More proof that we lost in 2008 because we didn’t fire up the base enough:
But sure: let’s keep on telling ourselves that Michael Steele shouldn’t be allowed to head the RNC because he dared to affiliate himself with Christine Todd Whitman and John Danforth. Let’s chastise the guy who said that the GOP needs to elect more moderates. Let’s just fire up the base (no matter how small it is), kick out anyone who happens to disagree with it on any minute point of orthodoxy, and hope that everything turns out alright.
But everything is not turning out alright. Take the events of yesterday, for example: from RedState to this site, most on the right were celebrating the fact that the House GOP unanimously voted against the stimulus bill, adhering to rock-ribbed principle.
That’s nice. It still passed overwhelmingly.
We can jump up and down, happy that our side finally is adhering to wonderful, beautiful principle, but in the meantime, the other side is looking at us with an eyebrow raised and eyes rolling. Why? Because they’re able to do whatever they want, regardless of how much principle we exert. Lots and lots of principle and fifty cents will buy Minority Leader Boehner a pack of gum at CVS.
I know that to the relentlessly principled, it might feel fantastic to sit around, chattering to ourselves about how wonderfully right we are on all of the issues. But in the meantime, we have no influence on actual policymaking.
There is an obvious solution to this dilemma: simple re-branding. Speaking to issues that Americans really care about right now. Discarding identity politics. Stop applying rigid litmus tests to Republican Party membership. Dropping the identity politic of the culture war. Re-embracing pragmatism with a solid center-right agenda — without being afraid of the ‘center’ part.
Meanwhile, we can be as principled as we’d like, but President Obama and the Democratic Congress can still sit around and pass whatever they want.
But hey — at least Gordon Smith and Chris Shays are no longer messing up our party’s image. Nothin’ but RINOs, both of ‘em.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
January 29th, 2009 at 1:53 am
I find this map pretty suspicious. You’re telling me that the GOP doesn’t have a clear advantage in states like Kansas or Texas or Arizona or Alabama or Mississippi? And that Indiana and Oklahoma lean Democratic?
Obama (and Bush) may have done a better job registering voters for the Democrats, but I don’t think this map is representative of the conservative/liberal divide in this country.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:57 am
The South is an exception to the Party ID rule.
Either way, you’re arguing a very minute point that in no way combats my larger point.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:58 am
And yeah, actually: we just lost Indiana, in case you didn’t notice. And Arizona was too close for comfort, given the fact that we ran the senator from the state!
January 29th, 2009 at 2:04 am
I don’t think the country has moved as far to the left as you’d like to think.
The Republican party should not become a watered-down version of the Democrats. It will just make it weaker and even less competitive.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:07 am
Why do you think that any change of image has to be the party being a “watered-down version of the Democrats”?
I’ll have a post on this tomorrow. It’s not what I’m calling for; it’s an absurdly false dichotomy.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:59 am
The only way to win back Oklahoma and Indiana is to run more pro-choice candidates! Its all so clear to me now…
January 29th, 2009 at 3:08 am
Where exactly in this piece did I mention abortion, GetReal?
January 29th, 2009 at 3:12 am
Abortion is part of why many oppose Steele for chairman. Since its about people not backing Steele because he doesn’t conform completely to their orthodoxy, I figured it was about abortion. I suppose it could be about gun control. Personally, I think Steele is an alright choice out of a less-than-stellar lot.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:23 am
I’m personally reminded of “New Coke.” The Republican party has become New Coke. Oh wow, ever since we stopped producing the original and started pumping out New Coke, look how popular Pepsi is! There’s only one solution…Even Newer Coke!
January 29th, 2009 at 3:24 am
I support Steele because of his attitude toward moderates — he’s willing to reach out and make them part of the discussion.
It doesn’t mean he’s some Specter-style Republican himself.
It just means that he’s willing to give them a freakin’ seat at the table, because we can’t win without the independent center.
I personally am a die-hard classical liberal myself, a laissez-faire capitalist and a social libertarian, but I know when to compromise and why it matters.
Pragmatism. Compromise. They are not dirty words!
January 29th, 2009 at 3:26 am
It is not “New Coke.” Our current strategy, thrown together by Bush and Rove, is New Coke.
I want to go back to Old Coke. Reagan and Nixon 49-state mandates.
Honing our message to the priorities of the electorate. Articulating clearly why we believe what we do. No identity politics/culture war BS/religious crusades.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:30 am
I agree that Bush was New Coke, with his big spending, compassionate conservative ways. McCain was also New Coke. New Coke was designed to appeal to Pepsi drinkers, and ended up losing the bigger market of Coke drinkers.
I say run moderates where only moderates can win (New York, New Jersey, etc) and run conservatives whenever possible otherwise. That’s just my opinion, however.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:33 am
Sounds fine with me, but people seem to have a problem with the fact that Steele ran as a center-right guy in a far-left state.
People who live in red states get spoiled because they always get what they want, ideologically.
Easy for Katon freakin’ Dawson to talk about how he adhered to conservative principles to a T in South Carolina.
People, like me, who live in blue states — I’ve lived my whole life in Maryland (and now Washington, DC, for college) — tend to learn to compromise a little more.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:36 am
You’re preaching to the choir on this with me Alex…although watch out if Steele ever runs nationally and decides to lean more to the right in the primary. You’ll be biting his head off.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:37 am
That all depends. Can’t comment on something that hasn’t happened.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:38 am
Well, just pretend his name was Mitt. (kidding…sort of.)
January 29th, 2009 at 3:40 am
Actually, I like Mitt on paper. If he weren’t a phony, I’d be a Romney ’12 person.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:52 am
I don’t think he’s a phony. I think he’s a businessman who is all about business in his professional life and all about family in his personal life. I think after being very successful, he decided to run for office and maybe do some good in a state that was having a rough time. He happened to live in a very liberal state, and being a guy who didn’t think about politics very often prior, just ran on what was popular on issues which weren’t personally crucial to him at the time, and conservative on the issues that were.
