IF REAGAN TOLERATED MODERATES, WHY CAN’T TODAY’S CONSERVATIVES?
My latest article is up at Pajamas Media and it’s already attracted the usual cast of thick headed numbskulls who think that “moderate” is a dirty word.
A sample:
RNC Chairman Michael Steele is trying. But his comments at a recent party conclave in Wisconsin point up the difficulty in translating that idea into any kind of practical program:
“All you moderates out there, y’all come. I mean, that’s the message,” Steele said at a news conference. “The message of this party is this is a big table for everyone to have a seat. I have a place setting with your name on the front.
“Understand that when you come into someone’s house, you’re not looking to change it. You come in because that’s the place you want to be.”
Eh … OK. Everyone can come in and sit down for the feast but if you are pro-choice, or pro-gay marriage, or pro-amnesty, kindly realize that no one is going to listen to you so you might as well keep your mouth shut. Meanwhile, your cousins and other relations can publicly chastise you for your different opinions, actively seek to undermine your re-election by running a primary challenger against you, deny you party support, and will stay at home on election day so a Democrat will probably defeat you anyway.
One jamoke in the comments:
Sorry, Rick. That’s nonsense.
Try being a Democrat today with some positions, shall we say, somewhat center-or-right of Kos.
You are political dog meat.
The hogwash you put forth is the Meggy McCain “why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along” mush which brought us liberalish McCain in 2008…as an “alternative” to (Chicago’s version of) Madison Avenue’s polished soap ad du jour.
Reagan HAD principles and stood by them, bending at times to compromise under the reality of DC politics.
What you propose HAS NONE.
Why should Republicans care if the Democrats are as narrow minded as they are? What possible benefit would accrue to the party by aping the worst instincts of their opponents?
And referring to John McCain as anything except a moderate conservative is nonsense. If he is “liberalish” the commenter is to the right of Attila the Hun.
And how about the myth that moderates have no principles? Nonsense. As I make clear in the article.
But this is the kind of ignorance the Republican party and conservative movement is up against in its efforts to reform. I don’t hold out much hope that anything constructive can happen until the Ed’s of the party and movement are either co-opted or simply shunted to the sidelines where they can rant to their heart’s content and do no harm in the meantime.
Thanks for the article and the clear thinking, Rick. It’s nice to see some torch bearers out there for the fiscally conservative, socially not caring folks like me out there.
Comment by Joemoke — 5/4/2009 @ 1:11 pm
Gotta give ya credit, Rick, for staying in the ring and trying to fight the good fight. I saw over there that you’re “PJM’s own Arlen Specter” now.
The phrase that keeps circling in my head lately, btw, is “Political Bulimia”. I’ll probably have to put some words together soon to support that rather ugly title.
Comment by Polimom — 5/4/2009 @ 1:19 pm
I don’t think most Republicans have a problem with “moderates” per se. The problem has to do with mentality and attitude.
People like Specter and McCain, whatever their ideology, spend way too much time criticizing their “own”. They never seemed to show any anger towards those who were supposed to be their political opponents. Rudy Giuliani is at least a moderate, and he seems to be safely ensconsed in the GOP, mostly because he shows disdain for the other side, he doesn’t belittle his own supporters.
As for Specter, his defection has nothing to do with ideology. He was perfectly fine cavorting with those despicable conservatives as long as they were voting for him, now they are tired of his act, so he takes off and badmouths them in the process…IT IS HE WHO IS THE DISGUSTING ONE.
Comment by Blockhead — 5/4/2009 @ 2:10 pm
The Reagan era was a little bit before my time, but regarding the title: couldn’t it be said that Reagan got the moderates to go along with more conservative policy, and that this was the success? As opposed to the reverse, which is to drag the conservatives leftward “toward the center” (a la W., which was not a success)? Isn’t the current issue with the GOP then being looked at backwards?
Comment by hpb — 5/4/2009 @ 2:16 pm
hpb,
W. was a perfect example of a Republican president. Why? He created more government and entitlements while cutting taxes for certain income brackets.
W. did it.
Reagan did it.
Bush Senior was attacked from his own party for wanting to balance the budget with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. His goal was to reduce the Reagan defecits by some 500 billion over 5 years.
Nixon was a Socialist by today’s standards. Tax increases, creating government departments, and price controls. He even talked about ending the war!
Comment by bsjones — 5/4/2009 @ 2:48 pm
Most of what we are hearing about the Republicans not being a big tent party is coming from the MSM. The GOP is probably more open than the Demos.
Comment by Ron Russell — 5/4/2009 @ 2:49 pm
Ron Russell said:
As an independent voter, I can wholeheartedly assure you that this is not the case. Not even remotely close.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 5/4/2009 @ 3:02 pm
The conservatives in the Republican Party will need to reconcile their desire for purity with their desire for votes (and presumably a majority of the votes). John McCain is a conservative but clearly not as conservative as some of his Senate colleagues but clearly different than Specter, not to mention Collins and Snowe.
