a liberal.

Blacks used to poll Republican. They did so right up until Mrs. Roosevelt made some sympathetic noises in 1932. And her husband didn't even deliver on Eleanor's promises.

It's not hard to move a voting bloc. And it should be especially easy to move voters to the right. Sensible adults are conservative in most aspects of their private lives. If this weren't so, imagine driving on I-95: The majority of drivers are drunk, stoned, making out, or watching TV, while the rest are trying to calculate the size of their carbon footprints on the backs of Whole Foods receipts while negotiating lane changes.

People are even more conservative if they have children. Nobody with kids is a liberal, except maybe one pothead in Marin County. Everybody wants his or her children to respect freedom, exercise responsibility, be honest, get educated, have opportunities, and own a bunch of guns. (The last is optional and includes, but is not limited to, me, my friends in New Hampshire, and Sarah Palin.)

Reagan managed to reach out to blue collar whites. But there his reach stopped, leaving many people on our side, but barely knowing it. There are enough yarmulkes among the neocons to show that Jews are not immune to conservatism. Few practicing Catholics vote Democratic anymore except in Massachusetts where they put something in the communion wafers. When it comes to a full-on, hemp-wearing, kelp-eating, mandala-tatted, fool-coifed liberal with socks in sandals, I have never met a Muslim like that or a Chinese and very few Hispanics. No U.S. immigrants from the Indian subcontinent fill that bill (the odd charlatan yogi excepted), nor do immigrants from Africa, Eastern Europe, or East Asia. And Japanese tourists may go so far as socks in sandals, but their liberal nonsense stops at the ankles.

We have all of this going for us, worldwide. And yet we chose to deliver our sermons only to the faithful or the already converted. Of course the trailer park Protestants yell "Amen." If you were handling rattlesnakes and keeping dinosaurs for pets, would you vote for the party that gets money from PETA?

In how many ways did we fail conservatism? And who can count that high? Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people's business: abortion. Democracy--be it howsoever conservative--is a manifestation of the will of the people. We may argue with the people as a man may argue with his wife, but in the end we must submit to the fact of being married. Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it's rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don't know if I'm one of them. I might kill the baby. I will kill the boy.

The real message of the conservative pro-life position is that we're in favor of living. We consider people--with a few obvious exceptions--to be assets. Liberals consider people to be nuisances. People are always needing more government resources to feed, house, and clothe them and to pick up the trash around their FEMA trailers and to make sure their self-esteem is high enough to join community organizers lobbying for more government resources.

If the citizenry insists that abortion remain legal--and, in a passive and conflicted way, the citizenry seems to be doing so--then give the issue a rest. Meanwhile we can, with the public's blessing, refuse to spend taxpayers' money on killing, circumscribe the timing and method of taking a human life, make sure parental consent is obtained when underage girls are involved, and tar and feather teenage boys and run them out of town on a rail. The law cannot be made identical with morality. Scan the list of the Ten Commandments and see how many could be enforced even by Rudy Giuliani.

Our impeachment of President Clinton was another example of placing the wrong political emphasis on personal matters. We impeached Clinton for lying to the government. To our surprise the electorate gave us cold comfort. Lying to the government: It's called April 15th. And we accused Clinton of lying about sex, which all men spend their lives doing, starting at 15 bragging about things we haven't done yet, then on to fibbing about things we are doing, and winding up with prevarications about things we no longer can do.

When the Monica Lewinsky news broke, my wife set me straight about the issue. "Here," she said, "is the most powerful man in the world. And everyone hates his wife. What's the matter with Sharon Stone? Instead, he's hitting on an emotionally disturbed intern barely out of her teens." But our horn rims were so fogged with detestation of Clinton that we couldn't see how really detestable he was. If we had stayed our hand in the House of Representatives and treated the brute with shunning or calls for interventions to make him seek help, we might have chased him out of the White House. (Although this probably would have required a U.S. news media from a parallel universe.)

Such things as letting the abortion debate be turned against us and using the gravity of the impeachment process on something that required the fly-swat of pest control were strategic errors. Would that blame could be put on our strategies instead of ourselves. We have lived up to no principle of conservatism.

