Growth through dismemberment doesn’t work
posted at 10:15 am on November 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
If someone said that the best way to restore health would be to cut off an arm and a leg to make the torso more pure, would you sign up for that surgery? Or would you send that adviser off to either medical school or a therapist? Christine Todd Whitman and Robert Bostock try to make that argument to the Republican Party, giving the reverse of the “kill the RINOs” arguments heard elsewhere:
Four years ago, in the week after the 2004 presidential election, we were working furiously to put the finishing touches on the book we co-authored, “It’s My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America.”
Our central thesis was simple: The Republican Party had been taken hostage by “social fundamentalists,” the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research. Unless the GOP freed itself from their grip, we argued, it would so alienate itself from the broad center of the American electorate that it would become increasingly marginalized and find itself out of power.
At the time, this idea was roundly attacked by many who were convinced that holding on to the “base” at all costs was the way to go. A former speechwriter for President Bush, Matthew Scully, who went on to work for the McCain campaign this year, called the book “airy blather” and said its argument fell somewhere between “insufferable snobbery” and “complete cluelessness.” Gary Bauer suggested that the book sounded as if it came from a “Michael Moore radical.” National Review said its warnings were, “at best, counterintuitive,” and Ann Coulter said the book was “based on conventional wisdom that is now known to be false.”
What a difference four years makes — and the data show it.
Bollocks. The data shows that moderates moved to Barack Obama, which comes as no surprise after eight years of Republican control of the White House. Unless Whitman shows that Bush’s position on embryonic stem-cell research was the leading issue on voters’ minds, her extrapolation that the shift in moderates came from a sudden allergy to social conservatism is the worst kind of statistical manipulation. It’s correlation without causation.
What were the issues foremost on the minds of voters? The failing economy, ethics, and national security. In Rasmussen’s polling on issues, abortion didn’t even make the top five:
- Economy
- Ethics & corruption
- National security
- Education
- Health care
- Taxes
- Iraq
- Social Security
- Abortion
- Immigration
Only the last two have anything to do with social conservatism, and they hardly drove the election. Rightly or not, voters saw the outgoing Bush administration as inept, and wanted a change. In fact, two years after Whitman and Bostock wrote their book, a majority of Americans saw abortion as morally wrong in most instances by a wide margin (55%-32%), and only a small minority favors the kind of unfettered abortions Obama proposes to allow with the Freedom of Choice act (24%, according to Gallup’s poll earlier this year).
Beyond the statistical sleight-of-hand, though, Whitman gives yet another voice for the destruction of the Republican Party as a coalition of interests centered on shared principles. She wants dismemberment as a purity drive, much the same as Ted Nugent’s call for open season on RINOs. Neither will help create a national party able to govern as a majority.
In order to regain the majority, we need to stop attacking each other and start focusing on those issues that unite us. The only way to achieve real change is to combine our strengths and put ourselves back in position to change policy. It may feel good to stand alone with our ideological purity, but in the end, it will never afford us the leverage to make real changes. Only by agreeing to pursue what unites us can we forge an alliance that can achieve any positive change for America.
What unites us, then? We need to get back to those First Principles of fiscal responsibility (which we blew when we had the opportunity), smaller government (which we betrayed with the K Street Project and other lobbyist pandering), national security, free market economics, federalism, and lower taxes. If we can agree to pursue those as priorities, and if we can rebuild our credibility on those goals, then we can convince moderates to once again support Republicans, especially if the Democrats run off the rails in the next two years.
Dismemberment doesn’t bring strength. It almost always creates a corpse.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I think the RINOs, being a minority in the party, ought to start a new party which will lure independents and moderates by the millions and billions.
They should leave the GOP to the infortunately larger group of GOP members who are conservatives. The GOP is branded as the party of Lincoln and Lincoln was s religious kook.
On his second innaugural, Lincoln shocked the nation with his religious rant
Palin who is alo a kook can remain in the GOP and go down with the ship, She will join a long list of religious kooks who tried to impose their evil on the masses
The RINO party will triumph while the old faded GOP will march off chanting their delusional death wish:
entagor on November 14, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Fiscal cons and other members of the coalition got no seat either, dawg.
They’re not the only ones in the party. That’s I guess my ultimate point.
I would like to see where this is written, preferably where in stone it is inscribed.
So you’re saying that unless you’re socially conservative you can’t be fiscally conservative because you’re not “informed” or “guided” by social conservatism? How about being guided by reason? Because I know many people in my life (most, actually) who fall into the not-strictly-social-con-but-personally-fiscal-con category. Like me.
I don’t see what “social conservatism” has to do with national security. They can be mutually exclusive, you know. You can have a robust foreign policy and strong sense of order without being “informed” by social conservatism (which I’m reading here as strong religious beliefs…”)
Social conservatism, I think, is a personal credo. It is one that I try to live by whenever possible, but it does not become dogma until it is framed within the context of a religion. And the problem is that, for many I think, it has become dogma.
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Bah. We’ve had at least eight years of trying to grow make the “tent” larger. We can see how well that’s worked out.
eforhan on November 14, 2008 at 12:33 PM
hey, ed, your tone in blogging this piece was irresponsible.
by any account, the side of the argument which needs to be encouraged to regain their bearings is the side represented by ted nugent. i noticed that post wasn’t laden with admonishments about big tents and scoldings about coalitions coming back to the things which supposedly unite them.
in framing whitman’s collumn this way, you’ve abbrogated your role as a purveyor of sense. instead you just chucked a pile of greasy rags on the fire.
all things are not equal in the intercine conflict; there is no “circular” firing squad. since 11/05/08, as it was throughout the primaries, the “kill all f****ng RINOS” mob has controlled the discussion here and elsewhere. one poster, Blake regularly makes racism a part of his attacks against the “RINO” steele. it is tollerated because he’s anti-RINO. and the anti-”RINO” side speaks in increasingly violent, mono-syllabic barks about “killing” the “rino” “cancer”.
you doubt that the ballance is so skewed? i defy you to pull five comments from the first two pages which support whitman’s point of view.
you had a chance to lead. you pandered instead.
eh on November 14, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Classical liberalism holds that:
In a society without central management, a vast network of private associations serves as the dominant social authority. Religious communities wield vast influence over public and private life, as do civic groups and community leaders of all sorts. They create a huge patchwork of associations and a true diversity in which every individual and group finds a place. This combination of political decentralization, economic liberty, free trade, and self government creates, day by day, the most prosperous, diverse, peaceful, and just society the world has ever known.
