Spending huge gobs of other people’s money is addictive. It will be very hard to get Republicans to go cold turkey. If they don’t, they consign themselves to a long term in the wilderness. These two appointments by themselves would be a good show, but only that. If there is no follow through, it means nothing.

Buford Gooch on November 24, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Not only that. The GOP faces the real possibility of a new Conservative Party if they don’t get their act together.

I can actually imagine a new party with Ron Paul, Palin, Jindal, and others in it.

I’ll believe it when I see it. On second thought, I’ll see it when I believe it.

FalseProfit on November 24, 2008 at 6:59 PM

What, have you joined the MSM and academia?

Actually, I would be more apt to follow Reagan’s 1977: “The New Republican Party” versus your philosophy. Never once did he suggest kicking anyone out, but in fact, made room for more people…

Pam on November 24, 2008 at 4:58 PM

If Reagan would be opposed to purging liberals from the Republican Party, that would mean he wanted two liberal parties in the US. That would make him an idiot but I don’t think that’s the case.

If Pelosi, Frank, Kennedy, Kerry, Obama and the most leftist members of the Democrat Party decided to change parties tomorrow and become Republicans so that they could always run against other liberals in elections therefore ensuring that no conservatives would ever hold that seat, should we accept them with open arms?

That the Republican Party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, or any state legislation by which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded by emigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.

Note that this doesn’t necessarily talk about illegal aliens or amnesty, but the intent is clear — that true Republicans are pro-immigrant. Google Abraham Lincoln “Know Nothings” for more.

Another First Principle:

That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the federal metropolis, show that an entire change of Administration is imperatively demanded.

The Administration in power at that point was the Democratic Buchanan Administration. Sadly, it will be a Republican Administration, this time around, with the traditional full aid of the Democrats.

The two questions that nobody is asking in surveys is how many Obama supporters favor a one-party system and how many would favor Obama being President for life by repealing the 22nd Amendment? I think the answers would shock complacent Republicans but I also unfortunately think the GOP is still stuck in the ‘two term stability’ of the latter half of the 20c and won’t wake up until it is too late.
technopeasant on November 24, 2008 at 5:47 PM

This is a straw man argument. Since no survey like that has taken place you cannot draw a conclusion from it.

technopeasant on November 24, 2008 at 5:48 PM

OK I stand corrected, but still no reason to panic.

technopeasant on November 24, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Obama won because people voted against the establishment in power as much as they voted for Obama. If he had won by 20% I would agree with you but since he only won by 4% there is no real reason to panic. With a better candidate on our side and better organization the election could have gone the other way.

dpierson on November 24, 2008 at 5:10 PM
According to that logic the Republican party should water down its ideology until includes enough people to get a majority.

Where do you come up with that? Never once did he say anything about that..I wasn’t aware that there was a limited number of seats in the party…

emerson7 on November 24, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Once again I don’t really follow the logic.

According to you it would be OK for the “base” to water down the party platform until enough people are encompassed to ensure a win.

So let’s take the Right to Live issue: Should the Republican party abandon that stance if it were likely that enough people would then vote Republican to ensure electoral wins for the next elections?

Thank you for phrasing it this way. My great fear is that the base will circle their wagons and tell everyone else to screw off, assuring loses for-freaking-ever. I vote center-right but am not the base, and I don’t care if the base wants to push their agenda, but we have to win for anything to happen on our side.

We also have to agree, without paranoia and bitterness, that the MSM is biased beyond repair, and act accordingly by demanding fairness and putting out clear, simple messages in every way possible. There’s too much political-speak and not enough clear, persuasive points and positions.

Pam on November 24, 2008 at 4:58 PM

According to that logic the Republican party should water down its ideology until includes enough people to get a majority. If it does that what does the party actually end up standing for?
I understand the big tent philosophy but at some point you have to principled in what you stand for and if enough people (i.e., a majority) agree with your principles you win an election otherwise you don’t.

What does the GOP need? In order:

Principles

Policies

Message

Go back to 1986, use those principles and get rid of all the RINO’s that don’t like them.

dpierson on November 24, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Actually, I would be more apt to follow Reagan’s 1977: “The New Republican Party” versus your philosophy. Never once did he suggest kicking anyone out, but in fact, made room for more people…

And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives: I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk.

Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.

Much like the drunk who has wanted your help and your money but burned you, and then comes back again, of course you ask for proof they have changed. And with the drunk, and the GOP party, their response of “Oh just believe me, I have changed and learned” will mean nothing without proof.

GOP is going to have to outline concrete ways they will do things differently, before they get any money from me.