The Reagan effect
Noemie Emery has come to much the same conclusions as I have about the dangers of the drive for Republican Party purity:
The conservative movement is a collection of theorists that self-selects for conformity. The Republican party is the vehicle for the center-right of the American polity, a group that includes the conservative movement, but is not quite of it, and includes many people who touch the conservative movement with different degrees of intensity, or only lightly, or on only a limited number of points…
The problem for conservatives is that in the states that [RINOs] come from, on-and-off backing is all [conservatives] are likely to get…Olympia Snowe doesn’t owe her seat to conservative activists, but to the people of Maine, who elected her and presumably like what she’s doing. If conservatives can’t make their case to the people of Maine, it’s a problem for them, not for Snowe and her voters. The alternative to her is not some idealized conservative activist. It’s someone who never votes with them at all.
Emery ends the piece with the observation that, if this goes on, in the future Republicans will be lucky to retain thirty Senate seats.
So, what’s behind the conservatives’ targeting of RINOs, when they know that the states from which RINOs come are likely to elect Democrats instead? Snowe’s Maine, for example, is now a solidly blue state, and to deny this is to deny reality.
I don’t think that conservatives really have a death wish for the Republican Party. It’s that the extreme wings of either party are just that: extreme. As such, they tend to be inherently less practical, less willing to compromise, and more inclined towards ideological purity and purges.
But that’s not the whole story. I have become convinced that the purists believe that their ideas are so inherently logical and so obviously right (as in “correct”), that if the electorate were to just listen to candidates articulating those positions properly, even in blue states (with the possible exception of Minnesota and Massachusetts, so deeply blue as to be indigo) the scales would fall from voters’ eyes and they would elect the conservative candidates.
And so getting rid of RINOs like Specter (mission accomplished) and those such as Snowe of Maine (pending) in the Republican primaries are considered steps not only towards ideological purity, but towards getting rid of pretenders to the Republican thrones in those states in preparation for the magical Republican candidates who will inevitably win over the populace and the general election.
In other words, they are waiting for the heirs of Reagan to succeed in once again convincing Independents and centrist Democrats that the Republican Party is the best way to go.
Although Reagan is a Republican/conservative hero, in some ways he did the Republicans no favor. His appeal transcended ideology, although he never shied from ideology. But he had charisma to spare, and it gave him crossover pull with the electorate. The temporary defection of so-called “Reagan Democrats” from their usual voting patterns helped give Republicans the idea that it was a permanent change, and that conservative ideology had triumphed with these people—forever. Obviously, this was not the case. And in the ensuing years since Reagan, more young people have been educated by the school system in a very different type of thinking, a fact which makes the Republican challenge that much tougher.
But not impossible. Especially if the current administration cooperates by showing many young Americans the dangers of liberalism taken too far.
[ADDENDUM: Nicolle Wallace is holding out for a Republican hero. But Nicolle, please—that song wasn’t by Bonnie Raitt, it was Bonnie Tyler.
Puhleeze: Maine is a “solidly blue state”, so the GOP should retain Snowe because she’s a RINO? And where exactly is the value and honesty in that? She votes with Dems. Call her what she is.
I prefer a principled GOP minority to a Dem-lite party. We are now a one-party country, anyway, with all the harm and misery that always causes now well underway.
From my Southern vantage point (and I’ve summered in ME and have a child with wretched political beliefs in MA) the rock-ribbed, self-sufficient, individualistic New Englander who voted Repub. is a remote entity, now just a fiction. They seem at the head of the handout line. And the fat cats from away in their coastal cottages are mostly Dems, for their own (often) bizarre reasons.
Very good Neo.
I admit that I (privately) rail against Snowe, Collins, Specter, et al. I do so because I believe they owe the party some loyalty; and I do not believe that they betray their constituents when they stand with the party on most issues. They were elected as Republicans and presumably their voters know that the GOP does differ from the Dims.
On the other hand, I am thoroughly disgusted with Limbaugh and others who insist on absolute conservative purity. Politicians must compromise from time to time, or they are not likely to be politicians very long. We must recognize that we are ahead of the game if we can elect candidates who share most of our values; and we are going to find few who are faithful to all of them.
Since there are certain conservative principles, and the GOP gives lip service to those principles, all I ask is that they strive to adhere to them; and that when they must compromise, they keep the deviations minimal and work to regain the principled position when possible. Although the GOP in action can be disgusting, it is the only vehicle we have for any semblance of sensible governance.
I confess that I am one of those who believes that a majority of the electorate would respond to an appeal to conservative principles if it were articulated in a clear and logical manner. (They are so obvious to me, surely everyone can understand.)
Given a choice between a faux-Democrat, “Republican” and a real Democrat, Generations X and Y will vote for the real deal every time: the real Democrat/Marxist. They have been trained well.
I am not aware that the GOP tried to “get rid” of Specter. The national party had backed him against more conservative challengers for years. Alas, in politics, gratitude is the lively expectation of favors to come. I hope Mr. Specter enjoys life at the bottom of the seniority table among the Democrats.
Similarly with Snowe and Collins, and Chafee before them. I can’t figure out what they stand for, exactly. Perhaps the real story is sociological and it has something to do with demographic and ideological change in New England. What is in it for northern New England to go indigo? Coastal New England (Massachusetts and Rhode Island) has been hopeless for a long time, although why that should be perplexes me. I used to live in suburban Boston. When I vacation in Massachusetts–as I do every summer–I stay away from political talk, because any political topic unleashes torrents of unfocused anger and vitriol from people who cannot be said to be disadvantaged in any way that one can imagine.
We need experts on mass hysteria to help us with this one.
Mark Steyn on fire:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWU3ZmJjODBjMTllNTg2ZTk5MGZiMWU1NTM5ZTMzMjU=&w=MA==
That is going to leave a mark.
Specter and Snowe aren’t being punished by the GOP because they’re RINOs. They’ve been that way for a long, long time w/o reprocution. They’re being punished because they broke ranks in the midst of probably the most important funding bill in our lifetimes – Obama’s megalithic monstrosity, the Spendulous Bill.
When Barack’s house of cards comes tumbling down, the GOP is better off as the undisputed Party of “No”.
… I am one of those who believes that a majority of the electorate would respond to an appeal to conservative principles if it were articulated in a clear and logical manner.
The writer does not reveal what they believe “conservative principles” are but I am one who believes that the conservative movement is wrong on several important issues. In fact they are SO wrong that they are hastening into existence what they do not want.
Let’s take health care. For many years the conservatives have fought any attempt to reform the system. To my mind health care is a definite social problem that has needed reform for some time but when the Republicans had control of Congress and conservatives had their chance to address this problem they did nothing.
