Limbaugh v. Douthat on the future of the Republican Party — this stuff is like porn for political junkies. Here’s Rush:
I wish to reach around and pat myself on the back. Way back during the Republican primaries … we were told Ty the Republican Party hierarchy that the only chance the Republican Party had (by the way, we were told this also by some of the intellectualoids in our own conservative media) to win was to attract Democrats and moderates; and that the era of Reagan was over, and we had to somehow find a way to become stewards of a Big Government but smarter that gives money away to the Wal-Mart middle class so that they, too, will feel comfortable with us and like us and vote for us.
In that sense, it was said the only opportunity this party has to regain power is John McCain. Only John McCain can get moderates and independents and Democrats to join the Republican Party, “and we can’t win,” these intellectualoids said, “if that didn’t happen.” Well, the latest moderate Republican to abandon his party is William Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts who today endorsed the Most Merciful Lord Barack Obama. He joins moderate Republican Colin Powell. He joins former Bush press spokesman Scott McClellan. He joins a number of Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Senator from Nebraska …
Now, I wish to ask all of you influential pseudointellectual conservative media types who have also abandoned McCain and want to go vote for Obama (and you know who you are without my having to mention your name) what happened to your precious theory? What the hell happened to your theory that only John McCain could enlarge this party, that we had to get moderates and independents? How the hell is it that moderate Republicans are fleeing their own party and we are not attracting other moderates and independents?
… When I saw the Weld thing today I smiled and I fired off a note to all my buddies and I said, “Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! How can this be? How can this be? This is the kind of guy that our candidate was supposed to be attracting, and we were supposed to be getting all these moderates from the Democrat Party,” and we will, by the way. We’re going to get some rank and file, average American Democrats that are going to vote for McCain. But these hoity-toity bourgeoisie… Well, they’re not the bourgeoisie, but… Well, they are in a sense. They’re following their own self-interests, so I say fine. They have just admitted that Republican Party “big tent” philosophy didn’t work. It was their philosophy; it was their idea. These are the people, once they steered the party to where it is, they are the ones that abandoned it.
And here’s Ross’ response:
This Rush Limbaugh monologue is a fascinating document, and should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand one of the most powerful conservative narratives emerging around the looming GOP debacle. For Rush, there are only two kinds of people in Republican Party: True conservatives like him, and “moderate Republicans.” The latter is an ideologically-inclusive category: You can be pro-choice or pro-life, David Frum or Colin Powell, a Rockefeller Republican or a Sam’s Club conservative; indeed, the only real requirement for moderate-Republican status is the belief that the Republican Party needs to reach out to voters who don’t agree with, well, Rush Limbaugh on every jot and tittle of what conservatism is and ought to be. And this inclusive definition allows Limbaugh to shape a narrative of the ’08 election in which “moderate Republicans” can shoulder more or less all the blame for what’s gone wrong…
The logic is so airtight it’s suffocating. John McCain is a moderate Republican. Some people – the party establishment and the “intellectualoids” – said that only someone like McCain would stand a chance of winning the Presidency in 2008, given the state of the GOP brand. But here we are in October, and John McCain is losing – and worse, some of his fellow moderate Republicans are defecting to Obama. Therefore, not only are all the people who urged the GOP to nominate McCain discredited, but so is anybody else who disagrees with Rush Limbaugh about the future direction of the GOP. Moderate Republicanism had its chance this year, and it failed. The big-tent approach was tried and found wanting. Next time, they’ll listen to Rush if they want to win. And so forth.
Take a step back, of course, and the whole argument collapses. (McCain’s substance-free campaign discredits more reformist visions of conservatism how, exactly? The defection of Bill Weld, blueblood extraordinaire, is supposed to undercut the idea that the GOP should be trying to appeal to middle-class Wal-Mart shoppers? McCain is still going to win the “rank and file, average American Democrats” – it’s only the “hoity-toity” types who are jumping ship? etc.) But read quickly (or delivered with Rush’s customary brio), it has a certain surface plausibility – just enough, I suspect, to be persuasive to the many, many conservatives eager to be convinced that the ’08 outcome had everything to do with John McCain’s heresies and the treason of the Beltway elites, and nothing whatsoever to do with them.
Oh, snap! Like I said before, the post-election Republican Party will polarize around visions for the future. It won’t be fi-cons against so-cons or libertarians versus populists or even elites versus the grassroots. It will be Republicans who seek to modernize the party against those who are resistant to any change. It will be Republicans who want to open doors versus those who want to build up walls. It will be Republicans who want fresh blood against those who want excommunication of heretics.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Sigh. I’ll have a response later, on the front page, but for now let me just say that I find both the Limbaugh narrative and the Douthat unsatisfying, but both are preferable to the DaveG narrative whereby anyone who doesn’t want the GOP to look like David Cameron is a change hating reactionary.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I have a lot of respect for you guys, but all the naysaying is really getting annoying. Despite the odds against us, I still say that any time before November 4th is still too early to start with the blaming and the moaning over what to do when McCain loses.
We don’t KNOW that McCain will lose.