Running as pro-life in Massachusetts is like spitting in the wind. Is there really a point? Maybe he was personally pro-life, maybe he was personally pro-choice, I don’t really know, I just know that issue wasn’t his hill to die on in 1994. I also know he’s used to offering his services and then delivering as much as possible on what he promises. I think, if elected in 1994, he would have governed pro-choice, as he promised. I think if elected now, he would govern as pro-life, because that’s what he said he would do.
Mitt seems to be put on a pedestal by a lot of his gung-ho supporters, and held to an impossibly high standard by his detractors. Everyone with a shot at winning nationally is a politician. They are going to say what they have to say in the best possible light to whatever audience they address. Have Sanford run for office in Massachusetts and we’ll see what happens.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Gosh, how convenient that he had a “change of heart” in the precise direction that would help him win the GOP nomination just as he was done governing in a liberal state, where he oh-so-conveniently held the right positions for them. And then in Michigan in 2008, when he desperately needed its vote to stay in the race, he all but promised an auto bailout, and then a month ago he spoke out against the one proposed by Congress, siding instead with the GOP base that wanted Detroit to fail.
Illegal immigration, gun control, abortion, gay rights, Iraq, Social Security — you name it, he’s equivocated, and it’s always been soooo convenient for him.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:05 am
He would have run as a moderate, like he did in MA in 2002 — but gosh, that was already taken up by Rudy and McCain! So then he had to go to Iowa and out-so-con Huckabee, which failed miserably. It was one of those the-dogs-won’t-eat-it things: Romney shoved tens of millions of his dollars down Iowa and New Hampshire’s throats, but they just wouldn’t give him the nod, even up against little-funded competitors like Huckabee and McCain.
One day, he’s saying he’ll be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy — in 1994! — and once it’s not convenient for him, he’s calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment, fourteen years later, when the rest of the country has moved radically to the left on gay issues except for the so-con base that he saw that he had an opening for.
Quite frankly, I’ve got no idea what he really stands for. I think that, at heart, he’s pragmatic, but how could I ever really know?
January 29th, 2009 at 4:27 am
He converted to Pro-life in 2005, three years before the primaries. One day he’s saying he’ll be better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy, although still opposed to gay marriage, and a mere 13 years later he’s in favor of the FMA, yet still in favor of workplace protections, you know, what he was actually running on when speaking of gay rights in 1994. And as far left on gay issues as the country may be, gay marriage is still a loser on the ballot (see: California, Arizona, Florida; see: all major candidates including McCain and Obama opposed it.) Its not one of my issues, but its still fairly unpopular nationwide.
Romney was spending all his time and money in Iowa, and winning all the polls there as well until the media started their Huckabee Cinderella story after Huck finished second in Ames. A lot of Romney’s Mormon backers think Mitt’s loss was all about anti-Mormonism. I don’t think that’s the case at all…except in Iowa. Well, and maybe a bit in South Carolina but he wasn’t a major player there anyway.
Romney was much better funded than McCain or Huckabee, but keep in mind, they each were only competing in one state, while he was battling it out in both. They also had what I consider “in-kind” contributions from the media. All of Mitt’s money couldn’t buy him the glowing news coverage given to McCain and Huckabee during those early primary days. And especially in Huck’s case, it wasn’t because there was nothing negative to report…
I believe Mitt has gotten more conservative as he’s gotten older (most people do, McCain notwithstanding) but he’s certainly a pragmatist. I think his positions are his real positions, I just think what you might consider his “phoniness” are the positions he chooses to emphasize. I might agree with you there, I think his heart is mostly in the fi-con camp of the GOP, and the fact that his main competition were two moderates (till Fred jumped in late in the game, and Huck came out of nowhere with a load more flip-flops than Mitt could ever dream of) he decided to stress social conservatism, where he contrasted with Rudy, over fiscal conservatism and national security, where they mostly agreed, although he still campaigned on all three.
Although I’m pro-life, I’d have been much happier with Rudy running than McCain. I’m just confused about how you, as a pragmatist, are so dead set against Romney. I understand his not being your first choice, but you’ve basically said in the past that you doubt you could even vote for him in a general election against Obama.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:30 am
Oh, and he hasn’t changed his position in Michigan, he never proposed a straight up no-strings attached bailout. He proposed 20 billion nationwide for research which would benefit the auto companies then, and does so now. His rhetoric might have been a bit over the top, but I don’t see McCain following Bin Laden to the gates of Hell, and he certainly didn’t make anyone who inserted pork into the bailout famous.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:34 am
Guys THIS is the BIG news of the day.
Wow wow wow.
We need a front page post.
New Bank Bailout Could Cost $2 Trillion
By DEBORAH SOLOMON, DAVID ENRICH and JON HILSENRATH (WSJ)
WASHINGTON — Government officials seeking to revamp the U.S. financial bailout have discussed spending another $1 trillion to $2 trillion to help restore banks to health, according to people familiar with the matter.
President Barack Obama’s new administration is wrestling with how to stem the continuing loss of confidence in the financial system, as it divides up the remaining $350 billion from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program launched last fall. The potential size of rescue efforts being discussed suggests the administration may need to ask Congress for more funds. Some of the remaining $350 billion of TARP funds has already been earmarked for other efforts, including aid to auto makers and to homeowners facing foreclosure.
TARP Participants
–SNIP–
The administration, which could announce its plans within days, hasn’t yet made a determination on the final shape of its new proposal, and the exact details could change. Among the issues officials are wrestling with: How to fix damaged financial institutions without ending up owning them.