The nation could have had a private sector/free market oriented solution with a minimum of government involvement if the Republicans and conservatives had shown some initiative and willingness to compromise in years past but it seems as if the Right doesn’t even believe there is a problem to be addressed! Now we stand a good chance that a Lefty-derived Big Government national health care plan will be in place before Obama leaves office. It’s called biting off your nose to spite your face.
Immigration policy is another area of rigidity. We had a chance not long ago to have undocumented workers identified and kept track of but the Right decided that that would be ‘amnesty’ and the proposed legislation had to be ditched. The Right has not been willing to compromise on anything concerning immigration reform. Who knows what Obama and the Dems will come up with? Another face without a nose.
Abortion is another hot button issue. The Right keeps hoping the SCOTUS will reverse the decision making abortion legal. Ain’t gonna happen – not in a hundred years – I don’t care how many conservative judges get to be on the Court they will never reverse this decision. The anti-abortionists only real hope is a constitutional amendment. It’s a slim hope, I’ll admit, but it stands a slightly better chance than the SCOTUS ever making abortion illegal. Instead, a lot of energy is wasted on the SCOTUS hope. O face – where did your nose go?
When the republicans abandoned small government conservatism and fiscal responsibility the only thing they had left to sell was social policy and a march to being the “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” party. They will never outdo the democrats at big government and reckless finance. Never.
That last tent pole is not enough to hold electoral power and until the republicans realize that, it will be a long time in the wilderness.
I’m OK with the RINOs departing of their own accord, they have nothing useful to offer in policy or philosophy that the democrats can’t exceed. Maybe, just maybe if the republican party sees their true weaknesses without the (sometime) support of RINO votes they will reassess their platform and reinstate a small government-fiscal responsibility priority. If not, they might have to go the way of the Whigs and we’re left to hope something better might come out of it.
grackle, you may be right that these are the important hot button issues, and I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on “to whom, precisely, are these hot button issues?” and “why are these hot button issues?” And here I mean not to Conservatives, who have been pretty clear on why these are hot button issues–with the exception of illegal immigration–but to let’s call them anti-Conservatives who aren’t Lefties.
As to the details of your assertion: on health care, we have had a lumbering partially public and partially private system for my entire adult life. We have had many rounds of reform attempts, but they all founder on impossible economics. The core economic problem is that the value patients put on living longer and better is nearly infinite, but no program asks the consumers of care (the patients) to pay for their preferences. Under these circumstances, demand will be practically unlimited, and any money the government throws at the problem only increases prices and consumer expectations. The more we do, the more we feed the beast.
On immigration, there is no practical political program that doesn’t include amnesty in some form; you could never pass it otherwise.
On abortion, SCOTUS has been chipping away at Roe for years. Practically speaking, overturning Roe would only send the issue back to the states. It may be that for political reasons we will never get a SCOTUS that will overturn Roe (and indeed, it’s not one of the issues that gets me motivated), but I don’t see why it is unthinkable on practical grounds.
All in all, it is not clear that there are any simple, practical approaches that Conservatives could have taken on these three issues that would have satisfied the Left. Or to put it another way, I’m not sure I see how the Conservatives ever walked away from a workable deal.
Over at Pajamas Media they have an article that says that “Conservatives can’t continue to play Scrooge when the liberals play Santa Claus,” arguing that Conservatives are fighting a loosing battle when they try to contradict the Left’s very easily stated and appealing lies, because they have to use longer, complex explanations–not easily followed and often unpalatable–to prove them false (http://tinyurl.com/qdpapt).
Translation–(thanks to the Left’s capture of our educational system and the MSM several generations ago) the majority of voters are easily manipulated and swindled, ill-educated, uninformed boobs, with incredibly short attention spans, and are increasingly materialistic, lazy and self-centered to boot, and, thus, Conservatives cannot possibly win a bidding war in which the Left is offering Ice Cream, Candy and a Free Lunch, emotion rather than thought, and the promise of Utopia, and the Right is offering plain Milk, the requirement to listen carefully and to engage in some actual thought, getting up at 4:30 A.M. to go to work, and Black and White instead of Technicolor.
So, the author advocates that conservatives do a little “reframing” of the debate, so that Conservatives aims should be stated as the optimum in independence and prosperity vs. the Left’s state control and government enforced equality of outcomes.
Arlen Sphincter and others are advocating that the Republican Party–what a bunch of prigs, meanies and kill joys!–should be less conservative, and move toward the center (and perhaps gin up a few snappy Technicolor lies of its own, I imagine). I cannot imagine a more foolish and destructive course of action for Conservatives/the Republican Party.
I think that Dick Morris’ idea is correct–yeah, I don’t like the guy either, but he is a very smart operator and this is his turf, so–that this is exactly the time for Conservatives/the Republican Party to stick to conservative positions and to define themselves as sharply as possible and as unmistakably in opposition to all major aspects of the Democrat’s “Great Leap Foreword” into Socialism and Tyranny, so that when Obama and the Democrat’s chickens start “coming home to roost,” voters will naturally turn to and vote for the Republican opposition.
David Avera, I cannot understand why any small government/fiscal responsibility conservative (which the aforementioned RINOs were surely not) would sit on their hands so that the Social Democrats could get in. Talk about counter-productive! As bad as earmarks are, you won’t get fewer from the Democrats.
The big sources of increased government spending under the Bush Administration were 1) the war and 2) increased Medicare drug funding. On the second point, you give the opposite advice for Republican success from grackle, who claimed they were not doing enough on health care. On the former, running up a deficit fighting two major wars is not something that usually gives the small government types much heartburn.
Or more to the point, you can’t have war and small government; to endorse the war, you must give up on small government, and to call for small government in wartime is a backdoor way to criticize the war. I know of no theorists for limited national government who do not put defense as its number one role and responsibility.
Thanks anyway for bringing up the title of the Jonathan Edwards sermon that started the Great Awakening in Enfield, CT, July 8, 1741, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” It goes again to the role of religion in this debate as it related to “social issues.”
Oblio,
I didn’t sit on my hands, I held my nose and voted McCain because the other choice was much worse. It may have been a futile vote but no hand sitting here.
I didn’t mention health care or the war(s) but since you brought it up, I opposed the medicare drug plan and no child left behind and the whole “compassionate conservatism” thing. Bush said “when people are hurting government has to move” … and I almost barfed. Sadly, few seem to realize that the government can say no and can ration health care just as mercilessly as the free market.
But as to the war and the military, that is ONE of the things the federal government IS charged with by the constitution. We can debate whether we should have or not, but national defense IS a legitimate purpose of the national government.