DaveG, you’ll have almost four years to try to reshape the party after Election Day IF McCain loses. Until then, let’s not play into the hands of the Democrats who would like nothing more than to see a broken, demoralized GOP before the most important election of our life time.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
If this election was truly about ideology (i.e conservatism/liberalism), Obama would be sinking. But since we are facing a
national crisis, people are gravitating to the more disciplined, steady and competent politician. Voters don’t want an
unpredictable maverick who has a history of losing his cool. Obama has proven to be calm under fire and for better or worse, at least his liberalism is reliable.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“It won’t be fi-cons against so-cons or libertarians versus populists or even elites versus the grassroots. It will be Republicans who seek to modernize the party against those who are resistant to any change.”
Unless you restrict “change” to things like the party logo, many of those “changes” will involve policy and platform. And any fight over policy and platform is bound to touch on social and economic issues, at which point, we will have disputes among the various factions you think will be at peace.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Look again at the recent national and state poll numbers of the respectable pollsters. McCain has the momentum. There is no denying this unless you keep your head in the sand or a shill for Obama or the MSM. The game is still on, you idiots. McCain is only down 3.2% in the IBD/TIPP poll with MOE of 3%. This is the time to fight to win and pull the upset. Today John McCain guaranteed he would win the election. I’d take the word of the maverick any day of the week. Stop wallowing in self-pity and fight to save America from the socialist Obama.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
DaveG is a democrat plant!
October 26th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
As long as we’re talking about the future of the party, I’d like to see the GOP stop funding the neocons Imperial delusions. That- exponentially more than all that ballyhooed welfare- is leading our government to insolvency. I’d like to see the party stop advocating the surrender of civil liberties in exchange for nebulous promises of “security.” I’d like to see it stop worshiping at the altar of free trade, which has gutted our manufacturing base, weakened our national security, and lead to enormous disparities in income. I’d like to see the GOP care as much about the middle class as the Fortune 500. I’d like to see a little fiscal discipline. I’d like to see them stop using abortion just as a wedge issue and actually DO something substantive to defend life. I’d like to see the GOP control spending- like under the Clinton years.
So if people are wondering why the party isn’t doing so hot right now, there’s a list from me to start with. But the bottom line is that the GOP stopped looking out for the people who elected them, and started whoring themselves out to lobbyists and their business interests.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
2 Patrick:
I would actually prefer to wait until after the election to post these things, but these articles have a freshness date and waiting two weeks to post them would cause us to miss many, many conversations between Republicans about the direction of the party. It’s not my fault that Rush and Ross are talking about this stuff too soon.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Well, firstly, I don’t have much sympathy for Rush – despite agreeing with him on the issues. Its was probably, largely, the failure of the Conservative leadership (Rush, Hannity, etc.) to support a particular candidate that led to the nomination of McCain. Is anyone here honestly going to tell me that, if the base had unified around a particular candidate, that candidate would not have become the nominee?
But really, for all your talk about “modernizing” the GOP, what do you want to do? Abandon the socially conservative values that are the foundation of this country’s strength? Do away with free market capitalism and see a return to carterist policies? Trim the military beyond all recognition? None of those are good for the country, and none of them are going to help the GOP.
Really, Dave, where do you want the party to go?
—
The problem with the GOP isn’t its positions – its positions are fine, and supported by half or more of the American public. The problem is perceived incompetence: mistakes by Bush during the War, John “I don’t know much about the economy” McCain, and a VP nominee who’s biggest claim to experience is a year and a half as Governor of the smallest state in the country – where, SURPRISE!, she has been found to have abused her power. The other problem is the failure to take what are solid (and fine) positions into serious policy proposals.
What the GOP needs to do is: A) Return to its consevative roots. Its time to do some house cleaning and get rid of the corrupt hogs and those who sleep around. Go back to capitalist, strong-military, traditional value positions – and explain to the country why each is necessary for the US to remain strong. and B) Pick a nominee in 2012 who doesn’t just have an ideological agenda, but also a policy agenda and the experience to get it accomplished.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
bob,
While there are a few encouraging signs for McCain, there is a mountain of evidence that he is headed to defeat. The rats are jumping ship, and the circular firing squad in his campaign is already doling out blame (along with Rush, apparently). That’s a sure sign of where his own insiders see this race headed. He could still win, and I don’t discount that. I was with you up until a few days ago, and thought it stupid 1-3 weeks ago with Obama only up 4-7 points in the RCP to declare the race over. But now Obama is up almost 8 in the RCP average, there is just over a week to go, no poll shows McCain up, there is HEAVY early voting, and the map looks just awful. At this point, I’d say it’d take a (small to medium sized) miracle. It could happen, but you may want to identify a few other races you care about next Tuesday, to give yourself something root for that night.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
sorry – hit the submit button too soon.
D’you know when I’ll agree that the conservative platform needs re-working? When it actually gets defeated in an election. If you are going to try and convince me that the 2006 Mark Foley party or the 2008 John McCain party represents a serious defeat for Conservatism, you’ve got another thing coming.
When conservatism loses an election, thats when we can talk about reworking conservatism.
—
MWS, I agree with you on most of those things, but I’ll say two things:
1) Trade is good, but I think we need to move towards a “fair trade” policy, and find some kind of policy that will once again establish the US as the world’s factory.
