Quote of the day

posted at 10:15 pm on February 28, 2009 by Allahpundit

“The Goldwater myth shuts down all attempts to reform and renew our conservative message for modern times. And it offers a handy justification for nominating a 2012 presidential candidate who might otherwise seem disastrously unelectable. Altogether, the myth invites dangerous and self-destructive behavior by a party that cannot afford either.

What happened in 1964 was an unredeemed and unmitigated catastrophe for Republicans and conservatives. The success that followed 16 years later was a matter of happenstance, not of strategy. That’s the real lesson of 1964, and it is the lesson that conservatives need most to take to heart today…

True, the liberal triumph of 1964 set in motion the train of disasters that laid liberalism low in the 1980s. But those disasters followed from choices and decisions that liberals made – not from some multiyear conservative grand strategy for success in 1980. It was not Goldwater who made Reagan possible. It was Carter. Had Carter governed more successfully, the Goldwater disaster would have been just a disaster, with no silver lining. And there was nothing about the Goldwater disaster that made the Carter failure more necessary, more inevitable.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

David Frum not so much. He’s one of the big government/ fiscally irresponsible “Conservatives” in the Republican party. Also known as a neoconservative.

Cr4sh Dummy on March 1, 2009 at 12:27 AM

Embracing Neo-Conservatism has nothing to do with loving big government or allowing fiscal irresponsibility.
It’s mainly about the muscular use of American diplomacy and power in foreign policy built on the foundation of American exceptionalism.
David Frum is a Nothing Con.

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 12:50 AM

Good Day, Paul Harvey!

We’ll miss you sorely.

hillbillyjim on March 1, 2009 at 12:51 AM

CANNOT believe that on a day the GREAT Paul Harvey passes away, ALlahpundit choses to run a PATHETIC quote by irrelevant pondscum like David Frum…

Norwegian on March 1, 2009 at 12:53 AM

Mr. Goldwater was before my time but reading your threads makes me realize that I don’t know when I started listening to Ronald Reagan. All I can remember about that time was crying when he lost to Gerald Ford at the convention. Weird, that I wouldn’t remember the lead up to someone I was so emotional about.

Cindy Munford on March 1, 2009 at 12:54 AM

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 12:46 AM

But even the “religious right” of the time was smart enough to leave that to the people, and the States, not to the Federal Government…

And gave enough Power to the States, through the Senate, to put the brakes on Federal power…

Real changes in America started in the early 1900′s, with the Income tax, change in how we pick Senators, Universal Sufferage… and heck… they even managed prohibition for awhile….

We’re still feeling the results of those changes, which shifted us from a Republic made up of smaller states, to what everyone now calls a Democracy….

Romeo13 on March 1, 2009 at 12:54 AM

My patience for Vichy Dave approached zero quite a while ago.

doubleplusundead on March 1, 2009 at 12:55 AM

“It was not Goldwater who made Reagan possible. It was Carter. ”

Stupid Frum. It was Nixon who made Carter possible, by blowing his Presidency (520 electoral college votes in 1972!), having Agnew indicted at the same time and sticking a “moderate” dud like Jerry Ford (with his maligned VP, zillionaire RINO-supreme Nelson Rockefeller) into the White House under a cloud of backdoor cronyism.
By 1976 the Goldwater disaster was as relevant as a trilobite.

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Very true. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Reagan’s ambassador to the UN, is a famous neocon.

My person opinion is that Bush is a socio-religious conservative, which means that he advocates more government intervention than would many other conservatives & libertarians. This struggle is recounted in aforementioned ‘Elephant in the Room’ by Ryan Sager.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM

“It was not Goldwater who made Reagan possible. It was Carter. ”

Stupid Frum.

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM

The ingredients were synergistic and can not be parsed out with any certainty.

MB4 on March 1, 2009 at 1:00 AM

How long before Obama follows this route?

MB4 on March 1, 2009 at 12:55 AM

The foundation has been laid.

hillbillyjim on March 1, 2009 at 1:03 AM

Romeo13 on March 1, 2009 at 12:54 AM
My high school rhetoric teacher/debate coach always taught us that America would splinter because of the intertwining of Christianity and Lockean philosophy in our Constitution.

Yes, I agree; the problem is that an increasingly globalized world is now a political reality [albeit a distasteful one]. Americans are isolationist at heart, but even the Founders intervened when necessary [e.g., Tripoli].

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:06 AM

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM

Twas Big Government under Bush that led to the confusion, and attrition of Conservatism in America. Suddenly, we were essentially no different than liberals, except “we” were against abortion, and they were proponents of abortion under the cover of “choice,” and we were “pro-war” and they were not.

Add to that our refusal to summarily discipline any member of Congress, any member of government, who, as servants of the people, had an obligation to look out for the people instead of looking for what they could grab…”Duke” Cunningham, Denny Hastert, et al., and there we were…with nothing, nothing really, to separate us from the liberals. The rise of the RINO certainly didn’t help matters, something that Frum knows about firsthand, but ignores, and chooses instead to go after the alleged fallacy of the fundamentals of Conservatism, as this article (QOTD) reflects clearly.

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 1:08 AM

The ingredients were synergistic and can not be parsed out with any certainty.

MB4 on March 1, 2009 at 1:00 AM

Perhaps.
But Carter was woefully unqualified and unvetted (like our present clown President) and was pushed ahead by the MSM when it became obvious that, because of a certain manslaughter/murder victim and a history of public adultery and substance abuse, Camelot II wasn’t going to happen.

I remember how, in an early fawning story about Carter in the summer of ’76, either Time or Newsweek compared him to JFK (!!!), down to the rocking chair. The story mercifully only showed Carter in dark profile, sparing themselves a lot of embarrassment in the process.

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 1:09 AM

How long before Obama follows this route?