Government is bigger than ever. We have fattened the stalled ox and hatred therewith rather than dined on herbs where love (and the voter) is. Instead of flattening the Department of Education with a wrecking ball we let it stand as a pulpit for Bill Bennett. When--to switch metaphors yet again--such a white elephant is not discarded someone will eventually try to ride in the howdah on its back. One of our supposed own did. No Child Left Behind? What if they deserve to be left behind? What if they deserve a smack on the behind? A nationwide program to test whether kids are what? Stupid? You've got kids. Kids are stupid.

We railed at welfare and counted it a great victory when Bill Clinton confused a few poor people by making the rules more complicated. But the "French-bread lines" for the rich, the "terrapin soup kitchens," continue their charity without stint.

The sludge and dreck of political muck-funds flowing to prosperous businesses and individuals have gotten deeper and more slippery and stink worse than ever with conservatives minding the sewage works of legislation.

Agriculture is a business that has been up to its bib overalls in politics since the first Thanksgiving dinner kickback to the Indians for subsidizing Pilgrim maize production with fish head fertilizer grants. But never, since the Mayflower knocked the rock in Plymouth, has anything as putrid as the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2008 been spread upon the land. Just the name says it. There are no farms left. Not like the one grampa grew up on.

A "farm" today means 100,000 chickens in a space the size of a Motel 6 shower stall. If we cared anything about "nutrition" we would--to judge by the mountainous, jiggling flab of Americans--stop growing all food immediately. And "bioenergy" is a fraud of John Edwards-marital-fidelity proportions. Taxpayer money composted to produce a fuel made of alcohol that is more expensive than oil, more polluting than oil, and almost as bad as oil with vermouth and an olive. But this bill passed with bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and was happily signed into law by President Bush. Now it's going to cost us at least $285 billion. That's about five times the gross domestic product of prewar Iraq. For what we will spend on the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2008 we could have avoided the war in Iraq and simply bought a controlling interest in Saddam Hussein's country.

Yes, we got a few tax breaks during the regimes of Reagan and W. But the government is still taking a third of our salary. Is the government doing a third of our job? Is the government doing a third of our dishes? Our laundry? Our vacuuming? When we go to Hooters is the government tending bar making sure that one out of three margaritas is on the house? If our spouse is feeling romantic and we're tired, does the government come over to our house and take care of foreplay? (Actually, during the Clinton administration . . . )

Anyway, a low tax rate is not--never mind the rhetoric of every conservative politician--a bedrock principle of conservatism. The principle is fiscal responsibility.

Conservatives should never say to voters, "We can lower your taxes." Conservatives should say to voters, "You can raise spending. You, the electorate, can, if you choose, have an infinite number of elaborate and expensive government programs. But we, the government, will have to pay for those programs. We have three ways to pay.

"We can inflate the currency, destroying your ability to plan for the future, wrecking the nation's culture of thrift and common sense, and giving free rein to scallywags to borrow money for worthless scams and pay it back 10 cents on the dollar.

"We can raise taxes. If the taxes are levied across the board, money will be taken from everyone's pocket, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and least advantaged will be harmed the most. If the taxes are levied only on the wealthy, money will be taken from wealthy people's pockets, hampering their capacity to make loans and investments, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and the least advantaged will be harmed the most.

"And we can borrow, building up a massive national debt. This will cause all of the above things to happen plus it will fund Red Chinese nuclear submarines that will be popping up in San Francisco Bay to get some decent Szechwan take-out."

Yes, this would make for longer and less pithy stump speeches. But we'd be showing ourselves to be men and women of principle. It might cost us, short-term. We might get knocked down for not whoring after bioenergy votes in the Iowa caucuses. But at least we wouldn't land on our scruples. And we could get up again with dignity intact, dust ourselves off, and take another punch at the liberal bully-boys who want to snatch the citizenry's freedom and tuck that freedom, like a trophy feather, into the hatbands of their greasy political bowlers.

But are we men and women of principle? And I don't mean in the matter of tricky and private concerns like gay marriage. Civil marriage is an issue of contract law. A constitutional amendment against gay marriage? I don't get it. How about a constitutional amendment against first marriages? Now we're talking. No, I speak, once again, of the geological foundations of conservatism.

Where was the meum and the tuum in our shakedown of Washington lobbyists? It took a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives 40 years--from 1954 to 1994--to get that corrupt and arrogant. And we managed it in just 12. (Who says Republicans don't have much on the ball?)