(I’ve been prowling mises.org)
RushBaby on November 14, 2008 at 12:35 PM
MOAR CLASSICAL LIBERALISM PLEASE.
Let’s take classical liberalism away from those who profess to be liberals :-)
That could be fun – making the GOP the party of classical liberalism. Jeff Goldstein, you are a prophet!
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 12:37 PM
That’s exactly what I’m getting at!
RushBaby on November 14, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Dobson, Perkins, and Bauer, like William Donohue speak for their constituents.
I think this is precisely the problem rockmom was alluding to :-)
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Angry Dumbo on November 14, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I actually listed these in an earlier post, But I’ll gladly reiterate and expand on them for you.
Reagan’s Core GOP Principles: (In no specific order)
1) Fiscal Conservatism: The belief that the government that rules best is the government that rules least, particularly in economic matters. Low (possibly even flat) taxes, minimal regulation, minimal bureaucracy.
2) Social Conservatism: The belief that our country was founded on the concept of Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. The idea that although Government should NEVER endorse or force upon anyone a specific set of beliefs, that Religion in general, and Judeo-Christian belief in specific, informs and guides our people, our leaders, and our country as a whole.
3) Security Conservatism: The belief in BOTH a Strong Federal military, AND in a strong, and ARMED populace. The idea that a Strong military is vital to both National Security, and to the protection of American interests at home and abroad, and for the projection of American Ideology in narrowly defined instances. Also, the Idea that an Armed society is a polite society, and that the Right to Bear Arms is critical to the defense of both National Freedom, and Personal Freedom.
That’s a bit brief, but should pretty much cover it. There are other issues, but most of them tend to mix among these three principles, so I excluded them from this summation.
wearyman on November 14, 2008 at 12:40 PM
To some extent, a social con should be a fiscal con as well.. live within your means.. use what you have wisely..
am I wrong in that thinking?
DaveC on November 14, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Actually, we’ve had eight years of incompetence at the federal level from the representatives we elected.
The biggest problem Bush gave us? He essentially knocked the “small government/reduce spending” leg out from his party’s stool.
Not smart, and the Congressmorons in his party followed suit, afraid that people in the other party would be mad about it.
The problem was that the other party wasn’t mad about the spending – they were mad that they didn’t get to direct where the money went. Observe the HOPE-N-CHANGE REDISTRIBUTION PLAN that will be upon us nigh for confirmation of this.
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Not at all, and that makes logical sense.
But one can also be a fiscal con without being a social con.
Right, social cons?
No?
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 12:43 PM
We need a full accounting on what is what
How many of the 57 million who voted for Mccain are rinos and how many are conservatives.
The people who say they are moderates, what exactly does that mean to them.
Out of all the unregistered voters(the potential new voters) what do they beleive or tend to beleive.
My count is that there are some 40 to 50 million unregistered white voters out there in the world. Where do they live and what od they think and why do we not try to get them.
Minoroty voters even if they come back to 2004 level under Bush v Gore is still not enough.(btw they won’t)
kangjie on November 14, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Not at all. Indeed, this is the wisdom of the Three Legs. They all work together in harmony. Take one out, and the whole thing stops working.
wearyman on November 14, 2008 at 12:45 PM
actually, we’ve had eight years of “real conservatives” telling gays that they can’t be republicans hispanics that they shouldn’t be allowed in the country. exact opposit and you know it. the thing about being a social con is the only artistic theme you understand is that of the noble sufferer. in reality, it hasn’t been tried any other way than your way for the last decade and we’re where we are on the road “real” conservatives set us.
eh on November 14, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Who’s leaders are they? Who made them the leaders?
Pam on November 14, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Look I’m one person that doesn’t believe in throw the Rhinos (whatever that means) under the bus. I’m sure on November 4th there was a bunch of people that voted Democrat and didn’t believe in everything in the Democratic platform. Sometimes you are gonna have people who don’t absolutely agree with everything in parties platform voting for you. However, the Rhinos shouldn’t be advocating throwing out the social cons out of the party either.
terryannonline on November 14, 2008 at 12:46 PM
If anyone needs to know whether the Christine Todd Whitman stragegy works just look at New Jersey. Sure, the corrupt NJ Supreme Court forced corpse Lautenberg on the ballot after their candidate Torch Toricelli’s criminal activities got in his way. Remember that it is New Jersey.
I haven’t had time to read the comments about seat belts yet several benefits to those (regardless of politics) are known: 1.) collision of head with windshield, bad very bad. 2.) compression of spine / sternum against heart against steering wheel, bad very bad. 3.) If you stay in front of the wheel you stand a chance of still controlling the car. If smashed against the windshield, are hanging out the window or tossed over to the passenger side that becomes more complicated. 4.) If tossed into the airbag before it inflates see #1.
viking01 on November 14, 2008 at 12:47 PM
a fiscal con wouldn’t want money wasted on social programs.. like Planned Parenthood.. or handouts to the ACLU..
as far a as the security hawk goes, that’s a given.. a nation needs a good military for it’s survival.. even the Vatican has it’s guards..
DaveC on November 14, 2008 at 12:49 PM
It’s clear that we have a bit of a paradox on our hands. We don’t have the numbers to hold power, and at the same time, we are too diverse to actually accomplish anything. If we commit to being more diverse, we will dilute our values to the point that they accomplish nothing. It seems clear to me that in order to rebuild any failing organization, you first must get back to the basics. If the GOP had a clear mission statement, and a consistent set of core values, then people will support or not as they decide. I believe that if that mission, and set of values centered around a return to strong national defense, and federalism, we would in fact grow the party. We must focus on freedom, and principles that most closely align with freedom. The bottom line for me is that if the party becomes more diverse, it will continue to be ineffectual, and meaningless. We need more focus, not more inclusiveness.
aelhues on November 14, 2008 at 12:49 PM
No.
Fiscal Conservatism without Social Conservatism leads to Monopolies, Employee Abuse, Slavery. Remember, it was SOCIAL conservatives that started the fight against Slavery. the Fiscal cons LOVED Slavery. Cheap disposable labor? amoral fiscal cons LOVE that.