Please review this page: http://www.acuratings.org/ratingsarchive/2007/2007senate.htm
McCain lifetime rating ACU: 82
Specter: 45
I’m sure many would like him above 90 (just as I’m sure many liberal Democrats would like all Dem Senators to be at the <10 rating that our president was as a Senator). Clearly the parties are polarized (based on this and similar ratings). Unfortunately the public is not nearly as polarized. If you’ve followed the recent Pew surveys on party affiliation you’ll see that the Republican Party has steadily lost membership to …INDEPENDENT!
Comment by c3 — 5/4/2009 @ 3:26 pm
I think the current ‘downfall’ of the GOP has been misplaced on the GOP losing moderates: the GOP is losing conservatives. The GOP governed as Democrats light and the base - socially or fiscally conservative - are unhappy with them.
Chuck Tuscon,
Question for you: you say that it’s not even remotely the case that Democrats are more closed to moderate ideas than Republicans - why? As near as I can see the Democrats are at least as dogmatic as the Republicans - if not more so. Democrats don’t take kindly to pro-life folks, ‘traditional marriage’ proponents, etc. You say you are ‘independent’ but what views do you share with conservatives (note, I’m referring to conservatives and not Republicans)? Are you basing you’re judgement about which party is more open-minded on your on-line/comment experiences?
I’m not convinced that there is a ‘moderate’ thinking/voting bloc. The term moderate us usually pulled out of the closet whenever there is a need to portray the Republican party as too right-wing or not tolerant enough but it seems to usually be a farce. A lot, if not most, conservative ideas are popular enough to create a solid and winning base but Republicans tend to abandon them when they get into power.
Comment by Bald Ninja — 5/4/2009 @ 3:53 pm
See also http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mccains_acu_ratings.html
And the 65 was his most recent before running for president. It would seem that McCain was a microcosm of the Republican party in general: moving away from conservatism since 2000 and noticeably enough so that they are consistently losing since 2004.
The GOP should redouble the efforts?
Comment by hpb — 5/4/2009 @ 4:07 pm
Reagan respected his fellow party members but also the political opponent. What I see among a lot of so called conservatives is rage and hatred towards people like Olympia Snowe. That is the problem. However, the problem will be straightened out after a few (lost) elections.
Comment by funny man — 5/4/2009 @ 4:21 pm
Interestingly, this thread missed the point. Whatever the Republicans do, it won’t have an effect. Conservatives are now awake and realize they are all Republicrats, beholden to the same special interests on both sides of the aisle. The “awake” will no longer settle for a party affiliation, values and principles which support individual rights and the Constitution is what matters. Unless individual candidates SHOW US they can do that, they will be defeated.
Check out the “Big Lie” at http://www.icaucus.org
Comment by norweaver — 5/4/2009 @ 5:18 pm
funny man:
If you can’t see the contempt Arlen Specter & Olympia Snowe have for the base, you’re not paying attention.
Mr. Moran:
With all due respect,
* If 1980s Reagan was on the present scene, you’d be casting him as an intolerant conservative - - - he was pro-life, he would have opposed judicially imposed ‘gay marriage’ & his support for immigration reform in the 1980s was at least premised on enforcing the law as part of the deal.
* Saying Jack Kemp ‘broke with Conservatives because he opposed red-lining’ - - - geez, what a show of good faith in bringing people together. Let me paraphrase & we’ll see if you really want to say this: “Kemp wasn’t a racist like conservatives of his time.”
* Kemp supporting amnesty in the 1980s is irrelevant to the present day. First, “1980s Kemp” was operating in a world pre-Simpson/Mazzoli … “2000s Kemp” would have the benefit of knowing what a disaster that approach turned out to be; second, “1980s Kemp” wouldn’t seek Republican support for amnesty as part of an immigration reform by implying Republicans who opposed the effort were racists … we can’t say the same of so-called ‘moderate’ Republicans in the 2000s (or was Lindsay Graham, et al. kidding?)
* Finally, Jack Kemp had the one quality that you, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Meghan McCain, et al. lack - - - Kemp accepted the good faith of those who disagreed with him. He was willing to engage in a battle of ideas - he recognized that insult is not argument.
You want to advance the argument?
Show us what hill your moderates are prepared to die on … if they’re principled and not just opportunists, they exist.
On what issues can conservatives count on them?
Comment by BD57 — 5/4/2009 @ 5:30 pm
“One jamoke in the comments:”
I think you just offended a hyper-sensitive group of people with such a statement.
A moderate republican would never do such a thing.
Some anger management, maybe?
Comment by CZ — 5/4/2009 @ 5:50 pm
The gop is probably more open than the Demos?I split a gut on that one. My party has always been open, its the gop that has a litmus test and a guy named Rush who is the Enforcer. Democrats disagree with each other all the time, its the gop that is rigid in its ideology. We are big tent, the gop is the rapidly shrinking tent. I swear the neocon wing of the gop lives in an alternate universe. I read your article Rick, you were spot on. Keep standing for what you believe in,even if your on the opposite side of the political spectrum as me.
Comment by Joe — 5/4/2009 @ 5:58 pm
BD57,
I wasn’t talking about Arlen Specter so don’t put Olympia Snowe into the same category. BTW, David Brooks is not Megan McCain either.
I would call myself a conservative but was against the Iraq war and there was not much love lost at the ‘base’ for people like me. However, it is IMHO perfectly conservative position. The question is how do you deal with dissent. By calling me unpatriotic?
The only problem I have with the ‘base’ is not necessarily on principles but on attitude. A lot of them show contempt at anything Californian, East Coast, Big City-like. That is in spite more Americans living in those places (and by default more Republicans) and more American working in those places. Come on, that where the wealth of this country is largely generated. But noooo, it’s the places where only elitist, decadent, Europe-loving ‘moderates’ live. In contrast to conservative, honest, hardworking real Americans that live in Texas, rural Midwest and South etc etc
Of course that is all BS but it is populist red meat that sells pretty good with certain segments of the ‘base’. I’m mean you can turn the elitist stuff around too; since when did conservatives ever had a problem with smart intellectuals? At least not in my book.
Comment by funny man — 5/4/2009 @ 5:59 pm
Bald Ninja wrote:
Keep in mind here that I’m not talking about the extreme fringe elements of either party, online or otherwise. I ignore them because when it comes to the electorate, they mean almost nothing, which is as it should be.
I highly value personal liberty, self reliance, and individual responsibility. I believe in the pursuit of happiness. I believe that strong fiscal responsibility is the foundation of good government. The conservatives vastly and overwhelmingly failed in this area.
I believe that free market capitalism is the best possible system that can produce the best possible good for the most people. But that’s under one condition.. that it be INTELLIGENTLY REGULATED by people as far outside of it’s influence as possible. We have a corruption prone version of this, I think.
I am a scientist, and as such, I understand that morality is totally subjective and furthermore is ROOTED IN GENETICS, not a higher power. Science is cold and hard and unforgiving, but at least it’s honest. I believe in the absolute separation of church and state. I place great value on personal privacy and defend the violation of anyone’s civil liberties.
I do not condone torture in any way/shape/form. There is no ticking time bomb.
I don’t advocate for national health care, but the current system is horrible, and has failed my friends and family more times than I can count. Health decisions should not be made by unrelated third parties who work for THE LOWEST BIDDER. There must be a better way.
Anyone should be able to marry anyone they want. Period.
Abortion is a horrible horrible thing, though it should never be made illegal.
Teaching abstinence is an utter failure. A joke. The national drug policy is a national disgrace that’s turned our country into hypocritical joke, and a prison state to boot.
So yeah. That’s a subset of my views. I feel more comfortable with the old school type of conservatism, but since I’m not on board with the social end of the party, I choose to not participate as I do not feel welcome at all. Taking so much shit for what I believe gets tiresome after a while.
I’ve found that democrats have far fewer deal breaker positions in their platform, than do the Republicans. Again, I’m talking about real people here who don’t live on the fringe.
The problem here is that Republicans create this incredible social glass house to live in. They stand atop it’s balcony and throw stones in all directions. They have an attitude of superior morality and righteousness that is almost designed to fail.
So, when stones they’ve thrown come crashing back into their glass walls they are humiliated and embarrassed in the most hypocritical ways imaginable. The Dems have no such moral glass house. They seem to strive for the same things as Republicans, but realize their human limitations and don’t bother with the facade.
However, that also leads to the Dems having an air of intellectual elitism that I find equally unsettling and annoying. Though, for some reason, it doesn’t seem to backfire on them as much.
So anyway, I’m an independent.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 5/4/2009 @ 6:58 pm
We let the GOP moderates & liberals run their Presidential candidate last year. How did that work out again?
Wouldn’t it be simpler if you just folowed Spectre’s lead and bring a smile to Meghan “MSM-Celeb” McCain’s chubby face?
Comment by Karen Schell — 5/4/2009 @ 7:41 pm
I’m no longer sure if I understand the differences.
Is a “moderate” someone who doesn’t buy the ultra-conservative line totally, or do Republican moderates have a basic political philosoophy that is different from conservatives? What is it mainly that conservatives want to conserve?
Is the real problem that certain sophisticated Republicans from the northeast are embarrassed by the southern, bible-belt conservatives?
When a “conservative” gets in office, they usually go along with the statist agenda for the most part — at least on the large statist goals that keep government powerful and interventionist. Sometimes this all seems to be a distinction without a difference.
Comment by Mike Farmer — 5/4/2009 @ 8:25 pm
1980, 1984, and 1994. All elections featuring solid conservative leaders who knew why they were conservative, knew the philosophy and history behind conservatism, and because they did, were able to communicate these things to the the American people.
Comment by TB — 5/4/2009 @ 8:38 pm
Pro-choice vs pro-life is basically a religious or faith-based issue. As such, there is no reason to use it as a litmus test, unless we are to begin excluding many faiths from the tent for their differing views on a passel of issues. Shelve it as a litmus test!