2) On life, there is only so much we can do until Roe gets overturned. We’ll see if SD can get the abortion ban passed this year.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Patrick, Bob, I couldnt agree more. If what Ive seen on here the last 48 hours reflects anything like what might going on in the MacCamp its no wonder their having problems. I wont believe it though until I hear it from McCain or Palin. We’ll see what they have to say this week, if they are having problems it will be obvious. In the mean time come on guys lets concentrate on the task at hand. We’re X down with 8 to go.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Really, Dave, where do you want the party to go?
I’ve talked about this at length before, and will again. But here are just a few changes I would make:
Recognize that the middle class doesn’t really care about income tax cuts anymore, and attack the payroll tax or eliminate many current federal taxes in favor of a VAT, which has been shown to bring in more revenue at less cost to the economy.
Provide a mechanism for everyone to be insured with a health plan that will actually cover the treatment they need so that the demand for government run health care is eliminated.
Recognize that a global marketplace means being competitive with India and China and their hyper-technical workforce. Raise the quality of K-12 education in this country and expand access to higher education so that the cream of the crop rises to the top and prevents America from becoming just another Chinese satellite in 40 years.
Tackle the trillions of dollars in unfunded mandates down the road by reorganizing entitlements into something that makes sense for the 21st Century and balance the federal budget and begin to pay down the national debt.
Use the military only when it’s in our interest.
Stay out of the culture. It’s none of the government’s business. It’s true that judges have no business trying to create social change from the top down, but it’s also true that legislators have no business trying to prevent social change or restrict individual freedom just to make the folks who man the GOP phone banks happy. The GOP shouldn’t be the nanny state party.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
As I said in January, nominating a candidate based on “electability” as if you can guage such things on a balance sheet is suicidal. The Democrats learned this after blindly picking Kerry based on war hero/traitor credentials. We sold out to moderates who jumped ship anyway. We needed charisma, energy, and dynamics…and we chose a resume.
McCain was an awful choice even if he does win. One day at the RNC aside, has proven a totally inadequete as a campaigner.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
And DaveG again gives us a map to the wilderness.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Mitt Romney actually gives me most of what I want if he runs as more of a social moderate in 2012. I’ve got no residual issue with Romney on economics, foreign policy, judges or abortion. If he realizes that he’ll never get the Huckavoters and stops carping about gay marriage and porn on the web and other consensual personal behavior, I could support him.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Rush is very shrewdly positioning himself here to play kingmaker in 2012. If Rush does choose the candidate, my money is on Sarah Palin at this point. But no one should doubt the power Rush has in the Republican Primary and for that matter the Democratic Primary (see Operation Chaos).
October 26th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
No offense to Dave, but I think it’s more likely he’ll be supporting Obama in 2012 than a Republican in the primary.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
JA Pruce,
Rush also likes to pretend that he is never wrong, and if something is wrong in the GOP he needs to find scapegoats. He also wants to be out far enough in front of McCain’s defeat to establish credibility in his post mortem of the race. The knives are already out.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
“Recognize that the middle class doesn’t really care about income tax cuts anymore, and attack the payroll tax or eliminate many current federal taxes in favor of a VAT, which has been shown to bring in more revenue at less cost to the economy.”
More tax cuts, fine – VAT tax, not fine. A VAT will raise the price of goods by a considerable margin, and the last thing this country needs right now is any disincentive to spend.
—
“Provide a mechanism for everyone to be insured with a health plan that will actually cover the treatment they need so that the demand for government run health care is eliminated.”
As I stated in the other thread, I was a Romney supporter during the primaries, so this is fine.
—
“Recognize that a global marketplace means being competitive with India and China and their hyper-technical workforce. Raise the quality of K-12 education in this country and expand access to higher education so that the cream of the crop rises to the top and prevents America from becoming just another Chinese satellite in 40 years.”
Agreed, though I doubt you can expand the school year beyond what it already is, so you’ll have to come up with a way to actually DO this.
—
“Tackle the trillions of dollars in unfunded mandates down the road by reorganizing entitlements into something that makes sense for the 21st Century and balance the federal budget and begin to pay down the national debt.”
see above.
—
“Use the military only when it’s in our interest.”
Can you point to an example of recent use of the military when it wasn’t believed to be in our interest. Remember, in Iraq, we thought Saddam had WMDs that he might give to terrorists.
—
“Stay out of the culture. It’s none of the government’s business. It’s true that judges have no business trying to create social change from the top down, but it’s also true that legislators have no business trying to prevent social change or restrict individual freedom just to make the folks who man the GOP phone banks happy. The GOP shouldn’t be the nanny state party.”
This would send the GOP – not to mention the country – to hell in a handbasket. How is the liberal social policy working out for Europe? Oh, thats right, marriage rates are dropping, birth rates are non-existant, and in some places, what few births there are are occuring outside of marriage.
Our culture is the foundation of our country, and is vital to our survival as a nation. You want something that will prevent us from becoming just another was-power? How about strong, traditional families that give rise to the next generation.