You see, all the “morals” you think are attributable to “logic” weren’t so logical back before Social Conservatives began to flex political muscle. Remember, it used to be “logical” in the US for people to have slaves. Social Conservatives and religious people of morals changed that.
You CANNOT have one principle without the other two, or you get SOME kind of tyranny or social collapse.
wearyman on November 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Good Lt, we probably agree on more than we disagree.
But what are we to do about it? If I understand many of the posts here, we’re supposed to just allow it to happen rather than go back to our “core values” as listed by wearyman?
eforhan on November 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM
There should also be something here about the country being founded on the freedom of the individual. The freedoms granted to American citizens do not pertain exclusively to religion, and many of the FF’s were wary of this. They wanted a separation of the church and the government (as in no government endorsement of a church) because of the problems they fled from in Britain (where the King was also the head of the Church). Yes, there is freedom to practice religion. But there is also an implicit freedom not to. While many of the founding principles in the founding documents owe something to Judeo-Christian values, there is plenty in there that has nothing to do with J-C values as well. The mere fact that J-C values/ethos have informed or guided many of the country’s leaders and people throughout its history is not a de facto justification for those values to become law or policy (where they are expressly forbidden).
Put more simply, just because a lot of people believe in it does not necessarily make it true. Or something.
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Re: the gays, you are making the shit up now..
Re: hispanics.. Gawd forbid that a someone would want a the laws followed in a country of laws..
Republican
In
Name
Only :)
DaveC on November 14, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Fixed that for you. ;)
eforhan on November 14, 2008 at 12:54 PM
There is no substantive difference between men like Dobson, Bauer, and Donahue speaking for those of like mind than there is Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes, and Jack Kemp speaking up for their version of fiscal conservatism. Or Michael Ledeen, Oliver North, and Victor Davis Hansen standing up for their views on security matters. Or Michelle Malkin and Tom Tancredo on the border. It’s pure sophistry to say otherwise, likely driven by misunderstanding, disagreement, or dislike of the men themselves.
Whether Republicans like it or not, MILLIONS listen to what Dobson, Bauer, and Donahue say. Millions want their opinions. However, it’s foolishness to believe they drive the opinions of social conservatives. Sure they have influence, but they speak to, or preach if you will, to those of like mind and they fight on their behalf. Those men REFLECT the opinions of their constituencies, much as Rush reflects the opinions of the vast majority of his listeners. I found this blog because I already agreed with Michelle Malkin on illegal immigration. I felt that way long before I ever read a word she wrote or saw her on television. Evangelicals don’t need James Dobson to tell them abortion is evil or that it is important to support homeschooling or they ought oppose the radical gay rights movement.
flyfisher on November 14, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Thanks for the answer, and note how those 3 core principals covered three vastly different subject matters..It goes back to the point that Whitman made, and many of the answers on this thread seem to support, although they are trying to demonize her words..We, as a party, have gotten away from those very specific beliefs, the foundation of our party, and have somehow allowed abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research, to become the platform..Reagan understood that all three were key to our survival as a party.
Pam on November 14, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Christie Todd Whitman aka Miss Jane Hathaway is a total loser.
Another George W. Bush type of compassionate conservative.
Hilts on November 14, 2008 at 12:56 PM
There were plenty of fiscal cons in the north (which was more prosperous after abolishing slavery). Slavery is wrong from any moral point of view – we know this – but many religious entities in the slave states used religion as a justification for slavery as well.
See, I’m not sure this is necessarily so. Not every policy that protects individual rights in the country was brought about by social conservatism. Protection of financial rights was also a primary and core principle of the founding documents. People have the right to prosperity, regardless of their beliefs. If they do so at the expense of another against that person’s will, that is not protected and never has been (with the exception of slavery, which was practiced in every country on Earth at the time of the founding, making it a universal injustice and not exclusively an American one). That was corrected with the help of secularists, human rights advocates, religious folks, and others, but not EXCLUSIVELY religious folks (read: social cons).
You’re right that we probably agree on more than we don’t, but where the concept of morality and individual rights are derived from, we might have a slight disagreement. I’m more of Randian when it comes to morality, so that would put me at odds with many social cons by default. :-)
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Removing social conservatives would be dismemberment, and would kill the party. Removing Whitman and her ilk would be excising a cancer, and would strengthen the body.
Buford Gooch on November 14, 2008 at 12:59 PM
I missed the comment that DaveC quoted above, but I get incensed every time I hear that republicans don’t want Hispanics here, or able to vote or whatever. That’s such ridiculous nonsense. The fact that I and many others want our laws to be actually enforced for a variety of non-race related reason does in no way mean that I am bigoted. The fact that I don’t want those who moved here illegally to be given a pass, and put in front of all those who are trying to become Americans through the proper legal channels doesn’t mean I hate anyone. So stop saying it, it’s ridiculous.
aelhues on November 14, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Try it. I doubt Reagan, bless his soul, would agree with you. See: Reagan Democrats.
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Had the GOP run a conservative, they would have won. The turd got the Kerry vote adjusted for population growth, plus a few in the middle. Only a couple of million votes decided this election. Social cons voted against the dems, military cons tended to do so as well. Economic cons were not welcomed, and therefore 8 million potential votes stayed home. The path is clear for the GOP – provide all three, and you will win. Any debate about any other option is pointless.
Vashta.Nerada on November 14, 2008 at 1:01 PM
we are slowly becoming a party who brands anybody who believes in God as a “kook”
Look at Sarah Palin … why does she embody everything that is “social conservative” ?
she believes in less government, less spending, low taxes, strict constructionist judges, hates corruption and a strong national defense
If you can’t get behind a candidate who believes in those things because she has faith … then what the hell kind of candidate are you waiting for?
joey24007 on November 14, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Classical Liberalism is also known as Libertarian (by modern definition).
Modern Liberalism as defined falls into Socialism/Marxism/etc.
I left the Republican party years ago and joined the Libertaian Party. What you cited above is Libertarian philosophy in a nut-shell.