MB4 on March 1, 2009 at 12:55 AM

He already is in some ways. Won’t be long before he tries to send hawkdriver and his buddies over to the businesses that don’t play ball to persuade them.

conservnut on March 1, 2009 at 1:10 AM

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.
- John Adams

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
- Winston Churchill

I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
- Will Rogers

MB4 on March 1, 2009 at 1:10 AM

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM

When most people say “Neo Conservative,” what they’re really referring to are Jacksonian Democrats.
Read all about it here: The Jacksonian Tradition
Good call on Jeanne Kirkpatrick, BTW.

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 1:11 AM

Frum has one thing correct – “It dramatically expanded welfare eligibility and other anti-poverty programs that together transformed the urban poor of the 1950s into the urban underclass of the 1970s and 1980s”. And that is what the Dems are doing now. They are expanding all the social programs so that the people have to depend on the govt. That is why they don’t want private industry to pull us out of this recession. More dependence on their programs will buy them votes far into the future.
What I got out of Frum’s article was a suggestion to stop focusing so much on the Presidency and start focusing on Congressional elections.
Libertarians believe that govt should only exist to protect the citizens. That is in stark contrast to what is now going on.

mph on March 1, 2009 at 1:13 AM

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM

“Firesign Theatre” oh, now you’re on to something!

Hey, do you remember the fella that always got into a fight with Joe, then later got his own show?

What was the name of the little podium he had set up so members of his audience could come up and ask questions of him, or one of his guests? Did’nt he call it the “squak box” or something?

There was one night Joe had to physically take some dude down for trying to attack one of his guests. Joe was an old Marine, so he didn’t take any crap from anyone.

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 1:15 AM

Hey Allahpundit! Remember that whole thing about Hitchens writing something in his piece of crap book he signed for you about you “working yourself out of a job”?

Take his advice and get the hell out of here and stop pretending that you are 1) Conservative (you’re not) and 2) Part of the future of the GOP (no room for Christ-hating atheists and those who want to turn the GOP into Dem Party Lite).

TheMightyQuinn on March 1, 2009 at 1:15 AM

And that is what the Dems are doing now. They are expanding all the social programs so that the people have to depend on the govt. That is why they don’t want private industry to pull us out of this recession. More dependence on their programs will buy them votes far into the future.

mph on March 1, 2009 at 1:13 AM

We are dead. The insane asylum (Washington) has been taken over by the patients. When America was settled, folks came here for opportunity. Why did someone hop in a covered wagon and head west with no promises from anyone – except the promise that a self reliant person had an opportunity to better himself? No one was promised free healthcare. No one was promised Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps or a free education. Now our government is going to pay your mortgage! Well, only for the idiots that bought houses they could not afford. Those that played by the rules and were self reliant get shafted. We will pay for our neighbors’ mistakes.

During a prosperous time, when government receipts exceed its expenses, nothing is wrong with programs to help the disadvantaged. BUT today we have to borrow from China to pay for these additional programs and place the burden on our children to pay the bill. No parent would stand by and sign their child into economic slavery — BUT this is what we collectively allowed our government to do.

My friends the battle has been lost. The number of citizens in this country that believe the government is the tit upon which all people can suck upon from cradle to grave now exceed the number of citizens that want to be self reliant.

THIS WILL END BADLY

HalJordan on March 1, 2009 at 1:17 AM

When most people say “Neo Conservative,” what they’re really referring to are Jacksonian Democrats.
Read all about it here: The Jacksonian Tradition
Good call on Jeanne Kirkpatrick, BTW.

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 1:11 AM

Actually, when the Democrats say “neoconservative”, it’s a perjorative code word for a Pro-Israel Jewish conservative.
Yes, even though there are many non-Jewish neocons (like Jean Kirkpatrick), the purposeful misuse of that word by their opponents is not an innocuous one.

I personally would be a perfect example of what the Left dismisses as being a “neocon”. While I am certainly against a big government, tax hikes, globaloney and profligate spending on idiot social experiments, I am a Jewish conservative and that alone qualifies me for the “neocon” label.
Sticks and stones, as they say…

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 1:20 AM

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 1:08 AM
That’s a bit too simplistic…What about tax cuts & other tax reforms; the ownership society; advocacy for small businesses; attempted Social Security reform; tort reform; Roberts, Alito, & other judicial nominees; domestic drilling; speaking out against the Fairness Doctrine; phonics in schools; charter schools; Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs); 2nd Amendment advocacy; standing against Kyoto & other environmentalist wackos; advocating capital punishment; the list is endless.

I also thought being a RINO was popular when Rockefeller & his ilk were around, but I wasn’t there. Weren’t Nixon & Ford RINOs? I really don’t know…

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:20 AM

Hey Allahpundit! Remember that whole thing about Hitchens writing something in his piece of crap book he signed for you about you “working yourself out of a job”?

Take his advice and get the hell out of here and stop pretending that you are 1) Conservative (you’re not) and 2) Part of the future of the GOP (no room for Christ-hating atheists and those who want to turn the GOP into Dem Party Lite).

TheMightyQuinn on March 1, 2009 at 1:15 AM

Well, yes, he is a libertarian and not a conservative; and, yes, he is a Christ-hating atheist.

But, this is his party and we are his guests, so be nice. : )

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 1:21 AM

And they’re doing it with your money. And everyday the media helps them by telling us all that the economy is much worse than we thought.

mph on March 1, 2009 at 1:21 AM

get the hell out of here

TheMightyQuinn on March 1, 2009 at 1:15 AM

Take your own advice if you hate it here so much.

MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 1:21 AM

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 1:11 AM
TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 1:20 AM
I was just talking about it from a foreign-policy standpoint, disregarding the leftist’s derisive use of the term.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:25 AM

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:25 AM
Because I’m tired of hearing about Paul Wolfowitz, the World Bank, & the Jewish Lobby & all that noinsense…

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:26 AM

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:26 AM

Seriously, why can’t I spell today? Never had a problem before…

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:27 AM

Take his advice and get the hell out of here and stop pretending that you are 1) Conservative (you’re not) and 2) Part of the future of the GOP (no room for Christ-hating atheists and those who want to turn the GOP into Dem Party Lite).

TheMightyQuinn on March 1, 2009 at 1:15 AM

When did man lose his reason?
Save us my God if your there!

Allapundit an Obama accessory?

And I’m the one to set all this gossip quite to rest
Allahpundit is trying to keep this place from going into mental arrest
You say Allahpundit’s an Obama supporter without much of a disguise
Some say that he’s a reckless lawyer but still rather wise
Actually Allahpundit is George the Third
Indeed! And I’m the Queen of Spain!

PercyB on March 1, 2009 at 1:28 AM

MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 1:21 AM

The way he posted that had me visualizing someone who had too many adult beverages. It was a funny image. Probably uncalled for but you can’t stop your brain.

Cindy Munford on March 1, 2009 at 1:29 AM

It was Nixon who made Carter possible
TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM

Obama is the new Nixon.

Beto Ochoa on March 1, 2009 at 1:29 AM

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:20 AM
No response to the positives of Bush’s domestic policy listed above? Hmmm…

/and, yes, I know there are many negatives…

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:31 AM

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:20 AM

A bit too simplistic? Yeah, it is. I could eat up a huge amount of space trying to lay it all out…but the whole point is that from 1988 to the present the Conservative movement, and by extension, the GOP, has rested too long on the laurels of Ronald Reagan, and has ossified, and has become more fixated on being liked than on being right. (pun intended)

As to Frum, once again, he is trying to tweak a failed status…either we have fundamentals which have survived since our Founding, or we have no fundamentals at all. If one has a good grasp of those fundamentals, and can articulate them, heck, even that Johnathan Krohn kid can do it in less than two minutes, and build the Party at all levels around those basics, then and only then, can we offer an alternative to the tripe which is passing as “governance” at the White House and in Congress, and in state legislatures across America.

If we believe in those fundamentals, and pattern ourselves after those fundamentals, like in any pursuit, if people know you believe it, live it, and enjoy a better life because of it, it sells.

If we try it Frum’s way, the RINO way, how can we hope to sell a product that we, ourselves, have no faith in?

I spent that last few days following CPAC, and today was a good day. Hope to be there next time around. But, even within CPAC, the bickering continued in several quarters, and the theme (until Rush) still seemed to be hung up on “who” rather than “what.”

The fundamentals…that is the “what.” The “who” can be born from that base.

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 1:31 AM

What was the name of the little podium he had set up so members of his audience could come up and ask questions of him, or one of his guests? Did’nt he call it the “squak box” or something?

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 1:15 AM

It was the “Beef Box”, as in “What’s your beef?”

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 1:32 AM

The way he posted that had me visualizing someone who had too many adult beverages. It was a funny image. Probably uncalled for but you can’t stop your brain.

Cindy Munford on March 1, 2009 at 1:29 AM

You’re visualizing me every time I post.

MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 1:33 AM

The pendulum swings – we have Dems for years and they expand govt. and then we have Repubs for years and they undo some of the damage. If conservatives want to take it back they have to come up with a strategy to do that. Tough to do when we have Dems in power and a very bad economy.

mph on March 1, 2009 at 1:34 AM

MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 1:33 AM

No, you don’t sound unhinged.

Cindy Munford on March 1, 2009 at 1:35 AM

If we try it Frum’s way, the RINO way, how can we hope to sell a product that we, ourselves, have no faith in? – coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 1:31 AM

You can’t do anything if you’re not in power. You may have to give up, or back off on some of the things you believe in for awhile to get a certain block of voters. Its how politics works.

mph on March 1, 2009 at 1:38 AM

No, you don’t sound unhinged.

Cindy Munford on March 1, 2009 at 1:35 AM

That’s because I avoid sobriety.

MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 1:39 AM

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:20 AM

What you just listed is a large part of the problem with the current Republican party… many many positions, but few principals.

How can you be for limited Fed Power, and States Rights, and yet be for a Federal Marriage Amendment?

How can you historicly have to have a Constitutional Amendment to ban one substance (alcohol), and yet perpetuate a WAR with a CZAR on other substances (war on drugs even for medicianl marijuana).

How can you be for Law and Order, and yet when given power, allow our borders to become the mess they are.

How can you be for smaller government, and then preside over the largest increase in Government power and Spending in our history?

How can you be for a Strict Constitution, and yet Invade TWO countries without a Declaration of War?

I can go on and on…. but the current Republican partys positions are not consistant with their stated philosophy, which is why many people, like myself, left the party.

42% of the electorate are NOT part of the Dems or Repubs… and the number is growing.

Next couple of years are going to be very interesting… in the Chinese curse kinda way…

Romeo13 on March 1, 2009 at 1:40 AM

MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 1:39 AM

It’s working for you. Goodnight.

Cindy Munford on March 1, 2009 at 1:41 AM

Good Grief I hate when I do that.

That’s because I avoid sobriety.

MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 1:39 AM

It’s working for you. Goodnight.

Cindy Munford on March 1, 2009 at 1:42 AM

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 1:31 AM
I both agree & disagree. Ronald Reagan was a unique man, & there will never be anyone like him.

In the circular political model [instead of the spectrum], parties and movements tend to drift left until they reach the end of the political circle & head right again. The Republican Congress was headed in the right [no pun intended] direction until Newt left…They turned into beta-males after that, letting men like Richard Lugar, Chuck Grassley, Arlen Specter, ad nauseum run the Party.