The aim is to encourage banks to begin lending again and investors to put private capital back into financial institutions. The administration is expected to take a series of steps, including relieving banks of bad loans and distressed securities. The so-called “bad bank” that would buy these assets could be seeded with $100 billion to $200 billion from the TARP funds, with the rest of the money — as much as $1 trillion to $2 trillion — raised by selling government-backed debt or borrowing from the Federal Reserve.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Of course he converted in 2005. That was what the phony show was about. He knew McCain and probably Rudy would be running, so he had to fill a niche — with so-cons. What better way than to shift to the right on social issues?
Even in 2002, Mittens was still handing out Romney for Governor ads at Gay Pride events. “All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation.”
Doubt he’ll be doing that anymore.
I somehow doubt that 2002 Mitt would have come out strongly for the FMA.
Romney was “better-funded” only insofar as he’s worth nine trillion dollars.
No, he never proposed a no-strings-attached bailout in Michigan, but everyone knew what he meant. It was a wink-wink-nod-nod sort of deal. Do I really need to go dig up the articles from the time?
January 29th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Rather than digging up the articles, why don’t you dig up the transcript? The media always puts their own spin on things, such as naming the article “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” which was misleading, considering the overall gist of his plan was to restore the auto industry in this country.
Romney was “better-funded” insofar as he raised more than anyone but Rudy (whom he was right up there with) NOT counting his personal donations to the campaign.
Also, I’m glad he passed out those flyers. Would you prefer he passed out hate literature? I don’t get the opposition here. He was never in support of gay marriage. Is that really the most important issue to you? If so, I’m confused about who you intend to vote for that supports it.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Well, its been nice debating you Alex, I’ve got to head to bed. Thanks for the discussion. Its always enjoyable debating reasonable people who disagree with you, as opposed to the mindless moonbats I often have to deal with here in California.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:57 am
Gay rights are a case of the mainstream coming to Romney and it just looked like he moved right.
Anyway, Steele’s a horrible choice. He sucks at the job’s primary purpose (party building) and mostly wants the job so he can make the talk-show circuit with a title beneath his name. He can do that on his own time.
Alex might be in love with moderate reach-outs, but doing that is a waste of time for a person who needs to be nose deep in political maps, resource allocation, and fundraising.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:49 am
The mainstream coming to Romney? No, actually, public support is moving away from the FMA, not towards it. Sorry.
You act like Michael Steele has never done that sort of thing before. He’s done more than just run for Senate, you know.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Yes, I see that the map is Blue, but as far as distorting the facts with a map, with respect, you seem to do a better job than Mr. Limbaugh. Yes, I,m concerned about party ID, but it is not the be all end all, the South is not the only place in the country with a screwed ID. In most of my county, the GOP is lucky not to be outnumber 3 to 1 by Democrats, yet we have in competitive even down the ticket. Some counties in Ohio are the reverse.
Yes we did lose even Indiana and NC this time, but losing these states by less than one per cent does not make than Blue states.
More to the point, Not everybody in Red State America or Purple State America, hates Mr. Steele. I believe that I for one said that I would be OK with him. And no, I certainly do not even claim to represent anybody in my camp, (what ever that is) but frankly, I fail to see the point of this map. Is Mr. Steele going to magically carry give us some of these states colored Blue?
January 29th, 2009 at 7:37 am
28:
I go by his organizing record with GOPAC and his method of campaigning for RNC Chair from Hannity’s studio. He’ll be a disaster and he’ll walk away from the wreckage with a higher profile. Just look what he’s currently doing to GOPAC. They’ve been running web-ads that are basically just promoting Steele. That’s the exact opposite we need from an RNC Chair.
As for Romney, his basic position of tolerance and decency hasn’t shifted. 14 years ago where he stood and stands was fairly liberal. Today it’s pretty mainstream. In five years it’ll probably be fairly conservative. That’s time changing perceptions, but Romney himself has only changed a little in the 14 years since he ran for Senate.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:42 am
I think that the people thinking that this article was only about Steele never read beyond the first paragraph after the map.
This was the more important point:
“A lot of you were celebrating the fact that the House GOP unanimously voted against the stimulus bill.
That’s nice. It still passed overwhelmingly.
We can jump up and down, happy that our side finally is adhering to wonderful, beautiful principle, but in the meantime, the other side is looking at us with an eyebrow raised and eyes rolling, because they’re able to do whatever they want. Lots and lots of principle and fifty cents will buy Minority Leader Boehner a pack of gum at CVS.
I know that to the relentlessly principled, it might feel good to sit around, chattering to ourselves about how wonderfully right we are on all of the issues. But in the meantime, we have no influence on actual policymaking.
There is a solution to this dilemma: rebranding. Speaking to issues that Americans really care about right now, like the economy. Discarding identity politics. Stop applying rigid litmus tests to Republican Party membership. Re-embracing optimism, unity, and pragmatism through a solid center-right agenda.
In the meantime, we can be as principled as we’d like, but President Obama and the Democratic Congress can sit around and pass whatever they want.
But hey — at least Gordon Smith and Chris Shays are no longer messing up our party’s image. RINOs, both of ‘em.”
January 29th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Guess what, Alex? You have yet to prove that social conservatism is the cause of this or that being more liberal it’s what needed. The Republican Party hasn’t stood for anything in the people it has selected and chosen for many years.
We nominated a Moderate for president and we lost. Moderates own the last Presidential. They had their chance, they failed.
Guess what? We all know the GOP is not doing well right now. However, you take the fact that it’s not doing well and you’re making an unproven assertion as to why it’s not doing well because you despise the social issues.