AZ_Redneck on November 14, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Agreed. I would also say that if Bush had governed as an across-the-board conservative, the GOP would have won.
flyfisher on November 14, 2008 at 1:05 PM
and once again … blue collar democrats like Reagan because he believed in moving the economy forward and that “many of the problems in America can be solved at the dinner table”
Not every democrat is a dailykos loser liberal
Many democrats do not like abortion or gay marriage, many democrats think that taxes should be low and that government should only help those who can not help themselves
A Conservative Republican will appeal to these people more than a RINO … because when offered the choice between two people with the same views but one has a R and one has D … they are going to vote with the party every time
joey24007 on November 14, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Part of the problem with RINOs is they tend to be too spineless to stand for anything real or challenging. That’s the problem with RINOs they’re perceived (correctly) by voters as pretenders merely acting that way in vain (pun intended) hopes of getting more votes instead of being guided by core beliefs and principles. They look at Obambi and the voters see a Marxist, a real Marxist. They know what he is. They look at McCain and they see a guy who wants us all to be friends.
viking01 on November 14, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Focus is fine, if you focus on the right things. I’m not sure I know what you mean, specifically, when you say “We must focus on freedom, and principles that most closely align with freedom.”
Instead, why not take a look back at the list of issues Ed referenced in his post:
Which issues should the GOP focus on? My advice is to spend more time on the ones people care more about (at the top of the list) if you want to help the GOP turn this losing streak around.
Here’s a little exercise for commenters who care about this kind of stuff: make a list of the issues and rank them in terms of your personal priorities. These need to be somewhat specific (”freedom” doesn’t count, “taxes” does), and if any one is a deal-breaker for your support of a candidate or platform, it has to go at the top. Now, compare it to the lists of priorities voters have given to pollsters. How similar are they?
Here are some other polls if you want to see them.
I think a lot of you will be surprised about how different your priority lists are from the average American’s. This is why I keep going on about re-prioritization as a path back to power.
Big S on November 14, 2008 at 1:07 PM
People keep calling McCain a RINO. Why was he a RINO? He is a social conservative. Although he didn’t have solid fiscal policy, he didn’t seem like a tax and spender at all. He was a hawk on national security. So tell me again why is a big ol’ RINO?
terryannonline on November 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM
on gays and “making things up”: you can actually see a clip of a county party chaprman telling a former republican state senator exactly that at 4:25 into this clip.
as far as “laws being enforced” go, that’s nonsense. border enforcement derangement has a lot of different moptivations behind it: some are simple racists, some are more covert racists worried about being bred out of the country, some believe that there’s a global conspiracy to collapse the u.s. mexico and canada into a single superstate under a single currency and fit it’s citizens with subcutaneous tracking chips. there are lefties too. unionists, environmental wackos. now that the polarity of the issue has been established, some are just dumbly rooting for their “team”. none of them care about “enforcing the law”. that’s some crappy pr-speak they came up with.
eh on November 14, 2008 at 1:16 PM
.
You mean like the Alliance Defense Fund?
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx
AnotherOpinion on November 14, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Ayn Rand.
Skywise on November 14, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Um … he proposed only a little less spending than Obama did … and in case you haven’t noticed the American electorate was frustrated with Republicans who went against their basic ideology to reign in spending
Taxes would have went up under McCain as well because he easily runs across the aisle and he would have been facing a democrat controlled Congress
I agree with you on national security though , he is right on the money there
and he was not able to break away from the Bush model of “compassionate conservatism” … which included buying mortgages and voting for the pork known as “the bailout”
joey24007 on November 14, 2008 at 1:17 PM
viking01, also that could be said of the party. If we sacrifice our values to draw in more votes, we will lose more votes than we’ll gain due to being wishy-washy and ineffective. How can anything be accomplished with a platform that is so broad as to include obvious contradictions? How can a party include people who think abortion is murder, as well as people who believe it is a right? How can a party survive if some in the party don’t trust big government, and others that believe in it? How can we be effective at transforming the wrongs in our country with a disjointed mission
aelhues on November 14, 2008 at 1:17 PM
An open borders guy, comprehensive immigration reform
A global warming guy
A guy who called some religous leaders agents of intolerance
was against Bushes tax cuts in the beginning
Mccain Feinglod
kangjie on November 14, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Go. Away.
Seriously, the reason why the Social Conservatives have “dominated” the comments sections here is because WE out number YOU. As, I’ve written about since the Election ended it wasn’t Social Conservatism that lost it was “Compassionate” Conservatism which is just a sneaky way of saying Centrist or Moderate. Either you subscribe to the 3 core principals of Conservatism or you don’t. We have no room for the cocktail conservatives who just play pretend politics over a glass of wine but don’t practice the values on a daily basis.
And if you had paid attention to the Election you would have seen that Conservatism, in general, wasn’t even on the ticket until Palin was brought on board. Moderates ran the campaign and moderates lost.
You need to realize that -your- section cost you the election.
Aurvant on November 14, 2008 at 1:18 PM
ah, terryann, it was for whom he chose not to abuse.
eh on November 14, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Limited enumerated powers under the Constitution. I think at the end of the day, small government so-called “fiscal” conservatism invariably leads to social conservatism because the rationale for both is the same, namely a government limited by enumerated powers. My earlier examples about cutting head start, school lunch programs, etc. from the 1990s can be brought into the 21st Century.
Is it the proper role of government to bailout delinquent mortgage holders? Fiscal conservatism says we can’t afford it. Social conservatism says we shouldn’t do it. Conservatism consolidates both positions saying that it is not in the power of the federal government to do it.
Splitting conservatives into different warring camps is the stuff of folks who want big government because conservatives all agree that government is properly limited by the powers enumerated to it by the Constitution.
To this end, you don’t have to like or even hang out with us goody goody social conservatives, but recognize the ties that bind us, a government of limited enumerated powers.
Angry Dumbo on November 14, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Whether McCain is a RINO or not it seems to be how he is perceived by Democrats and Independents.
His close association with Lindsey Graham and his Gang of Fourteen do not help with that perception. Though his anecdotes, war stories, and reflections on life are appreciated those have created the appearance of someone reflecting on the old days before he retired not someone ready to grab the bull by the horns.
viking01 on November 14, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Did you vote?
For who?
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 1:20 PM
correct
joey24007 on November 14, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Nice summation. If you have the focus and the ability to articulate that focus(despite the MSM distorting it) ala Reagan, you will bring in the moderates. The problem is the current leadership does so many things(bailout, NCLB, other federal government intrusions) against their stated beliefs(when they were running for election) nobody believes them anymore and the Republican party becomes whatever the press tells people they are(in peoples minds).