You want to drop social conservatism, and allow the abortionists and those who want to destroy traditional marraige and values to take over the nation – and that alone is enough for me to write off your advice as useless.
Not only are the GOP social positions vital to America’s survival, but they are in-line with the positions of the public as a whole.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
“Mitt Romney actually gives me most of what I want if he runs as more of a social moderate in 2012.”
4 years is a long time. Who knows what Romney will be like in 4 years? You may as well try to predict rain on Aug. 15, 2019.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Dave –
SOCIAL LIBERALISM WILL BE THE DEATH OF THIS COUNTRY.
Not only do liberal social policies send a country down the irreversible road of decline, but they create a society that fosters economic liberalism and military weakness.
For America to be strong, we have to preserve and promote the traditional family, and stop eliminating huge swaths of our future generations.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Count me in as well. He has to drop the entire war with modern culture thing-and I am not saying that he has to change his views on Abortion and Marriage (nor would I want him to as I share them.)
But parent’s aren’t foremost interested in a button that will stop porn from coming though their computers (mostly because 70% of the dads in American want to be able to access that porn when no one else is around).
They are foremost interested in how they will pay for healthcare, their children’s college education, and their own retirement.
If Mitt runs as the exact same candidate in 2012 sans the “Cultural Warrior 2.0″ bit, he will be a powerful electoral candidate and be pretty much my idea of the perfect candidate to lead us into the future. He simply needs to become a social conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, and drop the Rick Santorum bit.
Newt, interestingly, is that candidate right now, and I wonder if Palin will actually want to run after all of this.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
“This would send the GOP – not to mention the country – to hell in a handbasket. How is the liberal social policy working out for Europe? Oh, thats right, marriage rates are dropping, birth rates are non-existant, and in some places, what few births there are are occuring outside of marriage.
Our culture is the foundation of our country, and is vital to our survival as a nation. You want something that will prevent us from becoming just another was-power? How about strong, traditional families that give rise to the next generation.”
Amen to that. What DaveG fails to grasp- in his pursuit of Cameronism- is that an awful lot of Americans still believe in God, the protection of the innocent, a husband and wife raising kids, and a common culture that isn’t dictated by the basest members of our society.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
#23, it really disappoints me to see you write that Kavon.
I’m not giving up on the sanctity of life or the sanctity of marriage.
Beyond that our nation cannot sustain an economy different than Europe without our high birthrates. Social liberalism leads to falling birthrates and cultural death.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Another argument for a Romney 3.0 without the culture warrior schtick is that Romney has experience winning urban voters and a highly educated electorate. This is important because I just read an article stating that the GOP is set to lose all of the top ten most educated states this year, including VA and CO. As Metro would point out, the most educated parts of the country are where the ideas and innovation come from. If we’re someday able to drive to work on something other than oil peddled to us by Israel-hating Middle Eastern nations, it’ll be because some highly educated guy or gal in some highly educated city or state figured out how to do stuff that requires oil without oil. Education isn’t elitism. It’s necessary.
It would be nice to have a candidate who values education and who doesn’t think that refraining from speaking proper English is somehow folksy or charming.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Sorry, Senator. Let’s Salvage What We Can.
By David Frum
If McCain loses, what next for conservatives?
BloggingheadsTV: Jonah Goldberg vs. Peter Beinart
Is the conservative crackup finally at hand?
October 26th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Doug #25,
I think you let your emotions color your interpretation of what I wrote.
I would not advise Mitt to become Pro-Choice or Pro-Gay Marriage. I am adamantly Pro-Life (I actually hold Sarah Palin’s abortion position) and I oppose Gay Marriage.
The reality of life in the US is that no one wants to vote for a candidate that comes to their state when people are struggling to make ends meet and rail against pornography. It just telegraghs a tone deafness to your average person and makes folks think that Republicans only really care about imposing their personal beliefs on them and are only paying lip service to critical issues like health care and affordable college tuition.
Ronald Reagan is the perfect example of the candidate I am talking about. Are you really saying that Ronald Reagan was not acceptably socially conservative to you?
October 26th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
The reason Mitt Romney had to run as a Culture Warrior was because a few months ago he was a social liberal.
Tim Pawlenty is a social conservative but he could run as a low key social conservative because there are no clips of him making pro-abortion statements.
Mitt Romney has to run as an explicit social conservative because many people didn’t trust his convenient conversion.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I know… But by 2012 Mitt would have been espousing Pro-Life ideals for 7 years. Bush I was Pro-Choice until January 20th, 1981 essentially. We have got to allow for people to change for the better in the direction that we want don’t we? Are we really saying that we will hold in everyone in contempt for forever that was not Pro-Life from the onset of their political life?
If Mitt is still espousing Pro-Life rhetoric in 2012 with the ferocity he did in 2008, don’t we have to give him some credit? Shouldn’t we be happy that he came over to our side?
October 26th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Doug #29,
You know I love T-Paw…
October 26th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I broadly agree with Dave and Kavon, on the substance and on Romney. Romney really would be a strong candidate if would drop this base conservative characature (a really cringe worthy bit during his convention speech comes to mind when he started pointing and staring directly at the camera while talking about ‘radical jihad’ (I agree on the substance but that’s a really poor use of political language) .