You know, scapegoating Christians is a tactic that goes back to Nero, and that dog simply isn’t going to hunt. Social Conservatives are given no credit for the hard work and effort put in when the party wins are expected to take all the blame when it loses.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Adam, you’re so busy attacking a cartoon version of what I advocate that you fail to realize that:
(1) I am not calling for a “moderate” GOP, and
(2) I opposed John McCain from the beginning and almost did not vote for him because I was so disgusted with how horrific a candidate he was, and
(3) I am not “scapegoating Christians,” and you look like a whiny victim when you say that, and
(4) I am calling for a Big Tent, which includes you. I am not trying to get anyone kicked out
I will say that it’s the Religious Right’s fault that Sarah Palin was put on the ticket, though.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:18 am
You’re welcome for Palin. She was the only thing that ever put McCain ahead.
I have no clue why you think social conservatives led to her being picked though. Other than backing McCain away from a Liberman debacle, social conservatives had nothing to do with Palin. Most of them had never heard of her and her rep as a hardcore social rightwinger was mostly a media-generated image.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:20 am
“The South is an exception to the Party ID rule.”
Why? Because it doesn’t happen to suit your “we need to move left” thesis?
—-
Steele is pro-choice, or, at the very least, so murky on abortion that he can’t be trusted. You think Romney is bad? Romney was once pro-choice, became pro-life, and owned up to it. Steele has given every kind of statement from ” I am personally pro-life, but Roe is here to stay” to “Roe needs to be overturned, its just going to be difficult to do” to “Roe should remain in place”. That doesn’t even take into account his positions on things like afirmative action (which I find particularly offensive) and the death penalty…
He is simply not a person I am comfortable turning the GOP over to for the next three years. You are talking about giving control of the conservative party to a person who break, or is at least weak on, a fundamental element of our party.
More when I get into my prog. class.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Why? Because it doesn’t happen to suit your “we need to move left” thesis?
Um, no? Because of the South’s history with the Democratic Party and how many still identify as Democrats even though they’re conservative…
Steele is pro-choice, or, at the very least, so murky on abortion that he can’t be trusted. You think Romney is bad? Romney was once pro-choice, became pro-life, and owned up to it. Steele has given every kind of statement from ” I am personally pro-life, but Roe is here to stay” to “Roe needs to be overturned, its just going to be difficult to do” to “Roe should remain in place”. That doesn’t even take into account his positions on things like afirmative action (which I find particularly offensive) and the death penalty… He is simply not a person I am comfortable turning the GOP over to for the next three years. You are talking about giving control of the conservative party to a person who break, or is at least weak on, a fundamental element of our party.
You’re right.
We can’t let Michael Steele get near Roe v. Wade. We’ve come too far to turn it ov — oh, wait…
And the death penalty is a really, really, really important issue right now. If there is one issue that’s on the minds of Americans right now, it’s the death penalty. How could we even consider letting someone who opposes the death penalty get anywhere near the organizational head of the Republican Party!?!?!?!
January 29th, 2009 at 8:31 am
You’re welcome for Palin. She was the only thing that ever put McCain ahead.
Hah! Yeah, for maybe two days, after all people knew of her was her speech — which wasn’t even written by her.
By the time Election Day came around, she was utterly rejected by Independents, moderates, and women. (But the almighty BASE loved her!)
I have no clue why you think social conservatives led to her being picked though. Other than backing McCain away from a Liberman debacle, social conservatives had nothing to do with Palin. Most of them had never heard of her and her rep as a hardcore social rightwinger was mostly a media-generated image.
Because Lieberman would have been unacceptable to the anti-pragmatists. It would have been a four-year, bipartisan administration, and Lieberman wouldn’t have run for the GOP nomination. The only purpose would have been to keep Obama out.
Lieberman’s lookin’ mighty good now that we had a chance to see what Palin looked like.
But noooo! McCain’s aides were afraid that the so-cons would revolt if Lieberman were put on the ticket.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Alex, I think the map is perfectly useless as an argument for what the GOP needs to do as a party. Amongst its weaknesses, the map relies on Gallup data that apparently disallows “unaffiliated” as a party ID.
The map says nothing about political issues geographically, so to argue that it tells you what the GOP needs to do requires making generic assumptions about what people want. You have to conjure your support out of thin air because the map fails to indicate anything at all — with the possible exception that people have turned against the party that most recently held executive power.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:53 am
This, too, tells more about your own political preferences than anything else: You say it’s the Religious Right’s fault, I say it’s to their credit.
McCain had very weak support with traditional GOP Presidential voters until he picked her. Afterwards, his inconsistencies once again undermined his support with the base. My evidence for this assessment is not strong, but it isn’t any weaker than claims to the contrary, either.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:57 am
McCain had very weak support with traditional GOP Presidential voters until he picked her. Afterwards, his inconsistencies once again undermined his support with the base. My evidence for this assessment is not strong, but it isn’t any weaker than claims to the contrary, either.
No he didn’t. He had ~90% GOP support in most polls. They just weren’t excited — but they were still going to vote for him. An unexcited vote counts just as much as an excited one.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Interesting discussion!
Re. 2008 my personal opinion is that the GOP actually had a quite exciting
selection of experienced candidates from “Blue” states that all could have
promised a drastic shift away from Bush’s brand of highly divisive, religiously
motivated “compassionate conservatism”.
Apart from his views on the war, John McCain would have seemed enormously appealing
to independents and moderates if he had favored the same themes as he did in 1999-2003.
Mitt Romney & Rudy Giuliani could have promoted themselves as non-ideological problem fixers
with a proven track record in deep blue Massachusetts & NYC. Instead, all three had
to essentially promise to adhere to the usual inflexible position regarding social
conservatism (religion, gays etc.), low taxes/small government, and a hawkish foreign policy (OK the final point was not a problem for anybody).
And it made all three (Romney in particular) seem like insincere phonies trying to
pander to the Rush Limbaugh crowd, since these politicians all used to be saying
totally different things half a decade ago.