We had 4 (or 6?) years of total Republican control, yet did the federal government shrink? Were the rights of the states returned to them after slowly been eroded? Sure Bush cut taxes, but was there a reduction in spending?
If we went back to the federalism of the constitution, I wouldn’t be all that bothered by Obama being president, because his power would be limited to what the constitution allowed him to control. Now, because of the HUGE federal government(and the accompanying power over things in my life) I’m frightened for my liberty under a marxist.
And I blame Bush and the other RINOs in the leadership for not doing what we elected them to do.
Corsair on November 14, 2008 at 1:21 PM
A social conservative is more often than not a fiscal conservative
Most social conservatives are hardworking family first people who can’t stand it when they see their tax dollars going to some failed welfare, housing programs or the most recent “bailout”
so therefore they will get behind the candidate who is in favor of eliminating these government failures
joey24007 on November 14, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Speaking as another NJ resident who lived thru the Whitman “borrow & spend” years – we really don’t want her thinking to determine the future of the Republican Party.
katiejane on November 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Well, I like social cons, and certain raise my kids to be wise and prudent, but I just worry sometimes that the perception that is out there (thanks to a hopelessly-biased media blanket that includes TV, TV news, newspapers, magazines, movies, pop music and the like) tends to paint or slant the views of social cons as kooky, outdated, obtuse or even intolerant.
That may not be the fault of the rnak-and-file social cons, but the high profile ones that the media focuses on (Dobson, Falwell, take your pick who else) come off that way to people who might otherwise be sympathetic to parts of the full conservative platform.
Again, the perception is the reality, and the perception is that the GOP is controlled by religious whackos who care more about what gays are doing in their own homes and about things that affect a small segment of the population (abortion, intelligent design being snuck into science classrooms, etc) than they are about helping out people with things like jobs, health care, etc.
I’m not saying these perceptions are right, fair or even fact-based (because in many cases, they’re not). I’m just saying that this is the perception. And that needs to change. It doesn’t mean the values need to change – it means that the communication of those values needs to change.
Or something.
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Ah, so I guess Ronald Reagan was a RINO also.
Yes, he believed global warming but his energy policy was so much more flexible than Obama’s.
I need to read the whole quote and in context. Perhaps he was talking about particular popular religious figures that say controversial stuff instead of all religious figures. I thought he did very well in the Rick Warren forum.
Yeah and then he changed his mind about them.
Yeah, McCain-Feingold is not good.
terryannonline on November 14, 2008 at 1:26 PM
I think it would be easier to “sell” under the label Classical Liberalism. Plus it turns the totalitarian’s game of hijacking the language back against them. We move agressively into their space, and make them own the far left niche they have carved out for themselves.
RushBaby on November 14, 2008 at 1:26 PM
When the Republican party campaigns on shrinking the government, giving more power to the states, cutting taxes, beefing up the military and that the real economic power of the United States lies in the people … this is what brings in the moderates and the independents
you can’t just go after the moderates and the independents and leave behind the “base” and hope they come along on election day
moderates and independents will vote for you but they won’t volunteer and donate money to your campaign
joey24007 on November 14, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Ed,
I really think that we could get an idea of the problem IF we put together a very detailed survey that can then be compiled to determine where HotAir bloggers really stand on issues and their degree from a left to right axis.
One reason I can persuade some lefties to overturn Roe vs. Wade is because it would then go to the states and most states would liberalize more the abortion laws and it would repare the damage to the Constituition and keep it healthy. Other states like my Alabama would restict it more. Many are very open to this. It may also explain why it really is not that big an issue.
I used to play an election computer game and one of the first things you did was answer a whole mess of questions to determine what your views were on a wide range of issues. It was really cool. I was conservative on social issues but not totally all the way right. I was conservative on economic issues but not quite as much on social issues.
My point it that it would be a dynamite tool to roll out here at HA and use us as guinea pigs and see where we stand and where the overlap is.
I’m pro-life, but not so extreme to imagine we could ever pass a constitutional amendment to ban it. Ain’t gonna happen. But I believe Roe vs. Wade should be overturned on Constituional grounds thereby moving the fight to the states where it belongs.
Can we get volunteers for such an extensive survey: Construction, distribution, completion, compilation, presentation of results?
This would go a long way to bringing us all back together to fight leviathan.
Sapwolf on November 14, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Bingo.
They try to hijack and pervert the definition of tax cuts?
We return the traditional definition of classical liberalism to what it actually is – and by contrast, what they’re not.
I like it!
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Quit being dishonest about this, Teresa. It has been explained over and over to you that Ronald Reagan agreed to amnesty as part of an agreement with the democrats for border security. The dems reneged.
RushBaby on November 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM
WOW, so all of these people need to shut the hell up?
George W. Bush, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Senator DeMint, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, William Bennett, Sen. Bill Frist, Sen. Thad Cochran, Sen. Sessions, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rep. Mike Pence, Sen. Tom Coburn, Gov. Jindal, Judge Bork, Sen. Hatch, Gov. Sanford, Sen. Thune, Sen. Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rep. Cantor, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and I could go on all day long. All of these people are pro-life, yet you would shut them up. Interesting.
flyfisher on November 14, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Big S, I think that is a good challenge, one that I will try to do. To clarify, I wasn’t trying to define what a good platform would be, only that it needs to avoid chasing votes by sacrificing a cohesive vision.
__
__
As for “Eh”, that was a ridiculous and assumptive spiel. Just because you believe I’m racist, doesn’t make me so. Adequate and effective immigration controls are necessary for a safe and economically viable nation.
aelhues on November 14, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Not always the case.
If you have cancer in your leg it may be difficult in the short term having it amputated BUT in the long term you will LIVE and have a full recovery. If you don’t cut cancer out you will end up terminal with it rampant throughout the entire body.
We let that cancer that rot in so we could have more apples. The problem is that now instead of having a standard truck of cherry apples loved by all we have a semi-trailer of rotten apple mush that is so raunchy no one even wants the good cherry apples because of the slime all over them from the rotten they were huddled together with.
Socialist, Quasi-Socialist, big government, democrat light, corrupt poliTic’s, etc… in the Republican party is what lost US 2006, lost US 2008, ruined the Republican name to the point were WE are now considered the Big Government, corrupt, financially irresponsible spenders that cannot be trusted. If you cannot figure out what is wrong and what caused our loses in 2006-2008 we are doomed to repeat the errors.