Frum’s an idiot who was disenchanted with conservatism & Republicanism while in the Bush White House…Have you read his The Right Man?

I’m not sure too many in the Republican Party still ascribe to Mr. Frum’s ‘values’ other than the country club elites. Frankly, I feel that the movement is going to become more libertarian, & that there will be an-all-out war between the socio-religious cons & the libertarians. Until this is resolved, the movement will remain fractured.

Mike Pence & Rush were both excellent today, as was that young man.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:44 AM

mph on March 1, 2009 at 1:38 AM

Our “loss” in November was no landslide defeat. Our loss was due to an attempt to apply faulty notions of who we were and what we believed, and we did it in the form of a candidate who was chosen largely by the MSM, and open primaries, in several key states. Our message was weak. We had become what we detested.

Backing off of things one believes is appeasement, even capitulation, and that rarely has good results. Such appeasement did such wonderful things last November, right?

Our block of voters is all Americans, all Americans who wish to see what they work for, what they derive from their efforts, not given away to every whiny constituency that demands “government” especially the federal government solve all their problems.

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 1:45 AM

That’s because I avoid sobriety.

MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 1:39 AM

The soundest policy decision I’ve seen all night year.

hillbillyjim on March 1, 2009 at 1:46 AM

It’s working for you. Goodnight.

Cindy Munford on March 1, 2009 at 1:42 AM

Good night to you as well.

MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 1:46 AM

42% of the electorate are NOT part of the Dems or Repubs… and the number is growing. – Romeo13 on March 1, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Good point. And when someone Independent or Libertarian comes along the Dems and Repubs won’t let them into the debate. I think this is a big part of the problem – two parties, lost of cronyism. People in office for life like Murtha, Pelosi, etc. They put their job above their country.

mph on March 1, 2009 at 1:47 AM

Romeo13 on March 1, 2009 at 1:40 AM
It’s because there are so many camps within the conservative movement. In my reply to coldwarrior, I explained my view that their is an all-out-war between libertarian conservatives and socio-religious conservatives. This, I feel, is among the main reasons why we have lost ground as a movement. The two have played a game of go-along-to-get-along for many years, but the tie that binds is breaking.

/yes, I know I’m mixing my metaphors

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:50 AM

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 1:45 AM

Its not appeasement. Its patience. You can’t have everything you want all at once and you don’t get anything you want if you are not elected.

mph on March 1, 2009 at 1:50 AM

The pendulum swings – we have Dems for years and they expand govt. and then we have Repubs for years and they undo some of the damage. If conservatives want to take it back they have to come up with a strategy to do that. Tough to do when we have Dems in power and a very bad economy.

mph on March 1, 2009 at 1:34 AM

The problem is, the pendulum never quite swings all the way back to the right. We get explosive growth in government, followed by periods of slower growth in government. Reagan is the only president in seven decades to come *close* to making government any smaller, and whether even he actually reduced the overall size and power of government is debatable. His lasting achievement was to convince most of the country that cutting back on government power and spending was a good thing, but he didn’t get to do nearly as much of the actual cutting as he wanted to.

Republicans do a lot of damage when they don’t take full advantage of those pendulum swings. George Bush presided over a huge expansion of the government, setting the stage for the utter insanity being perpetrated today… but he was dismissed as an extreme right-winger, and most media bigshots would laugh out loud at the suggestion he was anything like a centrist, or liberal on many of his policies. If you’re going to be vilified for being a conservative president, you might as well get some actual conservatism done while you’re there. What’s the point of spending years “reaching across the aisle” and letting Ted Kennedy write your education bill, when you end your term with liberals sneering that your “right-wing policies” caused the crisis you let them get away with creating, and convince the public the answer is previously unheard-of levels of statism?

In post-New Deal America, conservatism is declared too dangerous to even try, declared a failure without ever being implemented, and held responsible for the failures of liberalism to boot. Even if Obama seizes control of 99% of the economy, he’ll still blame the failure of his administration on the 1% that is still free. We really need to fine-tune the motion of that pendulum.

Doctor Zero on March 1, 2009 at 1:52 AM

Curses. ‘Their’ should be ‘there’.

Two issues still remain: What is true conservatism? Sub-question: Can all the groups within conservatism continue to peacefully co-exist long-term? I say no.

What was it that Lincoln said about a house divided? [rhetorical]

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:55 AM

mph on March 1, 2009 at 1:50 AM

My experience, direct or observed, goes back to my first vote cast for Nixon, and I have seen our apex, and I have witnessed our nadir…and those times when “winning” at any cost was the message, we lost, and suffered a diminishment of our ranks each time, some who have yet to even think about coming back to the fold.

When we can demonstrate our willingness to engage in the hard work, and demonstrate that the fundamentals work across the board, and show by our example that what we believe in is good for all….then those middle ground, independent, discouraged voters will figure out the rest.

But craft the message, re-craft the fundamentals, merely to win elections? That’s David Frum’s take. Will never be mine.

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 1:57 AM

Allahpundit is a Libertarian, David Frum not so much. He’s one of the big government/ fiscally irresponsible “Conservatives” in the Republican party. Also known as a neoconservative RINO.

Cr4sh Dummy on March 1, 2009 at 12:27 AM

Fixed, as I stand corrected on my understanding of the term “neoconservative”.

Cr4sh Dummy on March 1, 2009 at 1:57 AM

IMHO, there were three main reasons that make up 90% of the explanation for Obama’s win:

1) The historical nature of his candidacy – no half-white person has ever been President.
2) Having all but one broadcast or major print outlet actively campaining for him.
3) The lack of distinction between Republicans and Democrats. It’s awfully hard to convince Americans that voting against Obama is voting against socialism when the REPUBLICAN Presdident is pushing TARP I and the Republican candidate is rushing back to D.C. to push it through.