Rahm Emanuel said (in TIME magazine, I think), that the McCain who lost to Bush in
2000 would have been a formidable opponent. After all, McCain had a real track record
of centrist opposition against the corrupt and discredited leadership of the Bush/DeLay/Hastert years while Obama had few real accomplishments and a left-liberal voting record.
But “the Maverick” had to make a Faustian bargain in order to win the GOP primaries, which
meant running as a “full spectrum” conventional Republican.
MARCU$
January 29th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Oh, not me. I was coming ever closer to voting Libertarian — again! — because McCain was turning tricks for Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, and the AGW hysteria syndicate. Cap and trade? Please…
I found Palin encouraging because — unlike McCain and Biden, to a lesser extent Obama — was not another pol deluded by years of inside-the-Beltway politics.
McCain’s support for cap and trade, and later for the bailout, made a mockery of his criticism of the arcane Congressional earmark process, a relative speck of dust to the size of the former.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:25 am
So you’re going to auction off essential legs of the platform for short-term gain? Is abortion important at this moment? no. Could it be a critical issue in two, four, or six years – possibly.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:26 am
i’m guessing knepper will end up supporting Romney in 2012. He will most likely be the most liberal Republican in the race, and the Rockefeller Repubs will support him by default.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Oh, not me. I was coming ever closer to voting Libertarian — again! — because McCain was turning tricks for Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, and the AGW hysteria syndicate. Cap and trade? Please…
OK, well…that’s you.
So you’re going to auction off essential legs of the platform for short-term gain? Is abortion important at this moment? no. Could it be a critical issue in two, four, or six years – possibly.
OK…thankfully, Matthew, the RNC chairmanship is a 2-year post…
i’m guessing knepper will end up supporting Romney in 2012. He will most likely be the most liberal Republican in the race, and the Rockefeller Repubs will support him by default.
Why do you pigeonhole me as a “liberal”? Right now, I support Sanford, although I’m willing to give Gingrich, Pawlenty, and others a chance. Just no Huckabee, Romney, or Palin.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:40 am
“OK…thankfully, Matthew, the RNC chairmanship is a 2-year post…”
Unless we take another serious butt kicking in two years, re-election seems likely. The GOP is probably going to gain at least a seat or two in two years regardless of who is chairman…so while it might be a two year term, I don’t think I really see someone getting kicked out.
===
look, if you want to see a person’s vison for the GOP – look at who they supported last year. Steele supported Giuliani, a pro-abortion , anti-family candidate who sued to keep his precious pork, and, as a result, eliminated the line item veto. Either Steele agreed with those things, disagreed but didn’t view them as major issues, or disagreed but didn’t care. In any case, it doesn’t say much about his ability to A) Pick winners, B) Support Conservatives, and C) Read his audience (the GOP).
January 29th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Yes, that’s me.
Are you unaffected by confirmation bias?
January 29th, 2009 at 9:46 am
#40
An unexcited vote counts just as much as an excited one.
Unexcited voters:
1) Don’t give money
2) Don’t make phone calls
3) Don’t walk precincts
4) Don’t drag their friends to the polls to vote.
Excitement and commitment matter. You cannot leave your base feeling dirty about voting for you without some consequence.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I can address Oklahoma for you. In the ’30s, Oklahoma wept so heavily Democratic, that there were no Republican state senators for a period of time (out of 48), and less than 5 (out of 100) state representatives. Over the years, however, Republicans began making gains both in registration and in elected officials. By the ’80s, there were double digits in both houses of the legislature. In 2004, the GOP took the House for the second time in history (once in the ’20s), and in 2008 they took the Senate for the first time.
Democrats still outnumber Republicans by a pretty good margin; however, they’re pretty conservative. They’re DINOs now, not really Democrats. But… “Pappy was a Democrat, and my gran’pappy was a Democrat, and my great-gran’pappy was a Democrat, so I’m gonna die a Democrat.” <– That’s how it goes…
So, technically, registration-wise, Oklahoma is Democratic. Practically, and election-wise, we’re Republican. No Democrat presidential candidate has won here since Johnson vs. Goldwater.
Someday soon, hopefully, we’ll finally pass the Dems in registration…
January 29th, 2009 at 9:49 am
In which case, supporting Conservative causes is just as important as it is in a GOP state…
January 29th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Adam,
Moderates do not own the last presidential election. A terribly unpopular president, a past his prime candidate, an crumbling economy that tanked on our watch, a not even close to her prime running mate, and a media darling opponent own the last election. There is no way you could possibly think that Mike Huckabee would have outperformed McCain in 08, do you?
Some of you guys are hell-bent on sticking to an ideology that is no longer demographically important, and are anchoring yourselves to a side of the culture war that only you and the fringe left are fighting anymore. And do you know what that makes you? The other fringe. Just because our fringe is bigger than their fringe doesn’t mean that ours is a viable national platform anymore. The demographics of this country are changing fast, and clinging to strategies that worked 30 years ago isn’t the answer. Indeed the only hope for a culture war candidate is the Rove style, 50.5% of the votes, F everybody else style that has made us so unpopular with the electorate. Thanks, but no thanks.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Fire up what base? You see, if you continue down the Palin tracks, it’s a LANDSLIDE. Not for Palin. For Obama. Try a little reseach on the woman? Just a bit? And you’ll find that is the wrong path for the GOP to follow. We want someone with true values, morals, ethics. Male or female, we want somone who fires up everyone, and not just plumbers.
I’m not alone. I’m one of the 1 in 5 CONSERVATIVES
January 29th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Fire up what base? You see, if you continue down the Palin tracks, it’s a LANDSLIDE. Not for Palin. For Obama. Try a little reseach on the woman? Just a bit? And you’ll find that is the wrong path for the GOP to follow. We want someone with true values, morals, ethics. Male or female, we want somone who fires up everyone, and not just plumbers.