Cut the cancer out. Lets target the middle class, the backbone of America.
-Freedom not slavery= freedom to succeed or fail.
-Small Government= lets not just talk small government lets talk about which wasteful programs we are going to cut back or eliminate while on the stump. Lets show the people what Good Change Could look like under Republican super majorities. Lets push for institutionalizing pork busters or some such 3rd party as a continuous yearly auditor looking for government waste to cut.
-Deregulation= lets untie the hands of US industry, small business, and support not punish new start ups.
-Basic Morals= Call it what you will most people would support basic American morals, patriotism, family, self respect, freedom of religion, work ethic, independence, self sufficiency, living for more than the moment or a fleeting physical pleasure.
-Education= lets hammer those vouchers.
-Health care= flip it we don’t want to provide you your health care we want to let you keep enough of your hard earned money, (see option two Small Government on how) so that you can buy your own or maybe if you rather (see option one Freedom) buy something else.
C-Low on November 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM
yup … he also approved of punishing people who hired illegals
BTW … LEGAL immigration was at its highest point under Reagan since T. Roosevelt
joey24007 on November 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM
I support this idea. Survey results have a way of surprising people with their own results, and providing bright, sunlit perspective.
RushBaby on November 14, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I think you miss the bigger point about rhinos.
It is there desire to agree and be liked that is the problem. The accept the terms of the arguememnt that the left has laid out for them. We can only talk about this and not talk about that. Social acceptance in not liking the right. Ohh those guys are mean etc
Nothing gives more pleasure to a Rhino than being bipartisan. Bipartisan means accepting the Liberal dogma and appeaseing them and never the other way around.
Compasionate conservatism and the so called bail out program is a case in point. There are many many more
kangjie on November 14, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Sorry, this got long. I trimmed it; but it’s still long. Read it or don’t.
Again, look at our inconsistencies to see our biases. How many people do you know who have been married 3, 4, maybe more times; who screw around when they are married; who live together and make babies without benefit of marriage; who mock marriage in every conceivable way. But when they say — without having ever so much as admitted any wrongdoing in their past — “I’m going to get married” (or “… married – AGAIN!”), there’s no cry for the government to stop them because of the dishonor they bring on the institution of marriage.
Look, as far as I’m concerned marriage is to be a man and a woman, committed for life, the only desirable*** context in which to conceive and raise children. That’s based upon my religious and cultural beliefs. To restrict other people on the basis of my religious beliefs is wrong (or are you ready to sign onto my religious beliefs — all of them — without knowing EXACTLY what they are?). And whether we like it or not, our culture is changing.
That change is a real problem for Social Conservatism as it has been. We’ve been ineffective at halting the slide away from traditional morals. To some degree, the explanation (we could argue whether “fault” would be a fair word) lies with those who would like to see the culture retain its morality without the religious underpinning. The fact is that people don’t like being told what to do. To the extent that they believes in God, and seek his approval, they will usually also pursue morality; but for most people, take the cat away and the mice will play. If you can’t give them a better reason than “we liked it the old way”, they will rebel. That is what has happened, and that is the reality we must now deal with.
A part of that reality is that with “everyone [doing] what is right in his own eyes”, they have bolted to the party that absolves them, and even congratulates them on their actions. The really dangerous thing about that party is that they would just as soon silence the opposition. Moreover, they have plenty of templates to follow in the “hate speech” laws of Europe and Canada. I fear, more than any other single outcome of a permanently neutered Republican party, the enactment of these laws. When we lose our freedom of speech, we lose all hope of moving the tide in the other direction.
The only way to prevent that is to bring some of THEM to OUR side (I reject out-of-hand Nugent’s idea of booting RINOs — full-bore Conservatives are ~35% of the country, and MUST form some sort of coalition with some sort of “others” to reach 50%). The RINOs say we should drop all Social Conservatism, including pro-life issues. For most of us, that’s non-negotiable. We could adopt a platform of economic socialism; but we’d only be second best at that anyway, and we’d be stuck forever with economic socialism.
That’s what caused me to back off and figure what it is that we REALLY care about. The answer: Liberty. That’s the one thing we as Americans almost ALL still hold dear. Yes, some have been lured away by promises of economic or health-care goody-bags; but at the end of the day, I believe most of us want liberty. I propose this rallying cry for us going forward: “Small Government, Big Liberty”.
So I ask: do we really believe in liberty?
__________________________
*** This is not meant to knock people who are doing the best they can, but to decry those who abandon marriage for selfish reasons and, more broadly, dishonor the institution of marriage. I know some single Moms whom I regard with absolute awe.
RegularJoe on November 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM
compassionate conservativism was a codeword for christian conservatism. it was a specific reference to “acting like christians” with regard to social needs, not “moderation” or “centrism”.
mccain had brought the race neck-and-neck – even leading in some places – when palin’s inability to display depth of intellect minimal to the requirements of the office for which she was selected shit the bed.
your head is crammed up your ass and into your esophogus if you think you’ve spent the last years under the thumbs of “rinos”. how sick and stupid do you have to be to say, “you know that guy santorum who was booted out of office in 2006? we’d have won in 2008 if we had a candidate more like him. people just haven’t gotten enough terry schiavo hype.”
you really are friggin fool. the so-called “real” conservatives are even the ones who picked mccain – by negation. as late as the day after the contest was declared for mccain, the “real” conservatives on this site were still calling out names of possible candidates who would best match the blueprint of a “real” conservative printed on the indides of the their asses. that’s how you got mccain. there was not “they” in the party who foisted mccain on you. mccain was the guy left to run his campaign while the others were molested and examined and fought over in accordance with which was the “realest” conservative of all. for so long it was thompson. LOL! then was it romney? giuliani? not giuliani for the huckabee stooges. not huckabee for the romney guys. not romney for the huckabee guys. while the “real” conservatives were slapping each other around, mccain strode into a primary victory.
rocamom completes that story.
and not a one of those “real” conservatives could offer an intelligent definition of conservatism. pathetic.
eh on November 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM
“Growth through dismemberment”.
Christie Todd Whitman brings to mind the knight who has just had his arms and legs hacked off by King Arthur in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, claiming that “it’s only a flesh wound”.
We need all three pillars of the Reagan coalition to win elections: fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and national-security conservatives.
But to gain a majority, we need two things that have been lacking lately: competence and communication.