For the voter these three played out like this:
1) I can help make history
2) I haven’t heard anything about him bad enough to stop me.
3) There’s no difference in philosophy between the parties any more

How much of Goldwater’s loss was American sentiment about JFK’s death that they could help him live on by reelecting his VP versus ideology? A lot.

Republicans lost in 1992 because George H. W. Bush was still so stuck in his CIA head thinking that he kept his accomplishments a secret. I was hard pressed to name anything he did besides liberate Kuwait.

Republicans lost this time because we started to believe the David Frum’s, David Brooks’ and Peggy Noonans that we have to be more like Democrats to win.

Wrong. 93% of Blacks voted for Obama in CA, but 70% of those voters marked Yes on Prop 8 to keep the definition of marriage. America is a conservative nation, so faced with a choice of making history or picking somebody who did not distinguish himself on policy with no media help, they chose history.

History will show they chose wrong, and a Palin/Jindal, or Jindal/Romney, or any other combination of true, principled conservative leaders will crush Obama in 2012 if the media gives them even 10% of a fair treatment.

PastorJon on March 1, 2009 at 1:58 AM

We really need to fine-tune the motion of that pendulum.

Doctor Zero on March 1, 2009 at 1:52 AM
I don’t think you have control over that. Social and cultural forces take over and people get fed up with the status quo. If the new budget passes, people will get fed up with all the taxes and vote against them. Soon people will realize that GWB can’t be blamed for current issues (I hope!) and we’ll swing the other way. Problem is so many people will be dependent on govt by then for welfare, unemployment, mortgage bailouts, etc. that they will vote back in the politicians who gave them all that.

mph on March 1, 2009 at 2:01 AM

Doctor Zero on March 1, 2009 at 1:52 AM
Bush falsely believed that DC was like Texas, & that Kennedy & his ilk like Bob Bullock. Even Tip O’Neill was kinder to Reagan than the Dims were to Bush.

I think he did accomplish some major conservative reforms [which I listed @ 1:20 AM, but they all are overshadowed by the spending issue. [Which Congress should not get a pass on, either.] However, spending as % of GDP has actually been level since 1975 until this year; the only domestic issue for which Bush significantly raised spending [according to the charts] was education.

Yes to being dangerous, as Bush’s failed attempt to overhaul Social Security [one of the sacred cows] & other such measures did attest. Our Republican congressmen are more conservative than they’re been in 11 years, though…

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:06 AM

PastorJon on March 1, 2009 at 1:58 AM
The factors that came together at that exact moment to bring about Obama’s election are numerous. In fact, you could write a book about it…

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:09 AM

Two issues still remain: What is true conservatism?

Rush states it pretty well in this speech, but feel free to do a lot of reading on the subject.

Sub-question: Can all the groups within conservatism continue to peacefully co-exist long-term? I say no.

Definitely–it’s not nearly as hard as you make it out to be. I say “Yes.”
You’re too young to have lived through the election of Ronald Reagan–heady, marvelous stuff!
(And it also marked the entrance of Reagan Democrats voting GOP)

What was it that Lincoln said about a house divided? [rhetorical]

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 1:55 AM

I shouldn’t have to point out that Lincoln was dealing with a vastly different situation, but if Obama forces the Red states to cram down all of his “crap sandwiches,” we may be looking at Civil War II.
We are in a battle for our very country: being “Republican” or “Democrat” will soon cease to matter when it comes down to being proud Americans or subjugated comrades in the new Soviet Socialist Republik of Amerika.

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:12 AM

PastorJon on March 1, 2009 at 1:58 AM
I think you give the voting public too much credit. Most voters don’t think that hard – they don’t have the time or the education to do so. A lot of women voted for Clinton because he was “cute”. I agree that the Obama voters
1. wanted to make history
2. haven’t heard anything bad about him (and that was planned wasn’t it?)

but 3. the typical voter isn’t looking for differences. The young voter and black voter voted against McCain because he is an old white man. They had no clue about “differences”. They didn’t even grasp who was the VP choice on the tickets (did you see Howard Stern’s “poll” of Obama voters?). They voted against not necessarily for. And I think they will vote against Palin, Jindal and Romney. So we better come up with someone new.

mph on March 1, 2009 at 2:12 AM

Two issues still remain: What is true conservatism? Sub-question: Can all the groups within conservatism continue to peacefully co-exist long-term? I say no.

Rush put it pretty well tonight, that we are about people. That we see in every person potential, and want them to achieve it. We believe everyone is unique, and we desire a system of government that allows each person to find happiness and fulfillment in his or her own way. Freedom — of life, speech, property, thought, and belief — is the system that enables this.

I recommend Dinesh D’Souza’s great book “Letters to a young Conservative” which I stumbled across in the library last month. It’s about both the philosophy and the fun of conservatism. In particular, there’s a chapter which contrasts conservatism with libertarianism. Libertarianism is a philosophy of government, while conservatism is a philosophy of life.

I think most libertarians are future conservatives… even I myself was a libertarian during an experimental phase in college. Eventually you work through the thought experiment and you find that it’s incomplete, needs something more. (Young libertarians think that the difference is religion, as if only Christian wackos are pro-life and anti-drug. That’s not it. You can get there through reason, philosophy.)

joe_doufu on March 1, 2009 at 2:17 AM

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:12 AM

The one aspect of last November, one that needs to be addressed, is the number of Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents who stayed home on Election Day.

Add to that the aggressive efforts of ACORN and other groups on the Left, to include fraud in several cases, and that “mandate” for Obama becomes less of a so-called mandate for change that the current pundits claim it to be.

And yes, taken as a whole, way too many voters, especially those who voted for Obama, haven’t a clue as to what government is, other than a trough to feed from.