Hi Neo, I think the real problem for Republicans is not ideological purity but rather the leftward tilt of most of our cultural institutions. Ie, Big Media, Big Hollywood, Big Education etc. The solution I think is two fold. First Republican candidates need to be outspoken in pushing for ‘competition of ideas’ and ‘competition in sources of information’ in their campaigns. Rather than condemn Big Media for their leftist bias instead accept their right to support whoever they want but Republican candidates should challenge Big Media personalities to campaign debates to ensure the voters see both sides of issues. During campaigns Republicans need to promote alternative sources of information such as your site and others like Pajamas Media, Front Page Mag etc. The second way to bolster conservative ideas would be by direct competition. Encourage the creation of a alternative ‘Hollywood’ that would promote conservative values in the same way the establishment Hollywood promotes leftist values. Ditto for education, media etc. Of course some of this already exists but we clearly need more competition in the battle of ideas. Best, Bob
grackle, you may be right that these are the important hot button issues, and I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on “to whom, precisely, are these hot button issues?”
By “hot button” I mean those issues that generate a highly emotional response from both sides of the various debates, pro or con.
… and “why are these hot button issues?” And here I mean not to Conservatives, who have been pretty clear on why these are hot button issues—with the exception of illegal immigration—but to let’s call them anti-Conservatives who aren’t Lefties.
I’m not sure what the writer is asking of me. My comment made no attempt to explain why the issues are “hot button.” Perhaps another commentor with psychology credentials, or perhaps Neocon herself, will do this.
As to the details of your assertion: on health care, we have had a lumbering partially public and partially private system for my entire adult life. We have had many rounds of reform attempts, but they all founder on impossible economics.
John McCain, during the last campaign, had what I thought was a fairly good health care reform policy posted on his website. It involved bringing the costs down by various means and kept the insurance companies in the loop. It did not seem to me that it involved “impossible economics.” But McCain was defeated.
I must remind the readers that several prominent conservatives advised folks to vote against McCain during the primaries and the election. The strategy seemed to be that electing a Democrat would have such horrendous results that the backlash would give Republicans a victory in the next election cycle. I say to those misguided conservatives: It is always better to win elections than to lose them.
The core economic problem is that the value patients put on living longer and better is nearly infinite, but no program asks the consumers of care (the patients) to pay for their preferences. Under these circumstances, demand will be practically unlimited, and any money the government throws at the problem only increases prices and consumer expectations. The more we do, the more we feed the beast.
Maybe the writer is correct and the health care problem is unsolvable. But I want something to actually be tried about a problem before I’ll believe it is truly unsolvable. The Repubs and conservatives have had chances to try to solve the problem but have squandered those opportunities. Now Obama is going to step into the vacuum.
On immigration, there is no practical political program that doesn’t include amnesty in some form; you could never pass it otherwise.
But that’s exactly my point. The Right was unwilling to compromise on what they labeled as amnesty and we still have today millions of undocumented workers in the US. There’s a lot of faces walking around without noses these days.
On abortion, SCOTUS has been chipping away at Roe for years. Practically speaking, overturning Roe would only send the issue back to the states. It may be that for political reasons we will never get a SCOTUS that will overturn Roe (and indeed, it’s not one of the issues that gets me motivated), but I don’t see why it is unthinkable on practical grounds.
I don’t believe any SCOTUS, no matter what the philosophical make-up of the judges, will ever make abortion illegal. But if I am wrong and it were to happen each state would then be free to enact their own laws on the issue. I think there are many states that would then legislate legal abortions and a very few that would make it illegal. It would then be a matter of driving across a border to get an abortion if a pregnant woman wanted an abortion – sort of like gay marriage is now – only more prevalent. It would be a hollow victory.
All in all, it is not clear that there are any simple, practical approaches that Conservatives could have taken on these three issues that would have satisfied the Left. Or to put it another way, I’m not sure I see how the Conservatives ever walked away from a workable deal.
All the time I see folks on the Right(and the Left), some of them famous and in the public eye, vehemently declaring that they had rather not ‘win’ if it means compromise. They declare they would rather be a minority political group than to compromise and they have influence because folks listen to them. “Workable deals?” These folks are not interested in “workable deals.” They are ideologues with a rigid agenda. The extremes on each side, Right and Left, will never be interested in “workable deals.” They must be ignored if any true progress is ever to be made.
A correction on my last comment:
I don’t believe any SCOTUS, no matter what the philosophical make-up of the judges, will ever
make abortion illegaloverturn Roe vs. Wade.“On immigration, there is no practical political program that doesn’t include amnesty in some form; you could never pass it otherwise.
But that’s exactly my point. The Right was unwilling to compromise on what they labeled as amnesty and we still have today millions of undocumented workers in the US. There’s a lot of faces walking around without noses these days.”
Do you not understand we have done amnesty before, and all it did was encourage more illegal immigration.
Perhaps you don’t understand “Chain migration”. When you legalize an illegal alien, you are not just legalizing him, you are saying ok to his closest 15 cousins also.
Mark my word- if the border is not controlled in the Southwest, you will see war.
That Trans-Texas Cooridor aka, NAFTA Super Highway that the Republican Governor Perry has been pushing, almost lost him the office in a 4 way race last time around. This time, there are a lot more people who are aware of his involvement in it. just the portion that was to run parrallel to I-35, they were going to seize by eminient domain a 400 yard wide path of land stretching from the Rio Grande to Oklahoma. That was just branch of the monster. The portion that was to come thru East Texas through Houston has been partly beaten back by grass roots efforts- they will just expand existing highways.. We are told we have to make room for the highway because our population is growing. Getting rid of the bridges across the Rio Grande might be a whole lot cheaper. Texas is about to start experiencing power shortages because of our exploding population and we are not allowed to build new coal power plants. Gee, I wonder why our population is exploding? The population of Mexico multiplied about 10X in just a century. Now they are spilling over the border.
“just one branch” I meant to say. The think spread like a spider across the Texas in the plans. 400 yard swaths. The Oklahomans have organized against it also.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/aug06/06-08-23.html
Me, too! I even put up a yard sign for the first time ever and contributed money I wish I had back now.
grackle, I know what a “hot button” issue is. I am asking which parts of the electorate who are otherwise probable supporters of a conservative administration get turned off by the conservative position on these hot button issues. Then I am asking whether there is anything one could offer them that they would find acceptable. You have to know that before you can say there was a workable deal, and before you can criticize other people for having failing to find that deal.
I think we are making this way too complicated. I believe that the core swing voters are culturally conservative and economically populist. In the midst of last fall’s financial panic, economic populism won out in that group, for the time being. Remember if 3% of the electorate switches, you have a tie.