Those that are still in government (Governors, minority members of the House and Senate) need to SHOW that they can get results. Gov. Sarah Palin is one good example, but so are Govs. Haley Barbour and Bobby Jindal, Sen. Jim DeMint, and we need some new blood in the House.
Both incumbents and challenger candidates need to EXPLAIN concisely why their way works and the Democrats’ way doesn’t. One of the major problems we’ve had lately is that the press spins events for the Democrats, and President Bush hasn’t given good rebuttals in his second term, so the sheeple believe the press.
Obama now has the bully pulpit, the press in his camp, and a friendly Congress, but he has no past achievements and no scapegoats. When he or the Democrats make a mistake, it’s THEIR problem now, and our candidates and Congressmen need to get in their faces and EXPLAIN to the American people WHY our way is better. Sounds like a job for Newt Gingrich!
Steve Z on November 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I agree and Corsair already has stated much of what I would have posted also using Reagan as the example. People knew what Reagan stood for. There wasn’t much room for misinterpreting his goals and beliefs. The Leftist press tried and he’d flash them that winning smile and a quick comeback that gave DNC hacks like Sam Donaldson ulcers.
The GOP needs to realize that less government and less intrusive government is the core of our party. Less bureaucracy. Less red tape. Lower taxes. Controlled and reduced spending. The focus on the specific items given Constitutional authority: strong defense, domestic tranquility. People knew what to expect with Reagan.
By contrast GW Bush became unclear on amnesty, even sniping at his base when challenged. The major weakness of GW Bush’s administration is the failure to clean up the Department of Justice and appoint worthwhile Attorneys General which a.) the public could remember their names, b.) have them deliver on expectations of their jobs and c.) made Congress (e.g. William Jefferson) feel that they wouldn’t be able to wait around until the next admin. to get a pardon or free pass. The big problem we are seeing now with the gutless Department of Justice are ACORN and the in-your-face attempts to steal the senate race in MN.
Paging Attorney General Mukasey: Someone on line three asking about recounts in Minnesota. Someone wake Mukasey up and tell him to answer the phone.
viking01 on November 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I encourage a Ted Nugent rebuttal.
Captain America on November 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I think people here tossing around the acronymn RINO need to define it once and for all.
Republican in Name Only does not speak for itself, because many using the phrase here seem not to be able to define what a “Republican” is, although some are trying without success.
Conservative =/= Republican.
Conservative = conservative.
Republican who disagrees with on certain issues =/= cancer
Republican, then, = ?
Go!
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Screw the uniting thing. I can’t go that direction anymore. It’s got my ideology no where except given a lot of lip service without any action.
I’m sorry Ed but more socially and fiscally liberal leaning people tend to go into politics and journalism or writing in general. Liberals are more likely to be activists stumping for and screaming about their point of view and will have those talking heads giving them an outlet for it. Which means that even if I reconcile and say, ‘Hey let bygones be bygones. I’ll take a 50/50 split,’ expressed that way in print or on the airwaves. Non-partisans will only hear one voice representing my Party and it won’t be the one that represents me.
Let’s put conservativism in practice then you can complain about how it doesn’t really work. If you’ve never tried something yet, how can you say it doesn’t work? But these fools do it all the time. I’m tired of Liberal Republicans getting to define what it means to be in the GOP and describing an erroneous definition of what the conservative ideology is all about. What I end up with is Democrat or Democrat light and I want CONSERVATIVISM IN IT’S PUREST SENSE.
Sultry Beauty on November 14, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Feh. As someone who’s lived his life trying to cling to his money here in Jersey, I can tell you that Whitman is the epitome of a RINO. She’s about as conservative as Olympia Snowe, which is to say, Whitman is the kind of Republican that liberals like: a liberal.
She won’t take credit for it, but Whitman helped Jersey attain its status as a tax-and-spend haven. She handed out tax cuts which she ‘paid for’ by issuing bonds which ain’t begun to be paid for yet as well as stiffing the public pension funds. She’s as big a part of our upcoming $5 billion deficit as Democrats McGreevey and Florio.
Paul_in_NJ on November 14, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Which is great. Immigrants tend to enrich our culture, so long as they are not given victim status by the government.
RushBaby on November 14, 2008 at 1:42 PM
You are now officially a scroll-by.
RushBaby on November 14, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Dear “eh”:
You are a RINO. You are a Democrat lite in GOP clothing. You have no respect for Reagan’s Three principles, and indeed, I seriously question if you aren’t just a DU troll trying to stir up trouble. Your ideas (such as they are) are not welcome in the GOP. They do not match what we believe. You are welcome to read, but please refrain from commenting until you get your head on straight.
—————————————
Good Lt.: I think we do largely agree, but we do have some substantive differences in the Social arena. I would take significant disagreement with you on the stance of Slavery, as it has been well documented that Abolitionism in the United States began amongst the Moralists of the early to mid 19th century. The Moralists were almost all Protestant Christians.
The Humanists actually defended Slavery as an institution of Natural Law until well into the 19th century, and didn’t start to come around until around the middle of that century. Feel free to research this, but it is well founded fact. It does bother me when Humanists attempt to rewrite history in an attempt to minimize the important of Moralism and Christianity in America. It’s the same thing that Socialists and Liberals do, and it’s the reason why Atheists and Agnostics find so little support in the ranks of the GOP.
I’m not asking you to become a Christian (although personally, I think it would be wise.) All I am asking is that you respect the Reagan principles. Ayn Rand was a good writer, but ultimately, a writer. Not a leader. Reagan was a leader. he put his beliefs into action and they worked magnificently. Follow Reagan, not Rand.
wearyman on November 14, 2008 at 1:48 PM
It wasn’t Palin which brought down the McCain campaign. McCain/Palin were leading in the polls until the banking crisis hit, and Obama blamed Bush and “deregulation”. McCain never really clearly explained that it was Democrats (including Obama) who FORCED Fannie and Freddie to make bad loans, who were the CAUSE of the banking crisis, and that McCain and other Republicans had seen this coming, tried to fix it, but were filibustered in the Senate.
Obama is a lying, incompetent fraud, but he is a good liar. As Lenin said, if a lie is told often enough, people will believe it, and Obama followed Lenin’s advice, and McCain was too busy trying to negotiate the bailout to offer a good rebuttal. What WE need now is someone who will “speak truth to power”–clearly, concisely, and simply, so that the sheeple will understand. But we can’t afford to “be nice”, but need to “get in their faces”, as Obama did.