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 2:18 AM

Damn…it’s past 0200 in this part of flyoverland…

That last comment should have been directed toward

mph on March 1, 2009 at 2:12 AM

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 2:21 AM

Anyone read the Wall Street Journal article posted earlier?… The infrastructure of the United States has been fractured since the New Deal, and is unsustainable without Obama’s current plans.

I’m sorry, but this is just plain horsesh!t.
The WSJ has been leaning Left a lot more recently since they got a new editor.
Our infrastructure is fine.
In fact, one of the most frightening aspects of Zerobama’s crap sandwich(es)/”Stimulus” bill is that it FEDERALIZES a ton of projects that up until now, were handled at the state and local level and that is where they should remain.

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:25 AM

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:16 AM
I didn’t read the article but will tomorrow. I think GWB was the victim of circumstance from 9/11 to the economy collapse. Both issues that no one could prepare for. I also fear that in just a few years the Dems will have this country so socialized that it will take years to get it back. They are pushing all of this legislature through so quickly that no one sane can keep up. But I think that the tax increases they need to pay for it all will be their undoing. I think if the conservatives or Republicans have to pick one thing to focus on to win back seats, that is it – taxation.
Thanks all (and AP) for a great discussion – very informative. Good night.

mph on March 1, 2009 at 2:26 AM

Also, JFK’s assassination immortalized him and helped in LBJ’s election in 1964. Just wondering if JFK would have been re-elected in 1964 if he would have lived because he did make some costly errors that could have damaged his re-election plans…

DL13 on March 1, 2009 at 2:28 AM

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:12 AM
joe_doufu on March 1, 2009 at 2:17 AM

I was not asking the question, I was saying that the is having to examine itself as to these questions.

joe_doufu on March 1, 2009 at 2:17 AM
Thanks for the tip. I’ve read D’Souza’s book; &, like his other works, enjoyed it immensely.

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:12 AM
The *basic principle* behind ‘a house divided’ [which is actually a biblical one] is the same. [I think it is the same situation if you view the Civil War as a conflict about states' rights, but that's a whole other thread.] It’s going to be a Civil War either way.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:28 AM

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 2:21 AM
well, yes. Staying home is a vote against.

mph on March 1, 2009 at 2:29 AM

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:28 AM
It ate a word!
I was not asking the question, I was saying that the ***movement*** is having to examine itself as to these questions.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:30 AM

The one aspect of last November, one that needs to be addressed, is the number of Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents who stayed home on Election Day.

I think we know why that is–they couldn’t make themselves vote for McCain, even with Palin, and they weren’t going to vote for Ogabe.
McCain ran a lousy campaign and was a terrible candidate–I made myself vote for him because… of everything, but primarily to beat The Won and for Sarah.
He should never show his face in public again for the peril he put our country in by losing the race.
If he were the patriot he claimed to be who put “Country First,” he would have run like his life and the life of this country depended on it, which it did.
(But he already has his damn face. Zero tolerance for him in this house, I can tell you.)

Agree completely about ACORN, who are now “squatting” on foreclosed homes.
Will we ever know how much of Ogabe’s win was due to them?

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:31 AM

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:25 AM

Going down to the local politics level…our city and our county are planning on spending funds that haven’t even been appropriated yet, but are merely figures suggested in the stimulus. Our governor, a Dem, is looking to solve all of this state’s financial woes from the stimulus, with no thought at all as to responsible spending, necessary spending, nor cutting any programs.

Was amusing…hilarious actually, to see the city council and mayor talk expansively about what they were going to do, get, build, fund once the check arrived.

Yes, we are in trouble. But, on so many planes, federal interference and involvement at all levels is only going to make matters worse, not better. Removing incentives, personal and public, when free money is being lavished around,m even though not a dime has actually been appropriated yet, is going to take the private sector right out of our economy and place it in a blackmarket world.

When we no longer have “revenues” (read: taxes) flowing in, as fewer and fewer actual taxpayers are around…how is all of this going to be paid for?

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 2:33 AM

I was not asking the question, I was saying that the movement is having to examine itself as to these questions.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:28 AM

Rush said it today–We don’t have to “examine ourselves” as a movement/Party.
We know who we are and what we stand for.
Only the MSM and certain Country Club Republicans in the media (like David Frum of whom AP is so fond) are telling us that we must “examine ourselves.”
That’s why Rush so eloquently dismissed it.
The time for GOP navel-gazing is over and the time to take up the fight has begun–we and the Democrats, who hold control of the WH, House and Senate–are at war for the soul and future of America itself.

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:36 AM

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:25 AM
The link should have ended at ‘circumstance’. As to infrastructure, I was referring to the fact that (1) we hardly produce or export anything anymore; (2) we don’t drill for oil as much & haven’t built a refinery since ’70 [my dad's a petroleum geochemist, btw]; (3) Americans have come to rely on certain programs such as Social Security, which was never intended to be permanent; (4) people are pushed into retirement when they could be working; etc, etc, etc.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:37 AM

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:36 AM
Then why are so many libertarians & conservatives on this blog & many others fighting over the definition of conservative?!? Why are my friends, family, neighbours doing the same?!?

Rush is 100% correct as usual. Personally, I feel this infighting is destructive & is destroying the movement. We should be focusing our energy on the Dims & Obama’s communist agenda–but the sad fact is that not every conservative is. If you read the Ron Paul thread last night, people were still re-hashing the war & blaming Bush left-&-right. I think it’s disgusting; but it’s reality–and Rush wouldn’t be having to make this point if it weren’t. Just my 2 cents.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:44 AM

And now the rest of the story… AllahPundit is a liberal grain of sand to my Conservative oyster. Together we will cast pearls before swine.