I’m not alone. I’m one of the 1 in 5 CONSERVATIVES who did not vote for the airhead.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:44 am
#45, I support Sanford too, at least tenatively. It’s strange that you and I are supporting the same candidate, since we are polar opposites on the social issues. Sanford is no moderate on abortion or any other issue I can think of.
Gingrich is poison. I like him, but he’s too divisive, and his family life is just a mess.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:46 am
“But noooo! McCain’s aides were afraid that the so-cons would revolt if Lieberman were put on the ticket.”
Alex-Lieberman is missing 2 legs of the “stool”. So it’s not just so-con related.
Have you ever heard Lieberman advocate for supply side tax cuts or free market solutions?
January 29th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Yeah, right. You chose Obama. Hilarious.
I’m one of the four in five screaming CONSERVATIVES who voted for Palin in spite of McCain’s squishiness.
But you’re not alone, though. Any other fool can also generate empty claims, too.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Alex is right about the religious right getting palin on the ballot. That worked for our side,dident it? When one in five consevatives jumped ship because of her, that might be a red flag for the future?
January 29th, 2009 at 10:51 am
This only proves that Huckabee would lose all the “solid” red states.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Brad Hanson’s @ss, you live up to your name. There’s plenty of legitimate issues to go on that your quack claims of affairs, bus sabotage, “who’s baby is it anyway,” and so on is pointless (unless you’re actually wanting Gov Palin to be the nominee, that is). Stop. Please.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Geez. I don’t care to do all the footwork for you all. But here’s just one link to an article (of cours, it’s from the ‘media’, so it CANT be credible, right?)
ONE IN FIVE CONSERVATIVES VOTED FOR OBAMA. ONE IN TEN LIBERALS VOTED FOR MCCAIN.
You can read it in one of the paragrahs. It’s there. And I’ll look for more of what I have read on this very subject. You see, I read newspapers and magazines and books and things. I gain knowled and information by doing so. If Katie C every asked me, that ‘gotcha’ question, I can answer it without having to check notes and get backatcha.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Geez. I don’t care to do all the footwork for you all. But here’s just one link to an article (of cours, it’s from the ‘media’, so it CANT be credible, right?)
ONE IN FIVE CONSERVATIVES VOTED FOR OBAMA. ONE IN TEN LIBERALS VOTED FOR MCCAIN.
You can read it in one of the paragrahs. It’s there. And I’ll look for more of what I have read on this very subject. You see, I read newspapers and magazines and books and things. I gain knowled and information by doing so. If Katie C every asked me, that ‘gotcha’ question, I can answer it without having to check notes and get backatcha.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20081108/D94ALFPO0.html
January 29th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Geez. I don’t care to do all the footwork for you all. But here’s just one link to an article (of cours, it’s from the ‘media’, so it CANT be credible, right?)
ONE IN FIVE CONSERVATIVES VOTED FOR OBAMA. ONE IN TEN LIBERALS VOTED FOR MCCAIN.
You can read it in one of the paragrahs. It’s there. And I’ll look for more of what I have read on this very subject. You see, I read newspapers and magazines and books and things. I gain knowledge and information by doing so. If Katie C every asked me, that ‘gotcha’ question, I can answer it without having to check notes and get backatcha.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20081108/D94ALFPO0.html
January 29th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Hey, I’ve never questioned Sarugh on who’s baby was it. I know she broke her water and flew across several states and one country to get back to AK. A very dangerous move, and not a choice I personally would have made as one who values life.
Cant’ handle the name? I guess it’s a nice little reminder to some, that theres rocks under the water where she’s walking.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:06 am
I think I’ll keep my name. it ticks some off, so it must be worth it!
January 29th, 2009 at 11:17 am
#64 “I think I’ll keep my name. it ticks some off, so it must be worth it!”
Yes, please do. It helps identify a loon.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Makes it easier to know which posts to skip over…
January 29th, 2009 at 11:24 am
By posts I mean comments.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:58 am
The GOP’s path back
By: Rep. Eric Cantor
January 29th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I jsut want everyone to know how ‘moral’ madame sarugh is! She cheats on her husband, and that’s ok. she clamis to be a great mom, but has a son on drugs and now fobbed off on the miltary, her daughter at 17, is a unwed mother. Baby daddy is a high school drop out, and granmama on daddys side is a druggie herself. Great family. Yea. Sure.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Alex, I really can’t stand you anymore. Who the heck even are you? You don’t stand for anything, and you continuously attack people who do? Every post you make on this site is worse than the last. If Republicans don’t stand for their principles, then who are they and what’s the point of even being a Republican? Why would anyone vote for Republicans in 2010 or 2012 if they just represent democrat lite policies? I’m beginning to think you are nothing more than a democrat at heart who just (even if it is only subconsciously) wants to see the Republican Party completely disintegrate.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Cantor is a good guy. He invited Romney and Meg Whitman up to discuss the economy, and what to do about it. I hope Cantor sees that we GOP have been heading down a path that has become very narrow in not very deep.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Sarah is going to the Alfalfa Club Dinner. She says because Obama is going, and to represent Alaska, of course.
Of course.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Look,
John McCain wasn’t the right candidate to run at all! But he did get one thing right. Republican politicians went to washington to change washington, and washington changed them! Had Bush been more authoritative in vetoing spending bills, had he toned down the size of government, had he stood up to his own party when they were asking for pork……we would’ve been able to cling to Bush instead of running a maverick that never liked him in the first place.
We don’t need to CHANGE the party at all! We need to get back to basics. Empasize our principles….and this time, when we get into power, we need to keep those principles rather than letting spending get out of control….rather than forgetting our promises to cut taxes, rather than forgetting all of our other promises.
In BUSHES 2 TERMS, REPUBLICANS ONLY DID 2 GOOD THINGS! We fought the war on terror successfully, and we banned partial birth abortion. There is nothing else. We spent oursevles into a recession, rather than restraining spending….which ironically could’ve prevented the recession to begin with.