24. Cameron is a conservative and will be running on the most pro-family conservative platform in many years, with some innovative thinking about society and social conservatism. Don’t equate tolerant Cameronism with social liberalism.
Kavon – I’ve got some more thoughts to round up the pieces I did on Cameron which will directly relate to the subject of Dave’s post. I think they are best left until after the election, but I’ll be in touch.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Rich #32,
Awesome! Glad to hear it. I have received many emails asking when we can expect the next installment of your series.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
#26 “Education isn’t elitism. It’s necessary”
Tell that to the very Republican voters that said Romney was too educated, polished and
eloquent and that he didn’t speak the language of the “common man” Honestly, I was embarrassed for my party when those
attributes were said to disqualify someone from seeking the highest office.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Kavon,
Mixed feelings. I think gay marriage will be a bigger issue in 2012, and he will have to address it. Abortion, he should calm down, there isn’t much he can do. Porn,he made one commercial and talked relatively little about it.
But you see, gay marriage and porn are hot topics in the LDs faith, it’s going to influence him to some degree.
One of the things I always laughed at in the primaries were hard core so-cons who would never vote for a Mormon but claim Mitt was a cafeteria Mormon anyway. Mitt’s views on all the social issues reflect his Mormonism 100% Not so sure on abortion, willing to compromise and change and strong stance on gay marriage and pornography.
It’s actually a reflection of my thoughts as well.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
26. It happened over here 1997-2005, the average Conservative voter was becoming consistently poorer and less educated. No political party can hold onto the political-intellectual ascendancy while shedding young professionals, university graduates, wealthy businessmen etc..
That need not mean resorting to elitism though.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
33. I meant to get one to you sooner but I’ve been tremendously busy for various reasons and I figure it would be best left until a post-mortem is actually neccessary, rather than predicting the worst.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
36. good point. In order to succeed we need intellectuals and common folk. I am tired of pitting one against the other. The world was made by dumb people and most of the people in the world don’t have above average intelligence. All levels of intellect are needed.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Jason #35,
But it is a tricky line for Mitt to walk because of his faith.
The ironic thing is this-because Mitt is a LDS, he really won’t need to hammer away at the social conservative stuff in 2012 because your average voter will figure he MUST BE socially conservative because he is a Mormon. He has the potential to be the MOST Reaganesque candidate in this capacity just for that reason. People will just know he’s socially conservative.
But if he hammers away at it, I think people will start to wonder if he is focusing so much attention on it because he is a Mormon, and that raises the potential of turning his faith into a negative.
That’s the interesting thing about Romney ’12… If Mitt plays his cards right, his religion has the potential to be an enormous asset to him because it will free him to focus on the issues that are at the forefront of importance to the average American voter.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Rich #37,
No problem
. I just wanted to let you know that people have really enjoyed reading them.
P.S. I am off to the grocery store. Be back soon folks…
October 26th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
But unfortunately, pornography is not only popular, but completely socially acceptable to most non-Mormon American males in this day and age.
The US spends more money on porn than it does on medicine probably.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
There is a compelling argument that suggests that if Romney pivoted significantly to the center that he could pick off several NorthEastern States including NH, and yes, he might even make Massachusetts competitive depending on the surrounding factors. He would be strong in Michigan and across the Midwest and of course he has some strength in CO and NV – he could awaken the small but statistically significant and fiercely loyal but dormant Mormon vote. So Mitt has some compelling arguments for 2012 but I just don’t see him prying the base away from Palin, but don’t count him out, in that he could mount a very strategic campaign.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
36.
I really admire US conservatives ability to wage a culture war against liberal attitudes and elitism, but I can’t help but think it has too often spilled over into overt anti-intellectualism that is really starting to hurt the GOP electorally. You only have to look at the speed at which the North East has fled from the GOP to realise something is damaging the conservative cause.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Romney was more popular with my Independent and Democrat friends than my republican ones. And it was unaninously his business
background and sheer intelligence that did it for them. It was my Republican collegues that were “suspicious” of his conservatism.
Maybe I should register as an independent since their criteria for a candidate aligns more with my thinking than the average Republican.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
41. US spends more money on porn than it does on medicine sadly”
I love America… If more money was spent on porn than health here Gordon Brown would soon have nationalised it…
October 26th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Taylor,
“Tell that to the very Republican voters that said Romney was too educated, polished and
eloquent and that he didn’t speak the language of the “common man””
I think the repugnance to Romney’s speaking style was not because Romney was “too educated, polished and eloquent,” but because he reminded people of the guy who sold them their last lemon.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
46. I think very few people thought that initially. Usually it was a secondary line of attack used by those who already disliked him for some other reason. I don’t think I ever met someone who liked everything about him, but hated the fact he talked smooth.
Same with Huck, his sweet talking snake oilman ways were only noticed by those who disliked other things.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
41. To say everyone does it to someone like Mitt who views it as a plague on our society only reinforces the fact in ones mind it should be addressed, esp. since it rarely is.
But the bigger paradox here is people claiming that Mitt really isn’t a culture warrior at heart, so he should forget the issues of pornography even though it’s an issue of his heart. On one hand we complain he is plastic and only does SoCon stuff because it gets him more votes, but on the other hand we say he needs to drop SoCon issues or at least glance over them to get more votes.