Pro-gay marriage vs anti-gay marriage is fundamentally a marriage tradition issue coupled with a religious issue against gays per se. In most cases, I believe we are not talking about over-the-top gay activists, but rather, substantial citizens that make a real contribution to society, and can make a significant contribution to the party as well. Shelve it, too, as a litmus test.
Amnesty is basically a humanitarian problem, tagged with the fact that illegals broke the law in the first place. In my opinion, the final solution to this problem has not yet been fully articulated.
I fail to see how making it a litmus test is appropriate when the send-them-all-home approach is so very brutal and insensitive to the majority of Hispanics, and when we ourselves certainly helped to create the problem by not enforcing the law in the first place.
We need that better solution, not a litmus test, and we need more people in the party that truly understand the issues involved.
Shelve it as a litmus test!
Note that I said to ’shelve it as a litmus test’, not ever to forget, though, the complexity, the animosity, and the controversy that underlies each of these social issues or the crying need we have to find just resolutions for them in our society.
Comment by mannning — 5/4/2009 @ 9:12 pm
Moderates are fine, there is a balancing need for center-right. However, comparing present day Arlen Specter to the moderates of the eighties is like comparing Tip O’Neil to Nancy Pelosi. That dog just doesn’t hunt. Besides, moderates aren’t the problem, RINO’s like Specter are.
He [Specter] has all but admitted that his switch was purely for political survival and is only now coming out saying that he identifies with the Dems.
People may need to rethink the definition of moderate versus RINO.
Comment by Mike — 5/4/2009 @ 9:16 pm
It seems that too many times when I hop over here, all that I find is Mr. Moran bashing conservatives. Ok Rick, I get it, you are not a conservative. That is fine with me. Maybe you might be the close-minded one. This is America still. Go vote for Arlen Specter. That is your choice. After all he is a Democrat now. Hey, guess what? Maybe he was a Democrat all along. Maybe that is why conservatives never liked him. Let’s see, 45% is less than half in my book. Doesn’t that make him a conservative Democrat? How about we say that 55% is as far as we are willing to go? Would that make us a milquetoast enough big tent?
Myself, I say 70%.
McCain’s a Republican. I have no problem there. He was simply a terrible candidate. The wrong guy at the wrong time during the entire campaign. Immigration, energy, financials were all areas where he departed from conservatism or accumen and always at exactly the wrong time.
As far as our congresscritters, we’ve got some good ones and some bad ones. I don’t have any problem with strengthening our base before we go after the Dems in their homes, which is the urban core. The bigger the tent, the stronger the support pillars are needed.
Moran is always looking for a fight. Doesn’t matter who with.
Comment by cdor — 5/4/2009 @ 9:23 pm
“My latest article is up at Pajamas Media and it’s already attracted the usual cast of thick headed numbskulls who think that “moderate” is a dirty word.”
“Moderate” or “RINO” Republican is a dirty word today to the grassroots, and for good reason. That is the problem and namecalling people wont fix the lack of trust that is well-deserved.
It wasnt so in the 1980s, when many moderate Republicans voted for key priorities the President needed. But in 2003-2007, key issues were not delivered on - due to moderate defections. In the 1980s we never had a Congress and President at the same time. This is important, because 2005 SHOULD have been the ‘conservative moment’ when in fact it was a dud. And what made it a dud, policy-wise for conservatives? 7 RINOs in the Senate, including Specter, who made such policies impossible.
On issue after issue - ANWR, immigration, making tax cuts permanent, judges, earmarks, etc. we saw a failure to live up to conservative hope. Rick, understand that if we lose to Democrats at least we know they are the enemy, and most govern as they ran. But for some of the RINO Republicans, they govern NOT as they ran, but almost as if they want to do the least amount possible to live up to their promises. We feel like pidgeons in a con-game.
It’s men like Specter who ensured the losses in 2006, split the party, disenchanted the base by failing to deliver on key issues, over-spent and failed to perform. “Moderates” in the GOP who were often unprincipled more than anything else ruined the GOP brand.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM. It’ a complete loss of trust due a breach of promises. We dont want of need moderates because a majority with moderates is no majority at all, its prescription for the same failures. IF YOU DON’T FACE UP TO THAT PROBLEM, THE REAL REASON THE GRASSROOTS DOESNT TRUST THE LEADERSHIP AND RINOS AND MOD POLS ANYMORE, YOU WILL NEVER HEAL THE GOP!
Rick, I’m sorry but if you are falling for the trap of using the Reagan precedent, remember: Ronald Reagan tolerated moderates if they were part of the team. And some of them were helpful. But RONALD REAGAN RAN AGAINST A SITTING “MODERATELY RIGHT-OF-CENTER” REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT PRESIDENT, GERALD FORD. Reagan was no less of an insurgent conservative as Pat Toomey.
Reagan also lost a key vote - Bork - in 1986 and it was just a *start* of the awareness of conservatives that sometimes Republicans wont help us WHEN WE MOST NEED THEM. Do you know who one of the turncoats was who stopped an excellent man from getting on SCOTUS? A man who voted FOR Ginsburg and practically every Clinton nominee? Who gave us that first taste of knifing the GOP base and turned the tide against the vote that would have crucially moved the court in a better direction?
SPECTER.
A turncoat who should have been expelled 30 year ago? As Palin would say “You betcha.”
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/05/howl-of-rinos-and-rebuilding-gop.html
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/4/2009 @ 9:35 pm
This is the reason I keep reading this blog. I’m fascinated by guys like you, Rick, trying to talk sense to what are, by any rational definition, crazy people. It’s like watching someone try to talk a suicide down off a bridge.
I think to myself, “Why bother? The guy wants to kill himself. You’re not going to be able to stop him.”
You suggest, in the nicest possible way, that the guy not jump. And the suicide abuses you, insults you, ridicules you. And you keep talking. But the guy’s going to jump. He wants to die. He’s going to find a way to die. And as he falls to his death he’s actually going to hate you Rick, and wish he could find a way to pull you off the bridge with him.
Why is anyone trying to save this shambling wreck of a party, this sad, stupid, hateful mess? Read the comments at Pajamas Media. These people are idiots. Creeps. People you’d never want to have a drink with.
Rick, you’re an atheist living in sin. You’re a rational man. You believe in evolution and understand that gay rights are coming, like it or not. You don’t think torture is fun. You’re not ant-intellectual. Why are you a Republican?
Seriously. Why are you a Republican?
Rick, I don’t think “Republican” means what you think it means. Maybe it used to. But it doesn’t anymore. Your “Republican” is dead and buried. You’re part of a small and despised minority within what used to be your party. They hate you worse than they hate people like me. They want you to go away. They want you out of their party.
You can’t toady them enough to make them love you. You can abuse liberals all you like, it won’t make any difference to the wingnuts because they are fanatics and you are not and they will never, ever, ever accept you back into what used to be your party but is now theirs.
Face it Rick: you’re not a Republican.
Comment by michael reynolds — 5/4/2009 @ 9:46 pm
“Is the real problem that certain sophisticated Republicans from the northeast are embarrassed by the southern, bible-belt conservatives?”
If that’s the problem, then let these no-as-conservatives tell us what they are FOR, and STOP the useless and coutnerproductive “I’ll show you my mod credentials by bashing the so-called far right.” That’s nothing but a way to suck up to the liberal MSM while doing zippo to advance any useful agenda, center *or* right.
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/05/howl-of-rinos-and-rebuilding-gop.html
PS. “its the gop that has a litmus test and a guy named Rush who is the Enforcer” I failed to notice that part where the 2008 nominee was Rush’s handpicked guy. Keep building up that myth, you O-bots … you are only building his market share and fortune with that silly falsehood.
The question for ALL wannabe Republican strategists needs to be: What are the core principles that the Republican Party should stand on?
If you cannot articulate that, you have no business telling other Republicans off.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/4/2009 @ 9:49 pm
“Rick, you’re an atheist living in sin. You’re a rational man. You believe in evolution and understand that gay rights are coming, like it or not. You don’t think torture is fun. You’re not ant-intellectual. Why are you a Republican?”
Let me guess, Micheal. You voted for Obama. You like strawman arguments. Your guy has put forth a budget that would bankrupt the country with $10 trillion in deficits in his terms, want to ruin the secret ballot for union elections, wants to spend taxpayer money for abortion and ACORN, signed of on a trillion dollar boondoggle ’stimulus’ that has zero stimulus for the private sector in America, wants to tax families for using a harmless molecule CO2, has broken multiple promises, turned around on Iraq by implementing the Bush policies but is managing to lose headway there while Pakistan and Afghanistan unravel, yet he goes overseas and gets nothing and sells out and talks down America.
And that leaves aside his bad appts - tax cheat to run the IRS, Judges who are poorly suited to sit on the court, a DHS head who got basic facts of 9/11 wrong and put out an insulting report about veterans and assorted right-wingers.
Every day, Obama creates another reason to be a Republican. By November 2010, we may well see 10 million more Republicans than in the last election.
Obama is shaping up to be the worst President in our lifetime, and koolaid drinking morons have the gall to use the “anti-intellectual” to opponents of this pied piper of socialistic kleptocracy. No Republican thinks torture is fun, but the Obama administration is torture for those who believe in American freedom, decency and exceptionalism.
PS. I believe in evolution. The GOP will evolve and survive and be the fittest answer for even you.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/4/2009 @ 10:01 pm
“I’m not convinced that there is a ‘moderate’ thinking/voting bloc. The term moderate us usually pulled out of the closet whenever there is a need to portray the Republican party as too right-wing or not tolerant enough but it seems to usually be a farce. A lot, if not most, conservative ideas are popular enough to create a solid and winning base but Republicans tend to abandon them when they get into power.”
Moderate is a farce. I blogged last November about this. It turns out there are ‘NON-IDEOLOGICAL VOTERS’ who vote based looks, competence, character, likeability etc. A mix of good a bad reasons - but note, rarely does toning down your principles help win such votes!
MODERATES WANT COMPETENCE NOT MUSH:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/11/moderates-want-competence-not-mush.html
Far better to run a campaign on competence and smarts and personality to win such voters:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/11/smartness-coolness-factors.html
Then there are the gutless folks who think it is smarter to not be extreme so split the difference on every issue. Moderate is not an ideology. It’s an attitude.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/4/2009 @ 10:06 pm
Travis Monitor,
you are from Texas. Don’t tell us how to win our elections. Your strategy won’t win in Maine, trust me. Don’t tell us we are wanna be this, wanna be that and you yourself are whining about the media.
Comment by funny man — 5/4/2009 @ 10:16 pm
Another way to put this is why can’t today’s moderates tolerate conservatives. As the leaders of the Republican party, the Moderates should try to find a way to work constructively with conservatives.
Comment by B.Poster — 5/5/2009 @ 7:59 am
Michael Reynolds has gotten to the heart of what used to interest me about the GOP and yet why I could never join. (Had I been born 20 or even 10 years earlier, perhaps I would be in Rick’s shoes right now, attempting to defend an increasingly wayward party.) It’s not so much the contradictory positions or the mediocre governing that makes standing up for the GOP so hard these days as it is the lack of decency and openness amongst so many Republican spokespeople. How can any conservative organization grow and thrive in the general population by turning to Rush, Coulter, and Glenn Beck to articulate the movement?
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 5/5/2009 @ 8:41 am
Hmmmm, lefties like this site and wonder why us “crazies” don’t agree with Rick.
Here are some facts for you. Bush was a moderate. He did what the left wanted. he was a “pragmatist”. He lost to Clinton.
W was a moderate. Look up Jonah Goldberg’s speech on the link he provide in the Corner. Bush spent like a Dem. His only sins are his faith and Iraq. He is no conservative. He was hated. He gave us Obama.
McCain is a “pragmatist”. The perfect candidate according to Moran. he got his ass handed to him. Period.
Moderation doesn’t win elections. Never has, never will.
Please re-read the history or Reagan and how the GOP was prior to his ascendancy. Reagan tolerated moderates once he won and after they tried a 3rd party candidate. The extremists he railed against were the Birchers…today’s version of the Ron Paul supporters.
When Palin or Jindhal takes the reins and gives our movement a true leader, then we will win and win big. We will also welcome back you “moderates” who like to hang with winners.
Comment by BC — 5/5/2009 @ 12:11 pm
@BC:
“McCain is a “pragmatist”. The perfect candidate according to Moran. he got his ass handed to him. Period.”
No. McCain the Congressman was a moderate, and is again. McCain the candidate was an entirely different person. I’d have voted for McCain the Congressman. Most of the electorate don’t follow the news, or know the voting history of the players. All they saw was McCain the candidate — and he was about as moderate as his running mate.
“When Palin or Jindhal takes the reins and gives our movement a true leader, then we will win and win big.”
Good luck with that. Jindal, possibly. Palin . . . its gonna be a long time before the people forget how utterly clueless she was during the race. A loooong time. I know several voters that would have voted for McCain over Obama but were terrified that she would be in line for the launch codes. They didn’t vote for Obama . . . they voted against Palin.
I know that there are alot of people that really like her, but the precentage that hate her far, far outweigh her support.
Comment by busboy33 — 5/5/2009 @ 1:41 pm
“I know that there are alot of people that really like her, but the precentage that hate her far, far outweigh her support.”
I’m a libertarian, so I don’t have a dog in the Palin controversy (that whole emotional debate is mostly partisan), but I think most people like her and that she will be a formidable candidate for conservatives and independents.
Comment by Mike Farmer — 5/5/2009 @ 5:50 pm
“How can any conservative organization grow and thrive in the general population by turning to Rush, Coulter, and Glenn Beck to articulate the movement?”
But the point is, I think, that Rush, Coulter and Beck DO articulate the movement. You might prefer another movement, but they are articulating the conservative movement — that’s why they are so popular.
Comment by Mike Farmer — 5/5/2009 @ 5:56 pm
But popular with whom, really? Agreed, nobody expects political commentators expressing viewpoints (as opposed to analysis) to be liked by everybody, but these dudes go out of their way to decry and throw under the bus any dissenters. Worse, they are simply unpalatable to nearly anybody not already part of the far-right choir. It’s obvious that this unholy trinity is more concerned with making money for themselves than advancing the conservatism they claim to defend.
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 5/5/2009 @ 6:13 pm
#29: funny man, your anti-southern prejudice is showing. I’ve lived 1/2 my life in the northeast. If northeast Republicans have a great secret to winning elections, they are not letting on.
I’m all ears: How can we defeat Schumer and Dodd in 2010 with conservative Republicans and add a dozen right-of-center Congresscritters from new England?
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/5/2009 @ 7:01 pm
“But popular with whom, really?”
With millions of people who listen to them and buy their books, and also with politicians who go on their shows to be heard by millions. I mean, like it or not, they have a huge audience.
Comment by Mike Farmer — 5/5/2009 @ 7:09 pm
#36: “Agreed, nobody expects political commentators expressing viewpoints (as opposed to analysis) to be liked by everybody, but these dudes go out of their way to decry and throw under the bus any dissenters. Worse, they are simply unpalatable to nearly anybody not already part of the extremist choir.”
Fascinating. This is a fine summary of what is wrong with Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and dKOS blog. (And many others, like NYTimes columnists etc.) It’s typical of liberals that they don’t merely think they are more correct than the other side, but go out of their way to demonize, demean and denigrate conservatives at all levels. Olbie’s show is a case study in argument ad hominem.
When you speak of “the lack of decency and openness amongst so many” I am reminded of MSNBC trying to turn a genuine grassroots movement into a gay sex double-entendre, and other juvenile and anti-right bigotted things. It is therefore more than stomach-churning to hear that the White House just ‘loves’ their pitbull liberal network MSNBC.
Given all that, its fascinating that the concerns going ‘too far’ are only aimed at partisans on the right and so rarely on partisans on the left. Double standards?
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/5/2009 @ 7:16 pm
Travis Monitor,
I’m not from the northeast and I don’t have a problem with Texas or the South. I just think you need to get off your high horse and stop telling us in effect we are idiots. You love using colorful words, fine that’s your take. I’d rather discuss policy details on how to make the US more competitive etc than going on endlessly about the media, about how liberals think etc. Boring. Deal?
Comment by funny man — 5/5/2009 @ 7:43 pm
Heh heh heh… One does not have to be liberal to know what “Tea-bagging” means. (Nor does one have to be gay to engage in such an activity.) Frankly, this “grassroots movement” is hard to take seriously if such a poorly chosen name was all that conservative activists could come up with.
All totally correct. Being in conservative media can be profitable, as even truthful (re: unpopular) writers like Rick can make a living from it. But if the big names really believed in the cause, they would give away some of the many millions they have earned to further its growth. Have Rush, Coulter or Beck donated recently to the Heritage Foundation, or the Club for Growth, or even the RNC? Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong…
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 5/5/2009 @ 8:40 pm
The problem here is that people who call themselves “conservative” often are no such thing.
There’s nothing “conservative” about nation-building, or wars of choice, or off-the-books financing of wars of choice, or torture, or expansion of federal power to wiretap Americans.
There’s also nothing “conservative” about wishing away climate change, or opposing the rights of states to decide for themselves whether to allow gays to marry. Dog whistle racism isn’t “conservative.”
There’s not even anything conservative about Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck or Sean Hannity.
The term “conservative” has been devalued to the point of utter meaninglessness. A lot of people who think of themselves as “conservative” are no such thing. They’re radicals, or loud-mouths, haters or fools.
Comment by michael reynolds — 5/5/2009 @ 8:58 pm
The proverbial pot calling the kettle black?
Comment by mannning — 5/5/2009 @ 9:08 pm
“Moderation doesn’t win elections. Never has, never will.”
Surely you jest. Why Wendell Wilkie and Thomas Dewey were fine Presidents, as President McCain will attest.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/5/2009 @ 9:14 pm
Heh heh heh… One does not have to be liberal to know what “Tea-bagging” means. (Nor does one have to be gay to engage in such an activity.) Frankly, this “grassroots movement” is hard to take seriously if such a poorly chosen name was all that conservative activists could come up with.
Ah, I see. Now you are lying. I mistook your earlier comments for face value commentary instead of the liberal talking point tripe you are now parading.
Conservatives didnt choose that name. Fact is that the only people using the term ‘teabagging’ in relationship to the Tea Parties were MSNBC and related sicko / juvenile liberals. That was never used by anyone until Rachel Maddow and others picked it up. Since you are apparently so knowledgeable about this stuff, this is something you surely know. Twisting someones name to make fun of it … how very 7th grade.
As I said, the complete lack of distancing by anyone in Democrat party from these clowns, similarly to the lack of distancing to that racialist clown Al Sharpton in the primaries, is telling point about left partisans are tolerated much more.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/5/2009 @ 9:26 pm
#40: I honestly have no idea what you are referring to in your vague jib-jab. I never called you an idiot. if you would “rather discuss policy details on how to make the US more competitive etc ” rather than the mods vs conservatives topic of this thread, or my suggestion to tell us how to get the GOP elected in the northeast, I’m not stopping you. be my guest.
Achieving US economic competitiveness is a great topic on which I have a few ideas myself.
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/03/fundamental-tax-reform-15-solution.html
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/5/2009 @ 10:33 pm
Dog whistle racism isn’t “conservative.”
Obama’s dog-whistle references to Malcolm X and Islam are not conservative, true. Nor is it conservative to knee-jerk accuse people of racism. That’s a liberal thing, for sure.
There’s also nothing “conservative” about wishing away climate change,
Yes, it is left to liberals to construct climate fictions.
The cap-and-trade non-solution to the non-problem of Global Warming (April was the second coldest month since 1980) is not conservative, true. The reality-based position on Global Warming is that it is a bunch of overhyped junk science, getting disporven daily by temperature facts on the ground, wrapped up in UN-approved twaddle. One can try to wish away the recovery of the artic sea ice, the non-rise in sea levels this century, or the fact that temperatures are lower now than in 1998, but … horror of horrors, there it is.
There’s nothing “conservative” about nation-building, or wars of choice … which made Clinton’s Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo excursions and his desert fox attacks on Iraq, both ‘non-conservative’ and a poor model for GWB to emulate.
As for marriage, the conservative position is to defend the definition of marriage as it has been defined for millenia - one man, one woman. Should the liberals want to suggest a ’states rights’ position on the matter … let’s put the states rights position in place for the abortion matter first and see how THAT goes first.
(self-described conservative) radicals, or loud-mouths, haters or fools.
The ad hominem argument is a weak argument, but it sure is great to see Liberals fall back into bad habits and practice it so readily… Like when Obama would pull the race card, its a sign you know that the card they have left are pretty poor.
Having a non-conservative try to define what conservatives believe is a bit like relying on the Osmond Family to define Rap music … by attempting to sing it. It’s embarrassing all around.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/5/2009 @ 10:50 pm
#45
GOP success in the northeast: Mitt Romney is a pretty good model. Economic competence, socially moderate.
What I meant with competitiveness was more about funding R & D, how do you maintain a manufacturing base. Do you see a role for government here too? Sorry, it’s getting late.
Comment by funny man — 5/5/2009 @ 11:02 pm
Correction to above April temperature statement: April 2009 was the second coldest APRIL since 1999.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/05/rss-msu-2nd-coldest-april-since-1999.html
“April 2009 was also a whopping 0.65 °C cooler than April 1998″
“The mid troposphere saw a nearly trivial anomaly of 0.037 °C in April which is 0.022 °C cooler than the number from March 2009 and the second coldest April figure since 1997 (after 2008).”
And continental USA temps for April 2009 are lower than in April 1980:
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TMT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/5/2009 @ 11:14 pm
“What I meant with competitiveness was more about funding R & D, how do you maintain a manufacturing base. Do you see a role for government here too?”
Yes I do. The EPA is about to impose dumb and draconian regulations on chemicals used in the $200 billion semiconductor industry that will drive it all overseas - bye bye US fabs, all gone to Taiwan. See recent EE Times. Cap-and-trade is going to ship all energy intensive industry to China and India if we are dumb enough to impose it. Bye bye steel, aluminum and heavy industry.
Sarbanes-Oxley has hurt the IPO market and through that the VC-funded R&D cycle. Bye bye tech sector, software.
Obama’s socialized medicine will kill innovation in the healthcare sector. bye bye pharms and medical advances.
And now Obama, rather than lowering tax rates is calling corporations ‘tax cheats’ for legally trying to not get raped by the IRS for overseas earnings. For shame.
See a trend?
The #1 role for Govt is to stop doing counterproductive things like that which harms our competitiveness.
The #2 thing would be to end earmarks. that would make our R&D spend in govt far more cost-effective.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/5/2009 @ 11:21 pm
Travis Monitor said:
No Travis, I don’t. All I see is you spreading FUD. For anyone who didn’t feel like substantiating all of your sky is falling claims, here’s an example of what Travis has done…
Your alarmist tone makes it sound like death of the fabs is imminent. This is nonsense. What really happened is that the EPA issued a finding stating that chemicals used by the fabs could pose a health risk to the public.
What you failed to mention was that the EPA finding DID NOT INCLUDE ANY PROPOSED REGULATIONS. In fact, not only did you fail to mention it, you said the exact opposite. You also failed to mention that most manufacturers of fab tools use abatement systems. Pathetic. If you’re going to spread bullshit, at least make it harder than one google search to prove you completely wrong.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 5/6/2009 @ 9:17 am
#50
ok you want government get out of the way. However, let’s talk about medical research, there NIH funding is vital for continuous innovation. For example, right now it appears all of us have a unique bacterial make-up of our gut influencing everything from obesity to response to environmental toxicants. In order to get this into a real-life application you need to do do the basic science first before you can get into making money. That in my opinion is pragmatic view.
As to some of your other ’science’ views:
“The reality-based position on Global Warming is that it is a bunch of overhyped junk science, getting disproven daily by temperature facts on the ground, wrapped up in UN-approved twaddle”.
That is total BS. It is true that scientists measure data and do modeling with those data. That is done in atmospheric science, climate science etc. Based on different parameters and selection of data you will obviously get different outcomes. That is NOT a liberal plot and to call all scientist working on this ‘junk scientists’ is simply wrong.
Comment by funny man — 5/6/2009 @ 11:20 am
This blog should be renamed “Slightly right-of-center-wing Nut House”
Comment by Sal — 5/6/2009 @ 6:45 pm
[...] "If Reagan Tolerated Moderates, Why Can’t Today’s Conservatives?" Originally published: 4 May 2009 Submitted by: U.S. Common Sense Summary: Looking into the pre-programmed response to the label "moderate" by some Republicans. [...]
Pingback by Political Blog Weekly: 8 May 2009 | U.S. Common Sense — 5/12/2009 @ 2:04 am