There is nothing wrong with the party…except the people we’ve elected. Instead of rubber stamping an incumbent republican, we should have more people willing to oppose them in the primary, when that republican has abandoned small government principles. While I think abortion is the most important issue….i don’t think we should run opposition just because a republican is pro-choice. We should consider if that district is pro-life, and if they most definitely aren’t, than i think we need to look at how that republican views spending and taxes.
The republican party was never full of RINO’S. For several years, it was popular to be a republican. Then we messed up and let people run the party that were morons and didn’t have true republican principles. They saw a way to line their own pockets, instead of seeing how they could serve the american people.
The current strategy of opposing OBAMA, while at the same time offering an alternative, is a good one. When the people start to realize that obama’s ideas aren’t working….they will remember that the republicans offered an alternative, and opposed the non-stimulus bill. As long as we continue to do this kind of fighting, we CAN prevail. Whether we will or not, is more about how lucky obama actually is.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
“Discarding identity politics. Stop applying rigid litmus tests to Republican Party membership. ”
Amen.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Alex, I really can’t stand you anymore. Who the heck even are you? You don’t stand for anything, and you continuously attack people who do? Every post you make on this site is worse than the last. If Republicans don’t stand for their principles, then who are they and what’s the point of even being a Republican? Why would anyone vote for Republicans in 2010 or 2012 if they just represent democrat lite policies? I’m beginning to think you are nothing more than a democrat at heart who just (even if it is only subconsciously) wants to see the Republican Party completely disintegrate.
Well, let’s see. Over the past months, I have:
1) Laid out the case for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities
2) Provided coverage of and commentary on the Gaza conflict
3) Made a post about free speech and Islam in Europe
4) Made a post supporting Michael Steele’s bid for the RNC Chairmanship
That being said, a lot of the hardcore right-wingers on here seem to be thinking I am advocating ‘Democrat Lite,’ so I’m going to need to make a post explaining why that is not the case.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Dancing Among Landmines–The Obama Al-Arabiya Interview
By Victor Davis Hanson
Pathetic ‘Message’
Obama’s Odd Islamic Outreach
by Amir Taheri
January 29th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
[...] Alex Knepper at Race 4 2012: [...]
January 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
“1) Laid out the case for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities”
You really want to stir up a hornets nest? While I do not agree with Obama wanting to meet with Iranian leaders without first laying out preconditions I do not believe military action is either necessary at this time.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“That being said, a lot of the hardcore right-wingers on here seem to be thinking I am advocating ‘Democrat Lite,’ so I’m going to need to make a post explaining why that is not the case.”
No you don’t. If they think you’re ‘Democrat Lite,’ they clearly haven’t been listening to you/reading your posts. What makes you think they’d start now?
I’ve found the best way to deal with the self-appointed arbiters of all things conservative is just to ignore them. It lends them less credence.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
They haven’t been listening, no.
They’re hearing what they want to hear and disregarding the rest, as Simon and Garfunkel would put it.
That being said, if I can reach just one person..! Plus, there are thousands upon thousands who look at Race and don’t comment.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Sadly, I think “The Base” has too many unappeasables within it — self-identified “conservatives” who refuse to vote for anyone who doesn’t precisely match their view of what a conservative should be. McCain was too much of a “RINO” for these folks, and he probably is a bit of a RINO, but McCain in the White House would certainly have been an improvement over BO.
So, as long as a goodly portion of “The Base” is interested in a narrow definition of conservatism, and isn’t at all interested in being pragmatic, the GOP is going to have problems.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
“but McCain in the White House would certainly have been an improvement over BO.”
The logic is that Obama can be ousted and replaced by a conservative in four years.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I think the answer to the GOP’s problems is to do the opposite of what Knepper says.
I think we need to stay conservative on the social issues, but move more to the middle on economic issues and become less libertarian. I tend to think the same way as the commentator Ross Douthat.
That’s how we win over working class Hispanics and African-Americans, who are in no way libertarian but conservative socially. It’s also a way to win over more women.
Without winning the votes of Latinos and African-Americans, the GOP is finished. Everybody knows this, and the party has to change as a result. But not on abortion or church/state stuff.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Its true, as much as Knepper and the anti-values crowd (read as libertarians) bash Social Conservatism, Social GOPism attracts far more support than any other branch of the party.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
the anti-values crowd (read as libertarians)
you naively sit in your mom’s basement, attacking libertarians for bashing, yet you have the nerve to call us “anti-values”???? insane, bro. you have no right to judge me or my values, especially not even knowing what they are.
i hold very strongly to my morals, which are, believe it or not, very similar to yours. i do hold to one moral that you don’t seem to grasp: free agency. i don’t believe it’s the government’s or society’s job to force other people to follow a certain specific set of morals.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
The problem I have with you Alex is that you continually say you won’t support Romney, Palin, or Huckabee. Since one of them is in all likelihood going to be on the top of the ticket, why do you even have front page posting priveleges? Mitt Romney represents all three legs of the conservative stool, and though less qualified, one could argue that Palin does also. So, if you can’t support someone of the Ronald Reagan mold, why are you even a Republican. You seem to be saying you that you are Republican in Name Only, unless they go with Sanford, or some lesser name, which they almost certainly will not. Instead of building up the party, you do it harm by continually attacking front runners. You were thrown off the site for not supporting Palin as VP, but yet you’re allowed to be anti-all front runners for the Presidential spot with apparently no problems from Kavon.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Ironically, Classical Liberals (such as myself) and Libertarians actually hold the moral high ground on “Republicanists” (did I just event a new word? COOOL!) like Act Blog.