Well, I agree targeting rinos in deep blue areas does no good.
But in other areas (like running the party) its important to get them out. Being dem light won’t win national elections. Bush is great example. Increased spending in almost all fed agenecies but the dem inclinded most think he was some kind of scrooge. Being dem light wins you no favor with the people your trying to appeal to… ergo, just do what is right… and in some cases, that includes deep cuts or throwing wrenches in departments that don’t get anything done to try to shut them down (defund, don’t replace people that leave, do whatever you can)…
The right of center point of view is disappearing through attrition, subversion in our school systems (yeah, I said it), and illegal immigration. Very few higher education schools lean right. In all honesty, the best we can hope for is immigration of individuals from countries where the people are being taxed to death, and get out if they can. The down side of that, of course, is the type of people the right would like to see increase in numbers in the USA would enter legally. And we know how long that waiting list is.
Thomass: I agree. “W” sacrificed conservative fiscal principles in an effort to win favor….like his father. Neither realized any political capital from the left for their efforts. In fact, both lost support from the right who felt betrayed. And the main stream media put the nail in the coffin with their “objective” reporting.
We need a fairly young, charismatic (dare I say attractive) person with strong fiscal conservative views. I realize the “right to life” issue is polarizing…especially for young potential conservatives. Not sure what to do with that…even to reverse Roe v. Wade returns the issue to the states. We need young people with “twitter” skills and online marketing knowledge…and a strong message. Maggie Thatcher is right…the facts are conservative. We just need a decent voice…and in this age, persona, to deliver the message.
Wanting rid of those people is not a fight for purity. Yes, there are some in the conservative ranks that want that, but in those peoples cases it is not so.
Those people vote democratic more than they do republican – there would be little to no difference if they switched parties (as we see with Specter). They were already normally counted on the “D” side when discussing actual votes instead of figuring who had a “majority”. We put up with that, so to speak, because when things were close then a majority was important with respect to speakers, chairmans, and that sort of thing. Now that that isn’t true no real reason to waste money to get a democrat elected, have an “R” after their name, and be one of the big ones that drug the party into the ground.
I also do not see that as saying that they did not represent their constituency the way they were elected to do. The only issue I have is taking money from the Republicans and then being a Democrat.
And note, to use the Reagan quote about what a conservative should be: small government, strong national defense, and mostly for a free country those people are *not* that. You can also get so big a tent that you have no focus.
There are many republicans who are weak conservatives that are not complained about – the difference is that in key areas (spending, defense, and defense of liberties) they are pretty steadfast.
I too would rather have 15 seats of real republicans than 60/40 split but votes go 85/15 almost every time if for no other reason than I am *not* going to donate my money to many of those campaigns. To note there are also a few DINO’s out there that I feel the same thing – grow a pair and put the “R” next your name instead.
One point about “amnesty” and immigration reform. IIRC, there was an “amnesty” passed in 1986. Unfortunately, there were no border closings along with the “amnesty.”
My bottom line on immigration is: SHUT DOWN THE POROUS BORDERS. I repeat:SHUT DOWN THE POROUS BORDERS.
Any immigration ” reform” that does not shut down the porous borders is a sham.
Ojalé¡ que me entiendan.
grackle, I know what a “hot button” issue is. I am asking which parts of the electorate who are otherwise probable supporters of a conservative administration get turned off by the conservative position on these hot button issues.
Well, conservative positions on health care and immigration have turned me off, although I enthusiastically voted Republican the last go around. A strongly proactive foreign policy is my litmus on how to vote in national elections so I suppose I am a safe vote for the Republicans for the foreseeable future. I feel that a sizeable number of voters fall into my category.
Then I am asking whether there is anything one could offer them that they would find acceptable. You have to know that before you can say there was a workable deal, and before you can criticize other people for having failing to find that deal.
If by “they” the writer means the extreme Left I don’t feel there is any compromises that would win them over – ditto the extreme Right. They are all ideologues and nothing will do for them but rigid adherence to their respective positions. Their polemics must be ignored if any progress is to be made.
A few years ago a compromise immigration bill that had the approval of the Whitehouse and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, which was sponsored by McCain and Kyle, was blackjacked by conservatives. I think it would have been a good beginning for dealing with immigration. No doubt there would have been some fine tuning in subsequent years if it had been passed.
It had a chance of passing until the hysteria began from the diehards on the Right. The moderate Left was all for it – so there is an example of at least one “deal” that was “acceptable” to moderates on the Left and Right but was shot down mainly by conservatives.
I think we are making this way too complicated. I believe that the core swing voters are culturally conservative and economically populist. In the midst of last fall’s financial panic, economic populism won out in that group, for the time being. Remember if 3% of the electorate switches, you have a tie.
The writer may be right or he may be wrong – only time will tell. In the meantime immigration and health care remain pressing problems that perhaps could have been solved before the present administration had a chance to put their hands on them. Obama’s plans for health care(among many other things) dismays me. I sure do wish something comprehensive could have been enacted before his election.
“culturally conservative and economically populist”. I rather hope not. Populist economics was behind the ex post facto taxes that were to be levied against AIG bonuses. I too thought the bonuses were ill advised and over the top. But if populist outrage can come after an unpopular bonus what is to prevent it from coming after a well paid software engineer’s salary..
I favor economically conservative and culturally libertarian.
Neo, your piece is 3 words too long.
When I asked my doctor what she made of socialized medicine, she it cannot work in America because we have too many people. I thought that was an interesting thing for her to say. She used several European countries as her examples. I almost brought up the Soviet Union, but their medical system wasn’t very successful, was it?
She also said every doctor she knows will quit. I take that statement with a shaker of salt, but it does remind me that not all of the slots in American medical schools are filled every year. Nurse practitioners and other para-medical personnel can only take up so much of the slack, and we already know we don’t have enough nurses.
David, I’m not saying I like economic populism. I just think that’s the way it is for a lot of the swing voters.
grackle, I specifically excluded the Left from the question. You might be right about the immigration reform idea, but it was political suicide among the populists. For my part, I did not like it at all, and I think it would have been merely the illusion of reform. That McCain was on board gives me no comfort at all.
I still think the twin blows of immigration reform and Wall Street bailouts killed the Republicans the last time around.
Pingback:How to deal with RINOs « Mergforg’s Weblog
“”The extremes on each side, Right and Left, will never be interested in “workable deals.” They must be ignored if any true progress is ever to be made.””
Nothing like a national election to cancel out the fringes, and on Nov 4th we got us one of these “workable deals”. In fact every crumbling feature of the country can be traced back to politicians and their “workable deals”.
No. This clusterf*** is not the result of people with steadfast convictions. It can be laid directly on the door step of amoral politicians who think America’s problems can be remedied by striking a compromise between having ice cream or meat loaf. When in fact “cream loaf” turns out to be the most unreasonable solution of all.
Arlan Specter turned democrat and the Rolling Stones made disco records. Both fine examples of conventional wisdom and a quest to remain popular that make people do stupid things.
grackle, I specifically excluded the Left from the question. You might be right about the immigration reform idea, but it was political suicide among the populists. For my part, I did not like it at all, and I think it would have been merely the illusion of reform. That McCain was on board gives me no comfort at all.
And I specifically included the Right in my answer. Is there some other part of the political spectrum – other than the Right or the Left – that the writer wants me to address?
The immigration reform bill in question was sunk primarily by Sen. Cornyn’s attachment of a ridiculous amendment to it. It then became, in the words of another commentor, “cream loaf,” and no one in their right mind could vote for it. Is Sen. Cornyn, a Republican leader in the Senate, also a vengeful “populist?”
The writer is entitled to his opinion that the bill was “merely the illusion of reform,” but I must note that the writer does not offer to the reader just what parts of the bill that the writer believes were illusionary. It was not perfect; in fact there were a couple of things in it that I did not favor but before Cornyn’s monkey wrench it was far better than doing nothing at all and ending up with a glaring problem unresolved and the opposition party with the votes in Congress now to do pretty much whatever they please on this issue.
I still think the twin blows of immigration reform and Wall Street bailouts killed the Republicans the last time around.
We could debate endlessly on what caused Obama’s victory but the fact is that nothing much was done about immigration and health care when the Republicans were in power and now Obama and the Democrats will for better or worse have that opportunity.
And in the ensuing years since Reagan, more young people have been educated by the school system in a very different type of thinking, a fact which makes the Republican challenge that much tougher.
But not impossible. Especially if the current administration cooperates by showing many young Americans the dangers of liberalism taken too far.
I sincerely hope that our hostess is correct. But the “dangers of liberalism” are in the eyes of the beholder. As of now Obama has the Whitehouse, both houses of Congress, the educational system and the primary shapers of American public opinion, the MSM, in his favor. It’s a bit like starting out with 30 points over an opponent in a basketball game.
Also, I think that Obama is a bit smarter than the Right gives him credit for. Did he just ‘luck into’ the Presidency? I think not. He saw a vacuum and stepped into it and stayed in it by outmaneuvering his opponents on both the Right and the Left.
Almost everything bad that could happen will be blamed on the Republicans and Bush. The exception would be if a major terrorist incident were to occur on his watch. But he has wisely kept our primary defense against terrorism on US soil, the ‘listening’ programs, in place. I happen to believe that these Top Secret programs are much more extensive than the public is allowed to know.
He has even kept the option of waterboarding on the table while simultaneously managing to label Bush as a torturer for using it. The beauty of waterboarding is that it is effective even though the subject knows all about it, knows it is coming and has been trained to resist it. That it leaves the subject unharmed is another bonus.
grackle, this is a good example of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. In fact there are many parts of the political landscape that are neither Right nor Left, and the largest group of voters don’t describe themselves as either.
The point is, the Republicans don’t lose votes among Leftist voters, because they will never be competitive there. They may lose votes among non-Leftists because of your hot button issues, but you haven’t demonstrated that. Nor have you demonstrated that you know of a policy that would keep them on board.
With respect to immigration reform, I suspect that the bill would only provide the illusion of reform because I didn’t see anything in the discussion to make me think the lawmakers were grappling with the underlying economic, demographic, and legal issues in anything other than a temporizing fashion. Perhaps I am wrong. In any event, I don’t think we should turn this thread into a long discussion about immigration policy. We should keep the focus on the partisan political implications.
What is this “party purity” claim? I don’t think the majority of conservatives expect party purity — just clarity. Muddled compromise is why we are the party of the almost dead.
We’ve swung so far left, there is no resemblance of a political philosophy in ether party. The left is off the scales, and the right is following behind somewhere between the middle and the left of 10-15 years ago.
Our GOP reps are unable and unwilling to face challenges put to them — they stand for nothing. They’re lazy and protected and are given to cowering by refusing to acknowledge the power and liberty grab we have witnessed in the last 4 months. It’s truly pathetic they don’t have the guts to call it what it is — fascism.
The idea that conservatives are looking for ‘party purity’ is another label we are all so willing to swallow. I refuse to let the left bully me by their refusal to debate factually and by redefining words and name calling. Most of us are just trying to get back to something recognizable as a country built on the liberties that must be steadfast if it is to survive as a free nation.
Mealy-mouthed ideals isn’t going to work. If conservatives don’t define their principles with conviction and again, clarity, we might as well join the ranks of the stupid, which unfortunately is has become the majority.
So tell me what are the things do we compromise on? Gay marriage, abortion, nationalized healthcare, open borders — and then we can push other issues such as limited government and free-market principles? The GOP has already given the left one of the most important things, and that is education. Leftism has been the sacrament of the last 30 years in our schools, with all the wonderful little lefty philosophies. Look what it has reaped — gay marriage, abortion, nationalized healthcare, open borders and stupidity.
No, the left is ever moving on. There won’t be a discussion at any level on any subject they choose to make their own. It won’t matter at what conservatives give into. Compromise of one principle always leads to the next compromise.
In this fast-changing world, the a stayed philosophy of conservatism is most likely not going to revive. And the one place we might have a chance to educate is through leadership. Nothing but grassroots activism will have an impact in leadership with changing the game of Washington. That’s not ‘party purity’ thats survival.
Is there some other part of the political spectrum – other than the Right or the Left – that the writer wants me to address?
grackle, this is a good example of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. In fact there are many parts of the political landscape that are neither Right nor Left, and the largest group of voters don’t describe themselves as either.
I thought I made it clear that consider myself as one of those in the “Middle” that the writer refers to. I am an Independent who voted for John McCain in part because I liked the alternative much less. But I don’t offer my views as anything but my own. I certainly don’t want to describe myself as speaking for any group of voters.
The point is, the Republicans don’t lose votes among Leftist voters, because they will never be competitive there.
If by “Leftist voters” the writer is referring to the extremists on the Left, I agree that Republicans can never hope to win over Leftist ideologues. As I said before, they will never be satisfied with anything but a rigid adherence to their agenda. Ditto the ideologues on the Right in regards to voting for any policy a Democrat could conceivably put forth. These folks are locked into their viewpoint and will never be budged from it.
They may lose votes among non-Leftists because of your hot button issues, but you haven’t demonstrated that. Nor have you demonstrated that you know of a policy that would keep them on board.
Well one thing that would have pleased me as a “non-Leftist” is if the Republicans would have done something substantial about immigration and health care when they had the chance. But as I’ve mentioned before I’m an easy vote for the Republicans because of what I believe are the potentially disastrous foreign policy tendencies of the Democrats. Others that consider themselves in the “Middle” may feel otherwise and vote Democratic simply because the Republicans have seemed unwilling or unable to do anything substantial about some pressing national issues such as immigration and health care.
Furthermore, I do not seek to ‘demonstrate’ anything to the satisfaction of the writer. I merely offer my opinion as others in the comments do on this thread. I freely admit that I could be wrong about most anything and endeavor to keep an open mind if presented with enticing arguments to the contrary but that is the way I see things at this point in time.
With respect to immigration reform, I suspect that the bill would only provide the illusion of reform because I didn’t see anything in the discussion to make me think the lawmakers were grappling with the underlying economic, demographic, and legal issues in anything other than a temporizing fashion. Perhaps I am wrong. In any event, I don’t think we should turn this thread into a long discussion about immigration policy. We should keep the focus on the partisan political implications.
Yes, but exactly what “underlying economic, demographic, and legal issues” is the writer referring to that the bill failed to grapple with? While admittedly not a perfect solution to the immigration problem I think the bill in question was fairly comprehensive and most certainly better than what we ended up with – which was nothing.
As far as keeping the “focus on the partisan political implications,” I believe I am doing that. Does the writer believe that immigration and the other issues mentioned heretofore possess no “partisan” or “political implications?”
And on the content of my comments: I’m afraid I must leave THAT to our hostess instead of the writer. If she wants me to shut up I will. It’s her blog, after all, and I have no wish to be considered a troll.
mimi sk:
“What is this “party purity” claim? I don’t think the majority of conservatives expect party purity – just clarity. Muddled compromise is why we are the party of the almost dead.”
Well put.
Neo: Is this the “extremism” you were talking about? I think RINO’s split because they dont wish to feel unpopular and unloved. There certainly seems to be no concern for extremisism in the go-along-to-get-along moderates and “independents” “leaving the fold” of conservative republicans and voting for liberal policies just to give the impression that they’re open-minded and not the mean bullies the left continue to make them out to be anyway.
If I’m an extremist, I’m proud to be so.
Gay marriage, abortion, nationalized healthcare, open borders – and then we can push other issues such as limited government and free-market principles?
Gay marriage: Straight only marriage is losing ground daily. I’m for gay marriage myself. I’ve listened to arguments against it but so far I’ve not heard any that make any sense to me. It usually comes down to the assertion that anti-gay marriage folks just feel in their guts that it’s bad. I need more than a feeling before I go along with legal sanctions against it. Like facts and figures, for instance. Anecdotal material doesn’t sway me very much.
Abortion: A battle lost over 35 years ago. I’m against abortion but I don’t believe early term abortions will ever be stopped through legal means. Partial-birth abortions are against Federal law and the SCOTUS has ruled that law as constitutional so at least we have that. If folks want to help the unborn they need to provide women with unwanted pregnancies the option to have the babies for adoption without negative social sanctions. There are organizations that do this. Contribute to them. Anything else is wasted energy.
Nationalized healthcare: Healthcare is a growing problem and has been for some years. The conservatives had their chances but have spent most of their time denying there was a problem and killing potential solutions for reasons of “purity.” Too bad. Now the ball’s in the other court. I suspect a Big Government solution will be foisted upon us before Obama leaves office. Live and learn, eh?
Open borders: The borders are somewhat porous but far from “open.” Hyperbole seldom wins converts. Still, the borders are more open than I’m comfortable with. McCain’s bill would have provided for better policing of the borders but it was killed by conservatives. A shame, but there you are.
Limited government and free market principles: I’m heartily for both. And I would throw in a third – a strong national defense. But after Reagan we don’t seem to have anyone who can make them resonate with enough of the voters. Perhaps if we learned to compromise on the above and concentrated on just these three we would maybe have a chance.
Pingback:House of Eratosthenes
Dear Neo,
Where are the Democrat (DINO’s ) ? Why do they usually vote in lock-step ? Where are the constructive democrat critiques against their own ?
I think the Republicans try to keep people like Jeffers, Lincoln Chaffey, Snowe, Collins, Specter. Stevens and don’t let them go soon enough.
I want to see the Democrats tolerating DINO’s. I want to see the Democrats diversity of opinions.
I need examples, not generalities. As an observer of human nature are you fooled by Specter’s actions ?
sweetoea and others:
I’ve written that I don’t see much of a loss in Specter going over to the other side. But he and Snowe did vote against the Obama budget, for example. That’s what I mean—if they are inevitably going to be replaced by senators who will vote an even straighter and more rigid Democrat line, is it an advantage to the Republicans to remove them from by challenging them in the primaries? I’m not at all sure that’s the case.
Neo, it seems to me that the party only has a few strategies available to it. Certainly, it can discourage conservative insurgencies in favor of candidates who are no hopers in the general election. It has done that. I’m not sure that it should go so far as to cultivate squishes who will be unprincipled and unreliable in office. On the other hand, how would I feel about having ten more Chafees and Specters in the R colmun right now?
Neo, you are actually pointing to dysfunction within the sate GOP. Perhaps what we are saying is that the state level GOP in the Northeast, including New England, has not figured out a way to be coherent and consistently competitive. This is at bottom a failure of intellect and leadership. Specters and Chafees are the result.
That should “state GOP” above not the GOP in a Thai peanut sauce.
I don’t see Obama being anywhere near defeated in the next Presidential election unless Republicans stop sniping at each other. The carping seemed to really get going back when George Will and certain other elitists turned against Bush because of Bush’s nomination for the SCOTUS. She didn’t graduate from the correct school, you see. From that point it spread like some sort of disease.
The Republican moderates never seem to bitch about it when more conservative Republican candidates come to the fore. They suck it up, march to the polls on election day and back their Party’s choice like good soldiers.
Yet when the opposite happens the arch-conservatives whine like a bunch of damn babies. Especially Malkin, Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham. They make me sick with all their hysterical demands for perfection and flame-outs. Listening to those egotistical idiots is only a recipe for defeat.
Unite, Republicans! Be more tolerant of those in your own Party who are trying to help you win the prize. Going for all or nothing usually results in getting nothing. If that’s what you want just keep insisting on your “principles” to the exclusion of victory. Bush, Snowe, Specter and the others have probably been as conservative as they can be and still be elected. Try to use the imagination you were all born with and REALIZE that!
The stakes are higher now than they’ve ever been before. The terrorists are clever, ruthless and patient. There’s not much time left. They will soon have the ability to do what they yearn to do – which is to destroy Israel and the US and subjugate what will be left of the West. Yet here you are, moaning, groaning and bitching because of some supposed differences that don’t really amount to much in the larger picture. You cherish and nurture your petty recriminations and resentments like a miser hoards money.
John McCain, a moderates moderate, came within a 3 point swing of defeating the extreme left of leftist idealogue Obama. Yet its republicans that somehow have the moderation problem?
People can’t think or discern reality anymore.
the point of any political party is to change the state of the country. there fore it must have ideas. since no one has posssession of the singular truth, some diversity of ideas is necessary and beneficial. but these ideas must be cogent and appealing to the voting public for the party to win election. once elected the party members must be reasonably reliable to advance these ideas.
thus it is not about purity, it is about having a cogent political idea, selling those ideas to the voters, and enacting those ideas once elected.
if you consistently do not hold to the party’s ideas, and don’t consistently vote to advance these ideas, why should the party support you? and more importantly, why should voters?
John McCain, a moderates moderate, came within a 3 point swing of defeating the extreme left of leftist idealogue Obama. Yet its republicans that somehow have the moderation problem?
People can’t think or discern reality anymore.
Yes, so close but the Republicans lost. Now … THINK for a minute. If Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, Ingraham, Will and the other ideological idiots had NOT bashed McCain every chance they got YOU. MAY. HAVE. WON. THE. ELECTION. People actually HEED what these fools say. Try, all I ask is that you TRY to use your imagination and consider that thought. I’m trying to wake you up. I’m trying to drag YOU into reality.
the point of any political party is to change the state of the country. there fore it must have ideas. since no one has posssession of the singular truth, some diversity of ideas is necessary and beneficial. but these ideas must be cogent and appealing to the voting public for the party to win election. once elected the party members must be reasonably reliable to advance these ideas.
thus it is not about purity, it is about having a cogent political idea, selling those ideas to the voters, and enacting those ideas once elected.
if you consistently do not hold to the party’s ideas, and don’t consistently vote to advance these ideas, why should the party support you? and more importantly, why should voters?
The power of the human being to rationalize is a constant source of amazement. You can’t “change” anything unless you manage to win an election or two. You just got your butt handed to you by a man whom you have consistently underestimated from the beginning. He’s busy consolidating his power now but all you can think to do is fret over whether someone thinks exactly the same as you on abortion(a long lost cause), immigration, religion, etc.
Some of your leaders – Jeb Bush, etc. – seem to realize the problem and meet to discuss strategy but they can’t say much publicly because they would be consigned to political hell by the Limbaughs and Coulters. Oh, they got to be soooo careful or they’ll end up being humiliated and having to apologize to El Rushbo. You’ve handed your Party and your minds over to a bunch of self-aggrandizing knaves. If you don’t open your eyes you deserve your fate which will be to be forever wiping the blood off your face while sitting around muttering to an increasingly shrinking self-congratulatory group about “cogent” political ideas and how it’s not really about “purity.”
Funny thing grackle. Any democrat would wholeheartedly agree with your prescription of what republicans HAVE TO DO. I wonder why that is.
Funny thing grackle. Any democrat would wholeheartedly agree with your prescription of what republicans HAVE TO DO. I wonder why that is.
Yes, Democrats and a few savvy Republicans agree that the Republican Party is now largely a self-defeating, shrinking group increasingly concerned with increasingly unpopular obscure ideas that do not resonate much with the general voting public. And the Lefty’s are indulging in a very human activity – which is to gloat over the Republicans’ defeat and apparent inability to gear up for victory.
Here we have 2 rival gangs. We’ll call them the Reds and the Blues. The Blues have just given the Reds a drubbing. In the Reds’ clubhouse, instead of trying to recruit more members or keep the ones they have, self-important, officious Reds are going around making sure all the brass knuckles possess the proper amounts of alloy, all the clubs are the proper length, all the knives are lock-backs(no switchblades allowed), all the guns are flintlocks(no revolvers or semi-automatics) and that everyone is chanting the proper, unadulterated gang slogans, not a word of which is allowed to change.
All of which is sternly determined by El Rushbo, the most powerful gang leader and his three henchwomen, Coulter, Ingraham and Malkin. Any deviation is instantly punished by public humiliation in the form of an abject apology to El Rushbo and a lowering of the deviant’s rank in the gang – perhaps even permanent banishment to the other gang’s turf.
Meanwhile, the Blues are watching all this and they are catcalling, giving the raspberries and holding their sides they are laughing so hard. But that doesn’t matter to most of the Reds. They LOVE El Rushbo, you see(and fear him, too). And they love their little 4 inch clubs, their trusty old flintlocks, their pure brass brass knuckles. their reliable lock-backs and their long-cherished gang slogans. Besides isn’t it more noble, more splendid, to stay with the properly vetted weapons and the old slogans even though the Blues have the advantage with their shiny modern weapons and catchy slogans?
Lol grackle. I won’t add anything else. I think my 3 sentences effectively destroyed all 300 of yours as having even a snowballs chance in hell of good intentions toward republicans or conservatism.
You walk like a duck and quack like a duck. I’m calling you a duck.
@Grackle
certainly you cannot enact political changes without popular voter support. the question is how you go about doing so. you have to have a cogent product that has value. in politics that product has to be an idea of how things can be better.
but if your idea isn’t much different than the other party, why push it at all?
Lol grackle. I won’t add anything else. I think my 3 sentences effectively destroyed all 300 of yours as having even a snowballs chance in hell of good intentions toward republicans or conservatism.
You walk like a duck and quack like a duck. I’m calling you a duck.
I have voted for the Republican Presidential candidate in the last 5 elections and will no doubt continue to do so. I am a strong supporter of the triad of limited government, a free market economy and a strong national defense. These are political issues. Loyalty to these political principles should be enough to be welcomed into your Party and not be accused of bad “intentions.”
But it isn’t. No indeed, to be accepted I have to very strictly toe the line on abortion, immigration, religion, family values and a host of other mainly social issues or I’m labeled a “duck,” whatever THAT might mean. Grackles are never ducks, dude.
That it is about the same with the Democrats is no real consolation. Remember, you are supposed to be better than them.
BTW, “300” sentences?!! Can’t you folks ever make a salient @#*!-ing point without exaggeration?
@Grackle
certainly you cannot enact political changes without popular voter support. the question is how you go about doing so. you have to have a cogent product that has value. in politics that product has to be an idea of how things can be better.
but if your idea isn’t much different than the other party, why push it at all?
You’re talking social issues rather than legitimate political issues. You have an attractive, legitimate, winning formula, tried and true, with the trio of limited government, free market systems and a strong national defense. But noooo, instead you focus on social issues – abortion – immigration – family values – etc.
Don’t you realize that fewer and fewer voters are going to be fitting into this strict social issues template? Don’t you realize you are alienating the fastest growing bloc of voters – the Latinos – traditionally a reliably CONSERVATIVE vote – with all this nonsense and hysteria about immigration?
About the only ones you have left are the Cuban-Americans but even they are beginning to go over to the Democrats. I can assure you that they will be welcome over there.
so you are then saying that the conservatives should focus on the winning trio of issues of limited government, free market, and strong national defense.
what should the party do with those that don’t necessary endorse these ideas but instead focus on social issues and immigrations? should the tent be big enough to include them as well?
so you are then saying that the conservatives should focus on the winning trio of issues of limited government, free market, and strong national defense.
That folks invariably use the two terms interchangeably, “conservative” and “Republican,” is an indicator of how confused the situation has become.
Conservatives can do as they want. It’s a(relatively) free country. It’s the Republican Party that should focus on what I believe are ‘legitimate’ political issues. That Steele had to apologize to Limbaugh in order to keep his job at the RNC and save his political career should give pause to thoughtful Republicans. I think that Steele is screwed anyway, apology or no.
It looked pretty good for awhile: The Republicans had a race card to play against the Democrat’s race card, but not for long is my guess. The tail is wagging the dog, folks.
what should the party do with those that don’t necessary endorse these ideas but instead focus on social issues and immigrations? should the tent be big enough to include them as well?
If someone doesn’t believe in small government, free markets and national defense what in the hell are they doing in the Republican Party in the first place? The answer is: They are using the Republican Party to advance their own personal moral agendas.
Hypothetically, the personal social agenda folks should be told to like it or lump it. They would still have to vote Republican – just like me. I doubt they would vote for Democrat candidates – only arch-conservatives like Limbaugh, Coulter, etc, are so crazily self-destructive to do that.
But of course for now such a thing can only be hypothetical because Limbaugh and his fans are firmly in command. Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, Malkin, etc. have the ideal situation. They call the shots but since they’re not in any official position they don’t get any fallout when things go wrong. In fact they even lead the inquisition in the aftermath. Meanwhile, they keep raking in the millions from the gullible and are showered with accolades at major Republican get-togethers. Irony has seldom been this large. If there’s ever a museum of hypocrites …
BTW, the Democrats have the same problem but have managed to get the upper hand for now.
@Gackle
should the republican tent be big enough for them still?
you know what i am driving at, at some point, you have to declare that there is no room in the tent for everyone. for you it might be deviation from these trio ideas, for others it might be deviation from some other ideas. like social conservatives.
the republican party has to have some core beliefs/ideas. It must also be tolerant of those who differ on how to advance these ideas. or have a few additional ideas we don’t all support. But the party should not continue to endorse or support anyone in the party who do not advance/support the core ideas of the party, whether they are already elected (like Specter) or talk a good game but has made little effort to support these ideas (Powell).
Me, earlier: If someone doesn’t believe in small government, free markets and national defense what in the hell are they doing in the Republican Party in the first place? The answer is: They are using the Republican Party to advance their own personal moral agendas.
should the republican tent be big enough for them still?
you know what i am driving at, at some point, you have to declare that there is no room in the tent for everyone.
The thrust of my comment has been that the Republican Party needs to be more inclusive, not the other way around. If I were granted omniscience I would have it that anyone who believed in limited government, a free market economy and a strong national defense would be welcomed into the fold. I think that’s a very big tent.
for you it might be deviation from these trio ideas, for others it might be deviation from some other ideas. like social conservatives.
My belief is that the social conservatives with their insistence on unrealistic moral and social benchmarks for membership and candidacy in lieu of what used to be emphasized(limited government, free market economy and a strong national defense) are leading the Republican Party down a losing road. If prospective members have strong personal beliefs involving religion and morality, fine, let them be members in good standing as long as they don’t try to use the Party to promote their personal religious and moral beliefs to the detriment of limited government, free market economy and a strong national defense.
the republican party has to have some core beliefs/ideas. It must also be tolerant of those who differ on how to advance these ideas. or have a few additional ideas we don’t all support. But the party should not continue to endorse or support anyone in the party who do not advance/support the core ideas of the party, whether they are already elected (like Specter) or talk a good game but has made little effort to support these ideas (Powell).
Ah, here we have the crux of a misunderstanding. I say misunderstanding because I totally agree that a political party has to have “some core beliefs/ideas;” I have never said otherwise, but I believe that the “core beliefs/ideas” of the Republican Party have been allowed to drift away from the time-honored, appropriate and attractive principles of limited government, free market economy and a strong national defense in favor of ideas with religious and moral overtones. Practice and promote religion in a house of worship, not in a political party. Teach a favored version of morality in the home, not in a political party.
And now for Specter and Powell:
First, Specter: I believe that the Party leadership made a bad mistake by deciding to dump Specter by encouraging primary challengers against him. They had a Republican Senator who could get elected in an overwhelmingly Democratic state and they had his vote most of the time. Now they’ll NOT have his vote most of the time. I can’t see how anyone would think that this is a good thing for the Republican Party.
Now, Powell: Until Powell retired I don’t believe anyone knew his political proclivity. Perhaps my memory is deceiving me but I seem to recall a great deal of fervid speculation on that score. Was he a Repub or a Demo was the question much on the minds of the pundits – if memory serves. Wasn’t he extremely popular at the time of his retirement and didn’t everyone seem to want him on their team? I think I remember some writers offering the opinion that he could easily have had the Republican nomination for President he was so popular.
But he made the same decision I would have made. Politics is a nasty game and he wanted to enjoy retirement instead of tip-toeing through the minefield of civilian politics. Of course, to get to where he got in the Army requires a high level of political acumen, but I believe Powell is like many career military folks I have known – essentially they are apolitical when it comes to civilian politics.
However, he had to pick a party or be hectored forever by the political paparazzi. My guess is that he probably flipped a mental coin. As to his degree of “effort” to support the “ideas” of the Republican Party – maybe he saw after awhile that a strong national defense was no longer as primary in the Party as it once was. National defense would be important to a military man. Maybe he was disappointed in what had come to be the “core values” of the Party. Perhaps the hypocritical and self-destructive shenanigans of Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham and Malkin left a sour taste in his mouth. I wish him well and am grateful for the service he gave his country.