Which is it?
October 26th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Jason,
Could be. I always found that odd about those two candidates. To some, Romney sounded as sincere and earnest as St. Peter (which I never saw), while to others, he was a used car salesmen. And with Huck, to some he sounded like their favorite pastor who would assault the gates of hell for what he believes, and to others’ he was a con man. I think there is some truth to what you say, but then it begs the question WHY Romney was so easily cast as a smarmy car salesman, and Huck as a tent revival con man….
October 26th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
MWS,
I don’t know if either where, beyond a vocal few.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Jason,
“Which is it?”
I think the premise is that once Romney drops the SoCon stuff, THEN he can be sincere.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Did Romney EVER argue for banning porn, or making it unaccessible to leagal age people? I know he argued for making it harder for children to get, but I doubt that is a position that ANYONE would disagree with.
But Kavon, what exactly is your idea of a good position for Romney to take? It seems as if you agree with him, but don’t want him to act on his views.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
LEt me clarify:
I don’t know if I could trust anyone’s (including mine) opinion on this site since it based totally on biased perceptions.
But Mitt was/is wooden.
He was very articulate, but it the smooth thing seemed odd, since he was wooden and smooth at the same time. He would get knocked for being a smooth talker and on the other hand he was knocked for so many gaffes (which there were).
I don’t think either of those perceptions were based on rationality, but rather those who were intensely competitive with him and so worked doubled time to make anything stick.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
52. No he didn’t but his opponents spun it that way.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
51. False premise. He is against gay marriage, probably some what firm on abortion. Just as his religion is.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Jason,
“I don’t know if either where, beyond a vocal few.”
I’m not so sure. I think the biggest thing that held Romney back- for all his money, organization, and good resume- was the fact that many people found his conversions too convenient. Suddenly, he had ALL the right boxes checked on the issues questionaire. Maybe they weren’t specifically abortion voters, but it cast doubt on his sincerity in general. For all his assets, I think it was the authenticity gap that cost Romney.
As for Huck, I think many did come to perceive him as a revivalist- especially after Iowa. He was incredibly successful at rallying Evangelicals to his cause, but his failure to bring in Catholics and other Reagan Democrats ultimately made him a niche player. To some, a niche player who plays to the Christian Right is by definition a tent revival con man.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
“I think the premise is that once Romney drops the SoCon stuff, THEN he can be sincere.”
Why is it so hard to believe that a family man like Romney, who has a strong religious faith, coudl become socially conservative?
Why is it so hard to believe that a person could come to realize that abortion (he never supported gay marriage) is something that is killing the country and must be stopped?
Reagan became pro-life, so did Bush I, so have, I’m sure, millions of Americans. Why is it so hard to beleive that Mitt Romney – who already has a family and religious life that would indicate social conservatism – could become one of them?
October 26th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Jason,
“I don’t know if I could trust anyone’s (including mine) opinion on this site since it based totally on biased perceptions.”
Honestly, I think I’ve cooled off enough about the primaries to be fairly objective. Sure, I am a populist SoCon, and definitely have my opinions about issues and people, but I think I am dispassionate enough about it now to recognize what candidates did right and wrong, and what qualities each brought to the table. Honestly, I don’t know who I’d support in 2012. I guess my ideal would be a pro-life, Blue Dog Democrat, but they aren’t in any position to compete at the national level. I’ve lost that much faith in the GOP.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
What people have to remember the LDS faith doesn’t teach abortion is murder. As a matter of fact if you murdered someone you would be excommunicated and rebaptism would be highly unlikely. People who have abortions don’t face such serious recriminations. Therefore his faith allows for different ideas and perceptions on the topic.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
sure it does – and thats fine – but Romney has raised five boys, he knows as much as – or more than – anyone the value of a young life and the special value of children.
He is the deffinition of what you would expect a pro-life person to be.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Matthew,
” Why is it so hard to beleive that Mitt Romney – who already has a family and religious life that would indicate social conservatism – could become one of them?”
I don’t think anyone wants to rehash an argument that was replayed 4,981,294 times in the primary, so I’d just say that for some of us, the fact that a man as intelligent and politically engaged as Romney could not reason to a right to life UNTIL his target constituency became pro-life strained the limits of credulity. Also, the framework to prove his pro-life sincerity was eerily similar to his prior avowal of his pro-choice bona fides (using family anecdotes), as was his righteous indignation when anyone questioned his sincerity. There was a (semi) famous YouTube of Romney almost apoplectic that anyone would question his pro-choice sincerity during his governor’s race debate.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
58. I would agree with that maybe to a degree. But there is still plenty of primary vitriol hanging around over all.
Romney isn’t perfect, he did have is problems, he wasn’t accesible like McCain. He could have loosened up but it was/is unlikely, he is a business man. It would help certainly. Hopefully he has figured that out, as a man of self-critique. He should worry less about Iowa, I think he can easily take NH, and MI this time and Florida. So he can do it with some minor tweaking. He doesn’t need to turn into Mike Bloomberg here.