2Tru2Tru on March 1, 2009 at 2:47 AM

The link should have ended at ‘circumstance’. As to infrastructure, I was referring to the fact that (1) we hardly produce or export anything anymore; (2) we don’t drill for oil as much & haven’t built a refinery since ‘70 [my dad's a petroleum geochemist, btw]; (3) Americans have come to rely on certain programs such as Social Security, which was never intended to be permanent; (4) people are pushed into retirement when they could be working; etc, etc, etc.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:37 AM

By infrastructure is meant things like roads, bridges, power grids, big capital expenditures.

We produce and export plenty but most of it is intangible–patented ideas, marketing, computer programming, research.
The Chinese can make a lot, but they didn’t invent it, patent it or package it for market; that’s all done by American standards.
We’re not a “muscle”/labor-intensive country anymore because labor is so much cheaper in foreign countries.
Just because we don’t manufacture much anymore doesn’t mean we don’t produce “anything.”
(BTW, you can thank American Big Labor for most of that.)
We don’t drill for oil and gas because the DemocRat Left won’t let us and you won’t hear NObama talk about drilling either, even though it’s in his face.
This was started under that idiot Carter–it’s another way the Left plans to bankrupt Capitalism and bring America’s engine of productivity to a grinding halt.
NObama’s plans to “go green” and implement cap and trade will finish off our productivity dynamo, if banning domestic drilling and bankrupting the coal industry doesn’t and now they invoke the god of Climate Change/Global Warming as a bugaboo to excuse these ludicrous policies.
Yet another scary aspect of Ogabe’s crap sandwich is that it doesn’t begin to address the funding problems imminently facing Social Security and Medicare..and yet he wants to add an Socialized health care insurance.
People will be pushed into working until they’re 95 instead of 65 because there will be no funds available to pay them S.S. that early!

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:48 AM

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:16 AM
Ah, *now* I see the confusion. The ‘unsustainable’ part refers to the fact that one cannot continue with all these social programs in their current form. If one is to continue funding them at their current pace, one must raise taxes through the roof, etc. This is why I support reform of these systems, & it’s why Obama’s move to make these sacred cows permanent is so dangerous. Does that make any more sense?

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:51 AM

Thanks. I actually upped the 9/11/01 Paul Harvey show… did you get it?

Ugly on March 1, 2009 at 2:56 AM

Then why are so many libertarians & conservatives on this blog & many others fighting over the definition of conservative?!?

Because this is a war and disinformation and propaganda are part of any war.
This blog ain’t all that friendly to Conservatives and/or Republicans, in case you haven’t noticed, but I know you have.

Why are my friends, family, neighbours doing the same?!?

Because this is a time of great confusion, despair and fear.
Obama’s inauguration and what he did in just the first month has turned this country upside down–I’ve never seen anything like it and I hate seeing it.
The situation is downright scary. (Rush downplayed this part today.)
I’m thinking of moving to Mexico or Canada…or at least the country for the first time in my life. Seriously.
People are looking for answers and pointing the finger of blame everywhere because we’re in this mess for at least 4 years and they have mostly themselves to blame because they voted for him.
I knew Obama would be this bad, so I didn’t vote for him.
Most didn’t–they chose not to see and believed the MSM, but the evidence was there that the man was an empty suit, a Marxist by birth and training who had zero executive experience.
He doesn’t like this country much, he doesn’t like the military much and he doesn’t even like “white” people much.

Rush is 100% correct as usual. Personally, I feel this infighting is destructive & is destroying the movement. We should be focusing our energy on the Dims & Obama’s communist agenda–but the sad fact is that not every conservative is.

The fact that we’re infighting and not focusing on the real problems facing us means “Mission Accomplished” by the Left/Liberals/Democrats.

If you read the Ron Paul thread last night, people were still re-hashing the war & blaming Bush left-&-right. I think it’s disgusting; but it’s reality–and Rush wouldn’t be having to make this point if it weren’t. Just my 2 cents.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 2:44 AM

The Paultards are a piece of work.
Ron Paul got the endorsement of Storm Front when he ran for President–and he didn’t distance himself from them at all.
This blog has resident Paultards and they are fairly vocal throughout the web–at the risk of sounding like a nut, I find them to be real enemies of this country. (My 2 cents).
Your inquiring mind is leading you in the right places. Keep going!
How old are you?
We can always use fresh, young minds to reinvigorate the GOP, the Conservative movement and the country!

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:59 AM

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:48 AM
I’m using the archaic version of the word, which use to refer to any operation or system.

I dislike what labour unions have become & how they destroyed manufacturing. I think things were far better before we began outsourcing in the ’50s.

Yes, I know all about oil & gas production–again, my father is a petroleum geochemist, which is a fancy way of saying that he locates potential oilfields.

Also, most people fail to realize that we can’t ‘go green’ if the oil industry is getting shafted. My dad’s company is exploring alternative energy, but they don’t have the $ to do so when the government blocks their means of making a profit.

Seriously, though, why are we arguing when we agree & when we both understand the root causes of the current crises & their end results?t

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 3:02 AM

Seriously, though, why are we arguing when we agree & when we both understand the root causes of the current crises & their end results?t

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 3:02 AM

I don’t think we are arguing anymore.
You’re asking all the right questions and looking in good places for answers.
You must be a bright, young person(man?).
Listen to the Rush speech again if you have to.
No matter what you read on this blog or others, I think Rush’s speech today will mark a real sea change in the Conservative movement and you’ll see a lot less infighting, blaming, and fingerpointing.
The whiners who’ve infiltrated for their own reasons will still be here, but I’d ignore them–they are here to recruit. Do you understand me?
Honestly, at the risk of being banned, my days of coming to and posting on this particular blog may be numbered.
I really can’t stand the mocking, cynical, derisive tone of at least one of the site’s authors and the other one flew home from CPAC today during Rush’s speech.
I highly recommend Lucianne.com for news and other Right Wing blogs for real thoughtful discussion (and not attempts to demoralize and depress Conservatives) as to what we can do to save the country we love so much.
Time is of the essence and we should never waste it.