True Freedom and real Liberty means having the freedom to piss off your neighbor with your values or the lifestyle choices you make. Classical Liberalism asks for far, far more from its adherents than Republicanism as you need to have the ability to win people’s hearts and minds with your arguments rather than impose them via the application of political power. Republicanists like Act Blog are no better than the Liberal Fascists on the other side of the aisle.
True victory comes with knowing your shit and converting someone to your point of view via reason and argument.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Interesting discussion.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
As a new blogger I have just stumbled upon this sight, and from what I have read in the discussion here it seems to illuminate the main problem with our modern party politics. Whenever a party is pushed out of power it invariably moves to its extremes in terms of ideology. This leaves people like me without a home.
I am a proud Rockefeller Republican, I even run a blog devoted to center-right governance, but since I do not walk in lock step with the GOP I am labeled a closet Democrat…which I AM NOT. But living in a blue state (MA) I have learned that you need to listen and compromise to get anything done.
For what it is worth I am intrigued by Steele, and I am not really a Romney guy- though he would have fared better in the climate that developed than McCain did.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Welcome SteveB! As the founder of this site, I welcome you here and invite you to comment often!
January 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I don’t know who you’re talking about, Kavon. I haven’t seen an “act blog” in the threads since you banned him for voicing concerns – that turned out to be justified – about Palin.
—-
As for the “moral high ground” of which you speak – in other words, tolerating all sorts of self- and nationally-destructive practices, well lets just say that even the “high ground” on a sinking ship is still going under water.
—-
I always thought you were more sensible than Knepper. Are you really going to tell me that you don’t understand the value that traditional values, life, and families have to our future?
January 29th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I understand their importance and believe in them myself. But their imposition by the force of government is Fascism. Win someone’s heart or mind, don’t try to get the Government to use its power to impose your morals on everyone else.
This nuance is the very essence of Conservatism. You think you are a Conservative, Act, but you are not. You are a Republican, a political animal that wishes to impose your views on everyone else-just like the Democrats across the aisle from you.
You might want to read up on the difference between true Conservatism and Republicanism. Start here.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I realize my comment on this is totally redundant and superfluous, but here it is:
Heh!
January 29th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Very concisely and well stated, Kavon.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Thanks Fred! I’ll chose Edmund Burke, James Madison, Milton Friedman, and Ronald Reagan over Tom Delay, Rick Santorum, and Dennis Hastert every time.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Nikrad is back!
Well written.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
“Firing up the base” is putting lipstick on “reducing the party to the lunatiuc fringe.” Happy landings, wingnuts!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:23 am
Dude, your tone sucks.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Republicans can not differentiate themselves by spouting a slightly different omnipotent government position than Democrats (which is precisely what cost them their majority).
The Constitution, and it’s restoration, is essential if America is to be preserved. Individual Liberty is the cornerstone of American uniqueness. Lincoln split the Nation to secure Big Government and squash Individual Liberty. It is no wonder that the current President favors Lincoln: the latter would not let the Constitution, or anything else stand between him and an omnipotent government. We should be very concerned.
If the Republicans don’t get behind the restoration of the Constitution, they will disappear. The only hope we have is to return to the indisputable foundation of America, and that is only the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were brilliant in opposing the concept of political parties that they knew would become the focus of politics, rather than maintaining the focus on preservation of Liberty.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
The premise of this discussion is to regain the White house in 2012 the GOP must…. Certain truths appear from reading history. “There is a tide in the affairs of men/which taken at the flood….”
Our time was up. For nearly thirty years the conservative bloc of the American electorate held sway. We have seen a sea-change that was made worse, perhaps, by the foolish choices of the last administration but which was inevitable. Nothing fails like success. The Republican party hasn’t had a new idea since the Lafler curve nor has its starting line-up changed. Like a football team that wins back-to-back SuperBowls and the feet and knees of an aging running back and holds to the notion that since we’re winning it ain’t broke and we don’t need to fix it, the GOP exhausted its ’3 deep’ over the past four presidencies.
The GOP lost because it continues to fight the battles of the 1970′s into the 21st century. We have recovered from Vietnam, Watergate and ‘stagflation.’ Get over it.
Let us rather look around us and recognize that homosexuals will never be more than just a thin fraction of the population. The vast majority of Americans have already voted with their genitals. Heterosexuality is here to stay. A true conservative will not so expand the power of government to control bedroom behavior. I am a heterosexual high school teacher and my students have no allure for me. Why on earth do we presume that a homosexual is less capable of leashing lust than I am?
Rather than decrying the deplorable lack of patriotism we attribute to those who disagree with Pres. Bush’s decisions on and conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, let us join in a more productive discussion on the broader topic of when and under what circumstnace the US ought to commit our military capacity. It is far better to develop a coherent and consistent rubric for decision than to scream bootlessly at each other over the irretrievable past.
The Republican party can and will remain a viable part of the national debate when we worry less about winning elections and more about how we will govern when we do. With a comprehensive and thought out approach to America’s manifest skills, resources, needs and opportunities, we can return to the sincerely joyous and optimistic outlook the allowed Ronald Reagan to bring us out of the wilderness to which Herbert Hoover had condemned us and in which Richard Nixon’s hubristic excesses kept us mired.
In 1984, after Walter Mondale proved that as Minnesota goes, so goes the District of Columbia, many of the Sunday Sermonizers sagely opined that the party of FDR and JFK might well be headed the same way as the party of Millard Fillmore. Not so much. President Clinton never enjoyed an electoral majority of the popular vote. President Obama is the first president to score above 50 poercent since Carter in 1976. The Democrats cannot make us irrelevant but we can do it to ourselves. The party Apparat must be rebuilt and learn from Obama’s campaign as Howard Dean learned from Karl Rove. That is a job for technicians. Politicians must study governance an d present a comprehensive alternative. It shouldn’t take us 30 years but let us not expect miracles.