It’s not like he totally failed. Had the Crist endorsement gone to Rudy or had the NH primary been 30 degrees cooler instead of a balmy 60 degree day, we more than likely would be looking at Mitt as our nominee.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
61. Great points. I would agree. But I hope by 2012 should he run, people can take him at his word and realize another flip costs him everything, so it is really unlikely.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
yeah, of course you can question.
That said, Romney became pro-choice in the middle of his term as Gov. – that was before Bush was re-elected. If you believe that Romney was being oportunistic, you would have to believe that he was preparing to run for President when he was a year off the olympics, before Bush was re-elected, and when he was a largely unknown Gov.
Is that what you believe?
October 26th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
64. He probably was in all honesty thinking about running. Actually, he was thinking about running in the late 90′s. I can confirm that.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
If any of one of a hundred different things had happened, Romney could have been the nominee. IF Huckabee and McCain supporters didn’t make a corrupt deal in WV, IF there hadn’t been Tornados in TN, IF Huckabee’s rise hadn’t come over the Christmas holiday, IF California didn’t have the strangest primary system devised by man, IF the leaders of the Conservative movement had gotten their marbles together and endorsed Mitt pre-Iowa…
…but, that said, history unfolded exactly the way we should have expected it to – a Right wing favorite won Iowa, the eventual nominee took two of the first three, the early leader in the polls won the nomination, the second placer from the last open contest became the nominee, and another candidate set himself up to be the nominee.
For as much as 2008 was a history-making election, very little in the GOP nominating process was different from what it has been in past cycles.
Just hopefully in four years, when Romney runs again, people won’t be questioning his dedication to the pro-life cause.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I dunno. I believe him, so do millions of other people.
And, if there is anyone who questions his dedication, I’ll leave them with two things to consider:
1) Romney has kept all his campaign promises
2) IF Romney ever wants a future in the party, he has to keep his pro-life committment.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
66. Agreed on all of them.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I’m agnostic on Romney. If he runs in 2012 I’ll see how he runs and judge him then.
If Tim Pawlenty runs in 2012 I don’t envision supporting anyone else in the primary.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
First and foremost, the GOP needs to drop this “sanctity of marriage” nonsense. Marriage is not, and has not been for some time, sacred in America. The divorce rate is off the charts, and no good straight marriage will be ruined by Adam and Steve.
Second, it’s not so much Republican positions that are wrong, but it’s the rejection of ideas, period, that has the intelligentsia angry. It’s an increasing and now total reliance on identity politics.
For the party of Buckley, Reagan, Nixon, GHW Bush, Gingrich, and Goldwater, that’s just NOT good enough.
That’s why Romney (minus the social nonsense) is so appealing. He’s an idea guy.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
[...] is mostly in response to DaveG’s post, and the Limbaugh/Douthat debate. But, let me briefly quote from a post I never actually made: it [...]
October 26th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
#70 – you are both absolutely right and absolutely wrong.
In the sense that no existing, happy, current marraige is going to be affected in the slightest by two gay men getting married, you are right.
But in the sense that current problems with marraige in this country justify allowing even more problems to develop, you are absolutely, completely wrong. Thats like saying “paitent X already has the flu, so lets allow him to contract something else too.” How much sense does that make? None at all. Yes, the divorce rate in this country is a major problem, and one that must be confronted.
You are also completely wrong in the sense that gay marraige is something that occurs in a bubble, with no effects on anyone other than those getting married. Gay Marriage sends the signal that this country places a lower value on traditional unions, and that gay marraige is something just as valuable, just as important as traditional unions. It also splits marraige from procreation, something that could lead to either a lower birth rate, more births out of wedlock, or both. In addition, it hampers the ability of parents and churches to send the right messages to children that the traditional family is vital and something to be encouraged.
In short, any physcological (spl?) benefits that Gay Marraige might produce for a very limited number of individuals is vastly outweighed by the substantive damage that it could do to america’s social fabric.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Why are people so blind to the importance of our social fabric in this country?
Weak families and abortion = fewer families, fewer births, and more births out of wedlock = a smaller future generation, brought up in a less favorable situation, who are confused about everything from the role of the traditional family to traditional gender roles = more people reliant on the government = economic decline = military decline = national decline.
Just look at two different examples: China and Europe. Europe has embraced social liberalism, China is still – even among the youth – a very culturally conservative place. Which do you think is going to be stronger in thirty years?
October 26th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Your reasons are all completely unrelated in any way to public policy. Sends a signal that we place a lower value on traditional unions? Okay. To who? Europe, or Canada, who doesn’t care? I don’t understand this.
What does it matter if a German thinks we value gay marriage as much as traditional marriage?
Splitting marriage from procreation? So, banning infertile marriage is okay with you? Who cares? These are all individual choices, and the government should not be in the business of banning one and not the other.
Why would it hamper a church’s/parent’s ability to send messages? The government doesn’t have Christ plastered anywhere, but 80% of America is Christian. Doesn’t seem to be a problem.
Social fabric? You mean the one that doesn’t give a rat’s ass about marriage?