Our attitude toward immigration has been repulsive. Are we not pro-life? Are not immigrants alive? Unfortunately, no, a lot of them aren't after attempting to cross our borders. Conservative immigration policies are as stupid as conservative attitudes are gross. Fence the border and give a huge boost to the Mexican ladder industry. Put the National Guard on the Rio Grande and know that U.S. troops are standing between you and yard care. George W. Bush, at his most beneficent, said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship they would have to do three things: Pay taxes, learn English, and work in a meaningful job. Bush doesn't meet two out of three of those qualifications. And where would you rather eat? At a Vietnamese restaurant? Or in the Ayn Rand Café? Hey, waiter, are the burgers any good? Atlas shrugged. (We would, however, be able to have a smoke at the latter establishment.)

To go from slime to the sublime, there are the lofty issues about which we never bothered to form enough principles to go out and break them. What is the coherent modern conservative foreign policy?

We may think of this as a post 9/11 problem, but it's been with us all along. What was Reagan thinking, landing Marines in Lebanon to prop up the government of a country that didn't have one? In 1984, I visited the site where the Marines were murdered. It was a beachfront bivouac overlooked on three sides by hills full of hostile Shiite militia. You'd urge your daughter to date Rosie O'Donnell before you'd put troops ashore in such a place.

Since the early 1980s I've been present at the conception (to use the polite term) of many of our foreign policy initiatives. Iran-contra was about as smart as using the U.S. Postal Service to get weapons to anti-Communists. And I notice Danny Ortega is back in power anyway. I had a look into the eyes of the future rulers of Afghanistan at a sura in Peshawar as the Soviets were withdrawing from Kabul. I would rather have had a beer with Leonid Brezhnev.

Fall of the Berlin wall? Being there was fun. Nations that flaked off of the Soviet Union in southeastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus? Being there was not so fun.

The aftermath of the Gulf war still makes me sick. Fine to save the fat, greedy Kuwaitis and the arrogant, grasping house of Saud, but to hell with the Shiites and Kurds of Iraq until they get some oil.

Then, half a generation later, when we returned with our armies, we expected to be greeted as liberators. And, damn it, we were. I was in Baghdad in April 2003. People were glad to see us, until they noticed that we'd forgotten to bring along any personnel or provisions to feed or doctor the survivors of shock and awe or to get their electricity and water running again. After that they got huffy and began stuffing dynamite down their pants before consulting with the occupying forces.

Is there a moral dimension to foreign policy in our political philosophy? Or do we just exist to help the world's rich people make and keep their money? (And a fine job we've been doing of that lately.)

If we do have morals, where were they while Bosnians were slaughtered? And where were we while Clinton dithered over the massacres in Kosovo and decided, at last, to send the Serbs a message: Mess with the United States and we'll wait six months, then bomb the country next to you. Of Rwanda, I cannot bear to think, let alone jest.

And now, to glue and screw the lid on our coffin, comes this financial crisis. For almost three decades we've been trying to teach average Americans to act like "stakeholders" in their economy. They learned. They're crying and whining for government bailouts just like the billionaire stakeholders in banks and investment houses. Aid, I can assure you, will be forthcoming from President Obama.

Then average Americans will learn the wisdom of Ronald Reagan's statement: "The ten most dangerous words in the English language are, 'I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help.' " Ask a Katrina survivor.

The left has no idea what's going on in the financial crisis. And I honor their confusion. Jim Jerk down the road from me, with all the cars up on blocks in his front yard, falls behind in his mortgage payments, and the economy of Iceland implodes. I'm missing a few pieces of this puzzle myself.

Under constant political pressure, which went almost unresisted by conservatives, a lot of lousy mortgages that would never be repaid were handed out to Jim Jerk and his drinking buddies and all the ex-wives and single mothers with whom Jim and his pals have littered the nation.

Wall Street looked at the worthless paper and thought, "How can we make a buck off this?" The answer was to wrap it in a bow. Take a wide enough variety of lousy mortgages--some from the East, some from the West, some from the cities, some from the suburbs, some from shacks, some from McMansions--bundle them together and put pressure on the bond rating agencies to do fancy risk management math, and you get a "collateralized debt obligation" with a triple-A rating. Good as cash. Until it wasn't.

Or, put another way, Wall Street was pulling the "room full of horse s--" trick. Brokerages were saying, "We're going to sell you a room full of horse s--. And with that much horse s--, you just know there's a pony in there somewhere."

Anyway, it's no use blaming Wall Street. Blaming Wall Street for being greedy is like scolding defensive linemen for being big and aggressive. The people on Wall Street never claimed to be public servants. They took no oath of office. They're in it for the money. We pay them to be in it for the money. We don't want our retirement accounts to get a 2 percent return. (Although that sounds pretty good at the moment.)

What will destroy our country and us is not the financial crisis but the fact that liberals think the free market is some kind of sect or cult, which conservatives have asked Americans to take on faith. That's not what the free market is. The free market is just a measurement, a device to tell us what people are willing to pay for any given thing at any given moment. The free market is a bathroom scale. You may hate what you see when you step on the scale. "Jeeze, 230 pounds!" But you can't pass a law making yourself weigh 185. Liberals think you can. And voters--all the voters, right up to the tippy-top corner office of Goldman Sachs--think so too.

We, the conservatives, who do understand the free market, had the responsibility to--as it were--foreclose upon this mess. The market is a measurement, but that measuring does not work to the advantage of a nation or its citizens unless the assessments of volume, circumference, and weight are conducted with transparency and under the rule of law. We've had the rule of law largely in our hands since 1980. Where is the transparency? It's one more job we botched.

Although I must say we're doing good work on our final task--attaching the garden hose to our car's exhaust pipe and running it in through a vent window. Barack and Michelle will be by in a moment with some subsidized ethanol to top up our gas tank. And then we can turn the key.

drone

11-12-2008, 18:49

P.J. O'Rourke, the conservative writer I have enjoyed most over the years, does his take (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15791&R=13CD722B2E) on what this election meant:

It's not hard to move a voting bloc. And it should be especially easy to move voters to the right. Sensible adults are conservative in most aspects of their private lives. If this weren't so, imagine driving on I-95: The majority of drivers are drunk, stoned, making out, or watching TV, while the rest are trying to calculate the size of their carbon footprints on the backs of Whole Foods receipts while negotiating lane changes.

:laugh4: You owe me a new monitor and keyboard.

The man who should have been the GOP candidate speaks out:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/paul.republican/index.html
But it might just take a new crop of leaders to regain the credibility needed to redirect the Party. It certainly won't be done overnight. It took a long time to come out of the wilderness after 40 years of Democratic rule for the Republican Party to take charge. Today though, time moves more quickly. Opportunities will arise. The one thing for certain is that in the next four years we will not see the Republic restored. Instead the need for it will be greater than ever.

The problems are easily understood and the answers are not that difficult. Abusing the rule of law and ignoring the Constitution can be reversed. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the needed reforms, it can lead the way and regain its credibility. If power is sought for power's sake alone, the Party will never be able to wrench away the power of the opposition.

In the past two years, I found that when the young people heard the message of liberty, they overwhelmingly responded favorably, fully realizing the failure of the status quo and the need to once again endorse a system of self reliance, personal responsibility, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy while rejecting the cradle-to-grave nanny state all based on the rule of law and the Constitution.

To ignore the political struggle and only "hope for the best" is pure folly. The march toward a dictatorial powerful state is now in double time.

Ronin

11-12-2008, 19:16

After reading the last few entries on this topic I grow more and more convinced that there should be mandatory mental health checks for people wanting to run for political office...and for those wanting to write political texts also while we are at it...

what piles of bull :daisy:~:eek:

LittleGrizzly

11-13-2008, 01:35

O'Rourke seemed to have paranoid delusions... ron paul's not so bad, not exactly sure what to make of him...

Banquo's Ghost

11-13-2008, 08:39

Mr O'Rourke writes well - and demonstrates the essential problem for Republican politics. The sheer, unadulterated and largely incoherent rage against the left - which is, after all, only a slightly different slant on their own policies. The intemperate language that implies the world is now at an end is childish.

HoreTore

11-13-2008, 10:15

Sorry about the double post, I blame my connection....

HoreTore

11-13-2008, 10:15

And where were we while Clinton dithered over the massacres in Kosovo and decided, at last, to send the Serbs a message: Mess with the United States and we'll wait six months, then bomb the country next to you.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Thanks for that article, there are more good quotes there than text!

Lemur

11-13-2008, 18:39

You're all welcome. As I said, it's not that I agree with P.J. O'Rourke most of the time, but the guy can write and write well, a skill that is too often lacking amongst polemicists. Most political "writers" have the composition skills of a fifth grader (http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2008/11/where-do-republicans-go-from-h.html).

Love him or hate him, O'Rourke can turn out memorable, well-turned text.

CrossLOPER

11-13-2008, 23:36

I love the whole "it's not the Democrats' fault they won" routine. Honestly. They speak as if a dog left the gates open during the siege.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-13-2008, 23:41

I love the whole "it's not the Democrats' fault they won" routine. Honestly. They speak as if a dog left the gates open during the siege.

You did not hear that from me. I asserted that the Dems won this election -- pretty much across the board. Such things do no happen unless a sizeable portion of the electorate votes FOR your candidates and/or agenda. My query centers on what the GOP should do moving forward, the results of the election are (except for MN and AS) a done deal.

Marshal Murat

11-14-2008, 02:19

Karl Rove says 2010 will favor the Republicans (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122653996148523063.html)

In a sign Mr. Obama's victory may have been more personal than partisan or philosophical, Democrats picked up just 10 state senate seats (out of 1,971) and 94 state house seats (out of 5,411). By comparison, when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, Republicans picked up 112 state senate seats (out of 1,981) and 190 state house seats (out of 5,501).

This matters because the 2010 Census could allocate as many as four additional congressional districts to Texas, two each to Arizona and Florida, and one district to each of a number of (mostly) red-leaning states, while subtracting seats from (mostly) blue-leaning states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania and, for the first time, California. Redistricting and reapportionment could help tilt the playing field back to the GOP in Congress and the race for the White House by moving seven House seats (and electoral votes) from mostly blue to mostly red states.

Palin dislikes the bailout (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/palin.rga/index.html)

Former Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin sharply questioned expanding the federal economic bailout plan Thursday during her first extended remarks since the end of the presidential campaign.

At a press conference earlier Thursday, Palin said that she and her fellow Republican governors were ready to put aside "extreme partisanship" and act if Washington fails to provide the leadership America needs.

She told them not to "let obsessive, extreme partisanship ... get in the way of doing what's right."

Kralizec

11-14-2008, 02:44

That O'Rourke article is fantastic. I'd quote my favourite part of it, but there's to many of them.

I almost fell in love with him years ago when I read he wrote: The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

ICantSpellDawg

11-14-2008, 23:58

Weee!

Young Republicans, of whom I've seen a bit this week, should remember that nothing in politics is permanent. Everything in America, from businesses to families to political parties, is always rising or falling, because America is dynamic, not static, and change is the only constant. There is joy to be had in being out of power. You don't have to defend stupid decisions anymore. You get to criticize with complete abandon. This is the pleasurable side of what the donkey knows, which is that it's easier to knock over the barn than build it.

America Throws Long

If Obama doesn't connect, more than the game is lost.

By PEGGY NOONAN

I've been traveling in New York and Texas, and it's all Obamarama all the time. People mention Sarah Palin (there was appreciative laughter the other day in Houston when a speaker said wistfully that the Alaska governor may soon discover the power of silence), and now and then President Bush (not often—people move on with a finality that is brutal), but the topic is Barack Obama. There is continuing national curiosity at and discussion of the mystery of the man—what does he think, what will he do?—coupled with a great sense of expectation, and a high sense of anxiety.

The reasons behind the preoccupation are obvious—new president, new directions—but one new aspect sharpens it. A week and a half after the election, the idea has settled in that America just threw long. People hadn't heard of Mr. Obama two years ago, they know they don't really know him now, and they just gave him the presidency. America threw long, and America is praying for a dazzling reception. People want him to catch the ball.
Actually, how it felt this week was that there is a sense of suspension (the ball is in the air, it's arcing over the field) accompanied by a sense of urgency (if he fumbles at this high-stakes time, more than a game is lost).
What is striking is how much hopeful support there has come to be. Mr. Obama's approval ratings this week hit 70%. They'll go higher. Part of this is people saying: We want you to do well. As you prosper, our nation prospers.
Going for him, too, is a broad sense that the problems the president-elect faces are so deep, from war and peace to economic dislocation, that voters will be patient, give him time, and be grateful for any progress. Modest improvements will be seen as small triumphs.
Part of the mystery of Mr. Obama is that he is cool, and this makes him different from his recent predecessors. We are coming off two hot presidents. With Bill Clinton, there was always a sense that he was trying to rein in his emotions and tamp down purple rage. He was red-faced, indignant at the reporter who had the temerity to pepper him with unexpected questions. With George W. Bush, also, there was an emotionalism, a sense of high sentiment with sharp rhetoric—you're either with us or against us. In the case of both presidents it is arguable that emotions affected policy. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has an air of natural restraint, of reserve. He's one cool cat, perhaps even one chilly customer.
More Peggy Noonan

Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns. (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/peggy-noonan.html)

And click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace. (http://astore.amazon.com/wsjbookscom-20/detail/0061735825/104-4447538-0425522)

Which adds to the air of mystery. But an air of mystery of course has power in it. It kept the House of Windsor afloat for centuries, until someone advised them somewhere back in the 1980s that it would be better for them if they acted more like their subjects. Their subjects, of course, were appalled. They wanted something to secretly admire. You be the king, I'll be the slob.
There was also this week a continuing question of the meaning of the election's outcome. Was the vote a realigning one? Does it mark the beginning of a center-left era? That's the kind of thing you know in retrospect. The vote will prove to be a realigning one if Mr. Obama does well enough over a long enough period that people come to see themselves not as voters who picked him but as people who are his followers. If they choose to follow him, their self-identification as Democrats will sink in and formalize, and the vote they cast in 2008 will come to seem not a decision but an affiliation. Without affiliation, everything remains in play and will be in play in the coming years. If Mr. Obama doesn't catch the pass and cross the goal line, it will mean this election marked a moment, not a movement.
It is obvious that Mr. Obama's people have learned from the experiences of Bill Clinton and will continue to try not to begin with a gays-in-the-military, my-wife-is-revolutionizing-health-care series of errors that will self-brand them as to the left of the mainstream. They do not want to do anything that will leave the middle-right saying "Uh-oh" and begin to push away. The great question, however, is: Do Mr. Obama and his people fully understand what will make the middle-right say "Uh-oh"? His small joke at Nancy Reagan's expense the other day was the sort of joke they make in the leftosphere. The rightosphere has its jokes too. But America doesn't live in the leftosphere or the rightosphere.
Everyone asks whither the Republicans, what should they do first? They should recognize reality, absorb it and think about its meaning. Edmund Burke respected reality so much that he was accused by his enemies of worshiping a thing simply because it was. He did not, but he knew who man was and he knew that all actors in history must be aware of the level and tilt of the stage, and what is on the stage, and what can be moved and what cannot.

I believe renewal and reform will come from the states. There will be, in Washington and New York, a million symposia, think-tank confabs, op-ed pieces, columns and cruises; there will be epiphanies on the Amtrak Acela while delayed at Wilmington; there will be polls and books, and pollsters' books. All fine and good, and a contribution. But the new emerging Republicans are likely to come in the end from the states, because that is where "this is what works" will come from. It is governance in the states that will yield the things that win—better handling of teachers' unions, better management, more effective, just and therefore desirable tax systems. And, of course, more clean lines of accountability.
Something that's new in this particular era is that the party will be rebuilding for the first time at a moment in which there is a national conservative media structure in place as a powerful player. The last time the GOP took such a drubbing as happened last week was 1976, after Watergate. The party roared back in 1980, but in those four years there was no broad conservative media presence. There was National Review, and Human Events, with their relatively small circulations, and this newspaper's editorial page. That was more or less it. There was no talk radio, no Web sites, no cable channels, few competing magazines.
It is a question what exact impact the conservative infrastructure, and the great number of conservative thinkers and intellectuals, will have on a GOP comeback. The party has never attempted to reform and renew itself with so many national leaders, not only in the House and the Senate but on the airwaves, and in busy dispute in the magazines and on heavily visited Web sites. This is going to be interesting to see, and only in part because we've never seen it before.
Young Republicans, of whom I've seen a bit this week, should remember that nothing in politics is permanent. Everything in America, from businesses to families to political parties, is always rising or falling, because America is dynamic, not static, and change is the only constant. There is joy to be had in being out of power. You don't have to defend stupid decisions anymore. You get to criticize with complete abandon. This is the pleasurable side of what the donkey knows, which is that it's easier to knock over the barn than build it.