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 3:12 AM

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 2:59 AM
I wrote a miniature thesis on WFB & the rise of the conservative movement when I was an undergrad. One of the major threads was conservatism from the founding of National Review in 1955 to the present; &, with the exception of fusionism at key moments, the movement has always been divided between the conservatives & libertarians.

Most of the major conservative blogs are going over the cliff. Ace of Spades is still good, however.

I’m 24, & Obama’s plans to turn America into another European nation scare the living you-know-what out of me. Also, I spent 5 years double-majoring at university, & the idea of having to pay off other peoples’ debt infuriates me.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 3:14 AM

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 3:12 AM
Young woman. I’m surprised you think I’m a young man…that’s interesting…

;)

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 3:15 AM

Honest to Christ, anyone who thinks Allah actually writes the quote of the day should be banned immediately on the basis that they’re too stupid to breathe.

I wasn’t saying he was writing the quote, I was commenting on the irony.

thebronze on March 1, 2009 at 3:17 AM

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 3:12 AM
Good advice. I certainly hope so. It’s sad to see some good sites get derailed by certain issues regarding, ahem, science & other issues [been reading it since 2003]. Ace is good if you want to read political news &____. I also love reading milblogs, such as Blackfive.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 3:21 AM

thebronze on March 1, 2009 at 3:17 AM
QOTD is always ironic, IYKWIMAITYD ;)

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 3:24 AM

Kerry was more leftwing then Gore, and Obama far more leftwing then Kerry.

Whether Obama is more liberal than Kerry or not, Obama definitely had less of a liberal record than Kerry. And he was a lot better looking than HorseFace McPurplehearts.

Speedwagon82 on March 1, 2009 at 3:44 AM

David Frum is an ignorant dolt. I need say no more.

R.I.P., Paul Harvey.

Jockolantern on March 1, 2009 at 5:01 AM

AUH2O12

JonRoss on March 1, 2009 at 7:17 AM

But those disasters followed from choices and decisions that liberals made

It makes sense that damaged people suffering from personality disorders would be their own worse enemy.

csdeven on March 1, 2009 at 7:37 AM

Embracing Neo-Conservatism has nothing to do with loving big government or allowing fiscal irresponsibility.
It’s mainly about the muscular use of American diplomacy and power in foreign policy built on the foundation of American exceptionalism…

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 12:50 AM

.
Thank you Jenfidel
.
It is not an accident that the Left: employs the term “NeoCon” as a slur, dishonestly attributes to NeoCons the sins of “traditional realists” and “neo-realist” foreign policy schools, and equates proactive use of American power to promote democracy and human rights with fascism.
.
It is self defeating for “conservatives”, perhaps such as Cr4sh Dummy, to ratify and perpetuate that very same slur.

.
*
.

BTW: Don’t forget that Goldwater’s “principled” defense of States Rights lost the Black vote for the Republican Party. Remember, without the Black vote, indeed without the Black Social Conservative vote the Democrat Party would struggle to maintain an effective national existence.

Mike OMalley on March 1, 2009 at 7:43 AM

Hey Allahpundit! Remember that whole thing about Hitchens writing something in his piece of crap book he signed for you about you “working yourself out of a job”?

Take his advice and get the hell out of here and stop pretending that you are 1) Conservative (you’re not) and 2) Part of the future of the GOP (no room for Christ-hating atheists and those who want to turn the GOP into Dem Party Lite).

I totally agree. Why does Michelle allow him to post here? RIP Paul Harvey.

apoole on March 1, 2009 at 7:58 AM

(no room for Christ-hating atheists and those who want to turn the GOP into Dem Party Lite).

apoole on March 1, 2009 at 7:58 AM

Allah’s conservative views come across in fiscal and foreign policy issues. Is believing in the divinity of Christ a requirement for someone to belong to the GOP?

dedalus on March 1, 2009 at 8:07 AM

The 1964 election was between Johnson & Goldwater, but the vote outcome was all about Kennedy, please don’t try to compare this part of election history with 2012 because there is no comparison for many reasons too numerous to list here.

Done That on March 1, 2009 at 8:07 AM

Two of the reasons Goldwater lost was because the Johnson campaign successfully painted Goldwater an extremist and literally scared Americans spitless, and people were led to believe that Johnson would continue Kennedy’s policies. We were lied to on both counts.

We are being lied to again, and it’s another Democrat. Surprise?

An example of the tone of the Johnson campaign can be seen in this ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg

It’s the “Daisy Girl” ad.

Pelayo on March 1, 2009 at 8:08 AM

The 1964 election was between Johnson & Goldwater, but the vote outcome was all about Kennedy, please don’t try to compare this part of election history with 2012 because there is no comparison for many reasons too numerous to list here.

Done That on March 1, 2009 at 8:07 AM

What is similar is the damage that a big government liberal like Obama or LBJ can do if they don’t face significant GOP opposition in congress. Even Reagan couldn’t fix most of the mess that LBJ created.

dedalus on March 1, 2009 at 8:13 AM

Mr. Goldwater was one of the very few who managed to put in a good effort into the iron curtain of the UFO phenomenon. The effort didn’t yield much information, but he had the guts to try. The result he had gotten were interesting in that the Air Force said ‘ no they have no information on the subject’ and ‘ oh and don’t ever ask again’. This was quite some time ago and you know, we still don’t know much.

Its worth mentioning.

johnnyU on March 1, 2009 at 9:18 AM

The Nixon disaster followed by the Ford disaster made it possible for the Carter disaster.
Question: Is Obama the new disaster or the disaster after a disaster?

albill on March 1, 2009 at 9:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3