October 26th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Bad example MatthewK, China give huge social pressure to abort any child after the first.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
MatthewK and Jason,
I think we more or else agree on the message, even if we disagree on who is the right messanger.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I’m holding back on any Romney-bashing here. But I will say that the reason I became highly annoyed with him and unwilling to give him anything but criticism was the over-the-top aggressiveness towards his campaign rivals. I mostly blame his campaign for that.
Also, that is one of the reasons that the “corrupt” deal happened at the WV GOP convention. If you think it’s corrupt to cut deals in politics, you should probably just join a monastery or convent instead and devote your life to purity.
It ain’t illegal, it ain’t against the law, and this country — thankfully — ain’t Germany, where if something isn’t expressly permitted, it’s verboten.
It was perfectly fair and permissible for Romney to offend his rivals by painting them as borderline criminal, immoral, and unethical cretins. Sure. But if he wanted to use that excessively aggressive approach, he also had to be willing to live with the consequences: that his rivals who found his campaign’s non-stop negativism repulsive would gang up and take him down.
If there is a renewed Romney campaign, I hope that he and the campaign learn a lesson from this past experience.
Frankly, for his woodenness (which I perceived to be an overanxious nervousness that this campaign absolutely had to get him the White House) and repositioning, I don’t think he was otherwise that bad. He’s certainly an respectable, accomplished, and impressive human being. But I am one of those who responds to the high-pressured sales pitch with increasing skepticism.
I could go on a free-range rant about how his Mass Health Connector has been a disaster, but let’s all move along now and elect McCain for the time being.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
MatthewK and Jason,
I think we more or else agree on the message, even if we disagree on who is the right messanger, at least on social issues.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
“Bad example MatthewK, China give huge social pressure to abort any child after the first.”
yeah, this is true, but in general, they still place a high value on the next generation, and the one-child policy is far from popular. In addition, their views on marraige and sex are still conservative.
—
Mark – sure, Romney ran a rough campaign, but nothing he did was worse than Huckabee making remarks about Romney’s faith, or McCain calling Romney a “pig”.
At least what Romney did was based in actual fact.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
FWIW, as a social non-conservative, or agnostic on those issues, I do generally favor the arguments that you SoCons put forth. There’s a lot of merit to what you folks have to say.
In my view, having spent so many years living and working in welfare-state West Germany and then the reunited version, I have to say that in my view all of the great New Deal and Great Society programs have injected the type of corrosive socialism into this country and undermined traditional families and traditional values. In short, the answer to many of the SoCons’ prayers would be to reverse as many of those entitlements as possible. You’d all benefit, in other words, from more small-government, low-tax fiscal conservatism in advancing your aims.
Mark Steyn is another one who has come to this conclusion, too, which has given me a certain sense of confidence in this observation. But Steyn has done a much better job of spelling out the welfare-state dangers in our midst than I could ever hope to do.
Although I appreciate the positions and arguments of those “reform conservatives” (at Reason, they call ‘em “national greatness conservatives”) like Brooks, Frum, et al: They’re all misguided in their beliefs that the GOP should try to get involved in “making government work” by being there to lend a helping hand to people in need. Reagan understood that this was the biggest threat to defending American culture, society, and values when he uttered his quip about the paradoxical statement, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help!”
October 26th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
MatthewK, the fact that good, respectable folks like you, Jason, Matthew M. Miller, IL Guy, etc., supported and support Romney gives me hope that I will find greater appreciation for Romney as a candidate should he decide to run again. Perhaps Romney will make me into a true believer by enticing me to see his strengths more than by trying to shame me out of supporting any of his possible rivals. Just sayin’.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
[...] 4. I struggled with posting this, however, I felt the need to respond to DaveG’s earlier post. Oh, snap! Like I said before, the post-election Republican Party will polarize around visions for [...]
October 26th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
This is risible on its face. It’s a paranoid fantasy or a joke. Either that or the author knows nothing about the US party system—OK., so, given that DaveG wrote it, I suppose we can just assume the author’s ignorance. Get this: There are no doors. There are no walls. There never were. Anybody can join any party they want in the US system and organize within it however they would like provided that they can persuade others to adopt their line of reasoning. I can join the Libertarian Party and organize a Libertarian Socialist Front or Libertarians for Life. Or I can join the Democrat Party and organize Democrats for Free Minds and Free Markets. Obama was a part of just such a so-called fusion party—an intra-party organization whose task it is to create change from within—the Chicago New Party. DaveG himself could organize a group consonant with his own views: “Ignorant Republicans for Change that We Can’t Articulate Because of Our Many Issues with the English Language and the Laws of Thought,” or something like that.
Talk radio shock-jocks or grimacing rube sugar-junkies with very small genitals like Ross Douthat can issue whatever analyses or post mortems they wish. It’s all just a part of the discussion. Why a race42008.com front page poster would want to lose bladder control and draw all sorts of unwarranted conclusions from the discussion would be for others to decide.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:18 am
your gonna loose, lol, you asses have circled the religous wagons around each other and 4got about the rest of the GOP party, & now there looking at palin, and all her small town racist freaks, like were not some red neck, uneducated, bible lovin, evan freaks! lol This will last 4 a while, because without your new base, the party will stay fractured!