Steve Z on November 14, 2008 at 1:49 PM
No, it’s called suspending your campaign and running around like a chicken with your head cut off to sign a 700 billion bailout bill into law that was already going to be signed into law by the Democrats while the fiscal conservatives were screaming NO.
Blaming Palin is a nice, vacuous, CYA gesture.
Remind me again, who’s going to meet with the messiah to plan the future of government?
Skywise on November 14, 2008 at 1:51 PM
good post
flyfisher on November 14, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Anyone can hold a wedding. There is no law preventing you from marrying anyone–or anything. Pay for the party, get someone to officiate, and bam, there you are.
Getting special recognition of that is another matter entirely, and that is where governments are justified in placing limits or promoting ideals.
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 1:51 PM
and this was another point in which McCain wimped out on attacking Obama
he ran those ads attacking Franklin Raines etc. etc. and once Obama made went after Rick Davis …. McCain stopped that line of attack
McCain cares more about Rick Davis and Mark Salter than he does about winning the election
joey24007 on November 14, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I’m sure glad (sarcasm at it’s highest level) that we have people like Huckabee writing books:
“[Heterosexual] marriage matters . . . nothing in our society matters more,” writes the ex-Arkansas governor, whom some see as the GOP front-runner to take on Barack Obama in 2012. “Our true strength doesn’t come from our military or our gross national product; it comes from our families. What’s the point of keeping the terrorists at bay in the Middle East if we can’t keep decline and decadence at bay here at home?”
Pam on November 14, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I’d love to see a permanent survey. Something that people can take to better understand their own positions, as well as help the community here come together on some core issues.
__
__
RegularJoe, Absolutely! Liberty should be the underlying driving force. We can’t have the promised amount of liberty under the current bloated federal government. A government that can take our money and redistribute it however Paulson wants to. A government that uses my money to support programs that are not only unconstitutional, but morally bankrupt. A government that increasingly believes that can run our lives better than we can.
__
__
Eh, I’m glad to see that you can be offensive. It fits with my profile of someone that can so easily judge the motivations of others, and can assume that since the Democrats deemed Palin an idiot, it must therefore be true.
aelhues on November 14, 2008 at 1:57 PM
nice post … I live in NJ as well
joey24007 on November 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM
And, as I’ve said elsewhere, the key to that is to get government OUT of the marriage-recognizing business (small government is good). Holy Matrimony is a religious institution. The government doesn’t register Baptisms or Bar Mitzvahs; why register marriages? If we’re going to do anything, allow pairs of people — married couples, shacking up couples, mother-and-son, spinster-sisters, college roommates, whatever — to register as a “household”, with the government not even asking, let alone sanctioning, any particular relationship.
RegularJoe on November 14, 2008 at 2:00 PM
that’s a load of horseshit.
i, for one, am downright mccarthyist in my dealings with the left. you can see how i am with righties i disagree with. mccain is similarly known by his critics for being angrily disagreeable. the line against him was that he had somehow “stabbed conservatives in the back” for not falling in lockstep with know-nothing “real” conservatives.
so that’s a bit of indirection to even claim that a conciliatory attitude is what defines a “rino”.
no, “rino” is an orthodoxy-enforcement tool, and it works like this: there are fifty questions. each are worth two points, except for three: the question about abortion, the question about gay marriage and the question about border enforcement* are each worth 20 points. so you see, even though none of these three issues appear in the conservative mind or up from liberalism or the closing of the american mind, nor really have any intrinsic bearing on conservatism, properly understood, falling out of orthodxy on any one of these is almost sure to score you as a “rino”.
it’s that anti-intellectual.
*this one used to be about affirmative action
eh on November 14, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I’m a reformed Catholic (aka Lutheran). But I have many many questions :-)
Fweh. Rand was also a phiosopher.
I’ll take a little of column Reagan and little of column Rand. Rand didn’t like Reagan even though Reagan espoused many of Rand’s ideas about freedom, capitalism and individual rights. So on the whole, you get the best of both worlds there.
I’m not a humanist. :-)
Good Lt on November 14, 2008 at 2:04 PM
The point is the government does have business sanctioning certain arrangements. This is neither unconstitutional, nor is it unfair.
Count to 10 on November 14, 2008 at 2:05 PM
FREEDOM!!!!!!!
Sapwolf on November 14, 2008 at 2:06 PM
reality control. and to think all this time i was writing just for you.
eh on November 14, 2008 at 2:09 PM
No offense, but are you frickin daft? What don’t you get about the difference between including someone in the party and having someone lead the party?
There are parts of the country where social cons can never get elected. Never. There are parts of the country where only a squishy big government RINO can get elected over and over again. I’d rather have them than the alternative.
The problem isn’t having people like this in the party. The problem is having people like this LEAD the party.
BadgerHawk on November 14, 2008 at 2:12 PM
I’d quibble with you a bit on that. I think that for many people, “education” embodies a lot of social conservative issues (prayer in schools, intelligent design, parental rights).
Y-not on November 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Yes, a good argument can be made for government sanctioning behavior that will make society stronger. When we were able to do that, I’ll be the first to admit I was all for it. But I fear that ship has sailed. The government will not fight this fight for us, and candidates who promise to do so — especially at the Presidential level — will not win. That’s why I said we have to figure out what is MOST important (I believe it is liberty) and how to get it. We will HAVE to form a coalition with someone, and I believe the best coalition to form is one based upon a pursuit of freedom. A lot of people will do things I think are sinful (but they’re doing them now, so that really doesn’t change things). But if we can get them to sign on to a banner of liberty, we will at least be able to voice our beliefs, and attempt to win individuals by persuasion. After all, government can control, to some extent; but it can never persuade.
RegularJoe on November 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM
YEEOWCH! you can only imagine how seriously i take that. and how seriously i must take you for calling me a “rino” so sternly and authoritatively; like a young boy informing his daddy that he’s in trouble.
you know what really get’s at the center of me? when i’m scolded to remember reagan’s three principals by a member of the “kill all RINOS” claque.
LOLLERSKATES!!! so, where do i mail back the “license to call myself a conservative and post at hotair.com” badge i cut out of the cereal box? or should i destroy it myself? okay, here goes…..
eh on November 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »