RNC meltdown continues: on-line director quits

posted at 11:03 am on March 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The bleeding continues at the RNC.  After new chair Michael Steele fired most of the staff, other key contributors have begun leaving on their own.  Last week it was finance chair Tim Chapman, and now the man in charge of all on-line operations has left — without any immediate prospects:

Arguably the most respected technocrat in the Republican Party, Cyrus Krohn is just the latest in a string of officials to resign from the RNC; last week, the RNC’s finance director quit. But because GOP Chairman Michael Steele made leveraging the Internet to attract voters to the Republican Party a top priority ina tech summit two weeks ago, Krohn’s departure comes as an especially heavy blow — not just to the RNC, but to the conservative blogosphere.

As Matt Lewis notes, though, this is really the most disturbing part of the story:

In an interview, Krohn said he’s moving back to Seattle with his family. He has no job lined up at the moment, he told The Post, but he’s thinking of running for office.

So he quit without having another job lined up?  In this economy?  Krohn had to be pretty desperate to leave, and Republicans have to ask themselves why.

In just four weeks, the RNC has shed almost all of its staff, and now suddenly finds itself without leadership on fundraising and on-line operations, two of the most critical efforts for the party in the next two years. It will take weeks, if not months, to find suitable replacements for the two and get them up to speed.  The GOP has lost continuity on two major fronts and now must rebuild from scratch on both.

These aren’t road bumps; they’re collapsed bridges to victory.

One source close to the situation acknowledges that the RNC needed to trim its staff, as it had been increased for the Coleman/Franken recount and the Chambliss run-off in Georgia, but that the terminations in February cut out the meat as well as the fat.  It takes a lot of people to handle all of the connections to state organizations, volunteer groups, and vendors, and it’s simply not getting done now.  What’s worse is that now we’ve lost the people who would hire the staff necessary for meeting those obligations, which means it will take a lot longer to recover.  How much time does the RNC have, anyway, before they fall hopelessly behind?


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

Yeah, because hardline social conservatism is such a big winner in the swing states.

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM

And your way worked… pfft!~

Reagan did it, let’s do it again, let’s show the differences, then let me know who’s right, your way has proved to lead to loss after loss after loss…

Now, stfu!

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM

And how did the online effert work lst year. Now add new blood.

KBird on March 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Have you ever seen fire melt Steele?

Google it!

jeff_from_mpls on March 6, 2009 at 11:45 AM

technopeasant on March 6, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Was thinking the same way. Heard Steele on Bill Bennet’s show this morning. The whole organization needs to be cleaned out. At some point I would like to contribute to them. We always contribute to Repubs in other states when we can. Target spending.

BetseyRoss on March 6, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Now, stfu!

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM

No.

MadisonConservative on March 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM

You don’t even know what my way is you idiot. And you might want to check some statistics because the country has changed a bit over the last 20 years. Ignorant twits like you are part of the problem, not the solution.

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM

If you drop the social cons, you will be shaking your angry fist at the wind and fighting for scraps from the Dems table.

spmat on March 6, 2009 at 11:43 AM

I’ve never said drop the social cons. I’ve always said back burner those issues. Fiscal matters are far more important – now more than ever. Fix that and then social cons can start meddling in peoples’ lives again.

You’d be surprised how many democrats/liberals are all over small government, but don’t want to embrace social cons and all the baggage they bring.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Is Steele some kind of trojan horse? He’s managed to decimate the entire organization in a short time!

Wine_N_Dine on March 6, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Hint: moderate on fiscal, conservative on social is the wrong way. Reverse it, and you have a party again. Idiots.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Don’t you pretty much have that already in the Libertarian Party?

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Here’s the problem with Michael Steele. He’s actually taking a bad play from white liberals in the sixties and seventies. He’s TALKING about expanding the party into African American communities and he thinks he can do that with buzzwords that will demonstrate he’s “down for the cause” or whatever. But what he probably should be doing is hiring someone to reach out to big socially conservative black congregations. They exist and many of them feel VERY strongly about abortion and gay marriage. They may not vote against Obama for President, but you may get them to split their ticket. The can be done with the latino Catholic community.

Steele also needs to start cultivating conservative, URBAN, blacks who can come with a Cosby-esque message of personal responsibility that doesn’t have Cosby’s prediliction for ridiculing things like name-choice. There are alot of black women who will respond very positively to a pro-marriage/anti-single parent message, but not when you say “you’re dumb for naming your kid Shanequa.” Who cares if you name your kid Shanequa if Shanequa comes from a two parents household and gets a college degree.

And maybe these things are in the works…but somehow I doubt it.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Yeah, because hardline social conservatism is such a big winner in the swing states.

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Social conservatism irritates people. And going to the dentist is a buzz kill with kids.

Still, if you don’t tend to basic hygiene, the form of life on which a political system is set up, the culture is barbaric and its people aren’t committed to liberty. In fact, liberty doesn’t even make the top 10 of concerns.

Think it over.

jeff_from_mpls on March 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Don’t you pretty much have that already in the Libertarian Party?

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Yeah. Too bad they are really only concerned with pot or they’d be taken seriously.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM

How much time does the RNC have, anyway, before they fall hopelessly behind?

Are you kidding? The GOP has been hopelessly behind since the Palin mess last fall. They let the Donks and MSM ruin her rising star and are in the process of letting the same happen with Jindal.

The genteel powers that be at the RNC don’t have a clue. They are on the receiving end of an old fashioned Chicago-style beat-down.

Bruno Strozek on March 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM

On-line manager leaves?

No more DOS 3.1 interface?

Damn. Rotary phones were the ***t.

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Exactly. Especially the younger crowd, which the Republican Party has effectively lost at this point.

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Their online tactics lack ingenuity. Time to bring in some Web2 minded people. For this job no one over 30 need apply.

FireBlogger on March 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Wasn’t the attendance at CPAC something like 60% under 25?

No candidates? Or do all those young attendees walk around with clipboards and legal pads?

But first, get someone at the top who is a true conservative and who knows what he or she is doing. Remove Steele the way Seinfeld removed bandaids: “One move. Right off!”

BuckeyeSam on March 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM

How about we try a true fiscal con next time? And forget about these inane social issues for a cycle? And let’s see what happens.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM

I’ll bite… Meet you 1/2 way… I want and demand a fiscal Conservative WITH values and core Conserivative social principals…

Fair?

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Maybe the RNC needs a “community organizer”. Seems like it worked well in other quarters.

hip shot on March 6, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Is Steele some kind of trojan horse? He’s managed to decimate the entire organization in a short time!

Wine_N_Dine on March 6, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Good. The organization, if you can call it that, needed decimating.

ornery_independent on March 6, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Fiscal matters are far more important – now more than ever. Fix that and then social cons can start meddling in peoples’ lives again.

The problem is that a growing generation of social cons don’t see abortion/gay marriage at the top of their agenda, particularly those under 40. The social gospel is what resonates with a large number of evangelicals in that group, if you severely downplay the life issue more evangelicals open to the social gospel movement will vote Democrat or maybe even Green…

DeathToMediaHacks on March 6, 2009 at 11:51 AM

I’ll bite… Meet you 1/2 way… I want and demand a fiscal Conservative WITH values and core Conserivative social principals…

Fair?

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM

If you can get a resurgence in the religious right comparable to what happened in the 70s, it might work. It was one of the reasons Reagan did so well.

However, thanks to radical Islam, spirituality has ebbed like crazy in the last decade. It no longer is a major catalyst in throwing elections. Right now, it’s the economy, stupid.

MadisonConservative on March 6, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Someone please call Fred Thompson!

Good grief! We have maybe nine months to save this country from going down the sh*tter for good.

The socialists have put the government takeover of our health care system on the fast track. They want it passed before the end of the year.

Should that happen, (and if the republicans don’t get their heads out of their asses it just might) you can replace every dem in congress with a republican in 2010, at it isn’t going to matter one whit.

We don’t have time to form a third party!

-Dave

Dave R. on March 6, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Steele will be in his post until his term expires. It is not politically possible to vote him out. Politics is all about appearances. If the perceived white, Nazi, racist GOP were to get rid of the first black leader just a few months into his term it would confirm what all of those idiots thought and the press would go wild. I don’t agree with it in any way, but that is just how the political game is played. The best we can hope for is that the Conservative base will start to grow some testicles and force Steele to listen to it.

txaggie on March 6, 2009 at 11:53 AM

DeathToMediaHacks on March 6, 2009 at 11:51 AM

So a rattlesnake won’t bite you if you hug it? I’ll give it a try….BRB.

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 11:53 AM

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Wanting a Dem-Lite party or Big-Tent party because we have no spine, no princaplas, no core values is a loss in my book just the same as having the Messiah in control.

Bush was NOT a Conservative…

McCain was NOT a Conservative…

Run a Conservative, fiscal and social (states rights, ect) and see if we can educate the American sheeple into the light…

The was the Nation is going, it won’t be hard to get folks, even moderats and centerists to join us this time around…

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Have you ever seen fire melt Steele?

Google it!

jeff_from_mpls on March 6, 2009 at 11:45 AM

*Snort* I needed that. It’s been a rough week.

Keyser-Soze on March 6, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Yeah, because hardline social conservatism is such a big winner in the swing states.

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Didn’t we just run a social moderate in the Presidential election?

How did that work in the swing states?

The red states?

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM

You’d be surprised how many democrats/liberals are all over small government, but don’t want to embrace social cons and all the baggage they bring.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Bingo. There are many people — I’m one — who resent not only Osama Obama’s increasing interference in our lives with nanny-state policies, but also do not want the opposite, which is “conservatives” pushing policies that are 180 degrees from the child-president’s, but depend on the same government control over our lives.

Fiscal policies, defense, building of interstate highways and — maybe — a few other functions are the federal government’s province. Morality is not.

MrScribbler on March 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM

So a rattlesnake won’t bite you if you hug it? I’ll give it a try….BRB.

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 11:53 AM

If you continue to see urban constituents as “rattle-snakes” you’ll continue to lose elections. These regions are growing, rural areas are not.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM

If you have to comprimise your principles to win, then what have you won?

The Monster on March 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I am a small government fiscal conservative, and a strong defender of the first and second ammendment rights.

I am also moderately pro life, but I don’t like the federal government dictating what free individuals can or can’t do on abortion. It is not a call I would make, but it may be best for someone else.

Legalizing pot doesn’t bother me either. Once again, I don’t like too much government getting it’s nose into everything. With the narco gangs, our drug policy is giving them a license to steal. If some damn fool wants to smoke himself to death, he should have the right to do so.

That is one reason why I am against government health care. If that damn fool wants to smoke himself to death, I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for his care, just like I don’t want to pay for abortions.

If Obama really wants to change the USA, he should focus on changing the mindset of all the victim class minorities, instead of further convincing them they are inferior by always taking care of them like government family pets that are helpless and generally useless.

saiga on March 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM

A social moderate? Uh…how? McCain didn’t support gay marriage or civil unions. McCain’s 100% pro-life. What do you want someone who’ll talk about Creationism in the schools and abstinence only education? Hmmm, come to think of it, maybe my next campaign donations should be to creationist candidates, sabotage!

DeathToMediaHacks on March 6, 2009 at 11:57 AM

I am also moderately pro life

saiga on March 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM

How can you be ‘sorta’ pro life?

Can a woman be a little bit pregnant?

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 11:57 AM

You’d be surprised how many democrats/liberals are all over small government, but don’t want to embrace social cons and all the baggage they bring.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Fiscal responsibility and moral conservatism are not logically separable.

Example: “I personally would never have an abortion, but that’s a woman’s choice, between her and her doctor.”

What logically follows from that position?

Step by step:

government must protect the woman’s right to that sacred decision with her doctor.

government must protect the woman’s ability to make that sacred decision with her doctor.

government must pay for her sacred decision with her doctor.

See that?

That’s why you “fiscal cons” are over-estimating the value of recruiting the libertines into our party. They’ll talk the talk of liberty and small government. Until they go to Starbucks and start thinking about how utopian it would be to have socialized medicine.

These are facts. Whether you admit them is up to you.

jeff_from_mpls on March 6, 2009 at 11:57 AM

I am also moderately pro life, but I don’t like the federal government dictating what free individuals can or can’t do on abortion. It is not a call I would make, but it may be best for someone else.

saiga on March 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Sounds like you are for the repeal of Roe v Wade

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 11:58 AM

If you continue to see urban constituents as “rattle-snakes” you’ll continue to lose elections. These regions are growing, rural areas are not.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Growing? With unemployment rising? Growing like cancer is probably the analogy you need to use. City States are what you democraps are after. Good luck with that when the bugles start sounding. I seriously doubt that rusty AKs and crappy Russian ammo will pass the test.

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 11:58 AM

That would be Newt.
Is he perfect- no, but he knows how and where to fight a battle.

jjshaka on March 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Yeah…but I can’t get over the mental picture of him making out with Waxy Pelosi on the park bench, panting about the need to do something about global warming, and bipartisanship…creeps me out.

Itchee Dryback on March 6, 2009 at 11:59 AM

A social moderate? Uh…how? McCain didn’t support gay marriage or civil unions. McCain’s 100% pro-life. What do you want someone who’ll talk about Creationism in the schools and abstinence only education? Hmmm, come to think of it, maybe my next campaign donations should be to creationist candidates, sabotage!

DeathToMediaHacks on March 6, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Moron. He was pro amnesty, pro global warming, anti bill of rights (see McCain Feingold), lukewarm on gun rights…I could go on and on.

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 11:59 AM

What’s funny (Weird) is how quiet the libertarians are. You’d think they’d be all over this big government crap. But nope. I want them to come to the front, but it seems that they won’t or don’t know how.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 11:13 AM

If there’s no pot involved they don’t show up.

True_King on March 6, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Um, maybe elections over far worse candidates?

That’s what gives us Democrat Lite. And most people, given the choice between a Liberal wannabe and the Real McCoy, will take the latter.

Bear in mind I’m not talking about the compromises that come out of the legislative process. I’m talking about compromising your principles and pretending to advocate things you don’t believe in, or that you don’t advocate things you do believe in, just to win an election.

If you do that, either you violate what you campaigned on, or your principles. If the former, the voters will rightly kick you out for breaking faith with them (“Read my lips…”). If the latter, when the other side’s policies fail, you’ll take the blame. (After 8 years of spending like drunken sailors, GOP opposition to even bigger spending is ridiculed by Dems.)

The Monster on March 6, 2009 at 11:59 AM

We keep acting like the next election cycle is going to be the same as in the past… IT WILL BE DRASTICALY DIFFERENT than any we have ever had before… The Nation will be in total collapse, riots, unemployment at all time records, stagflation, at least one more terrorist attack on US soil will have accured and our security will have been compromised, illegals will run rampant…

Americans of ALL sections, ALL parties, ALL religions, ALL ages and colors will demand a responsibile responce…

Conservatives will be there, with real solutions, real options, proven results…

The world will have seen “hope and change” for what it was…

An Epic Fail and ANYTHING, yes ANYTHING, even a Staunch Conservative on BOTH social and fiscal principals will sweep into the WH…

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 12:01 PM

jeff_from_mpls on March 6, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Oh please. This doesn’t even make sense.

Your argument here is:

You have the right to buy a gun.

Government must buy you a gun.

See how poorly hat performs? As I said, abortion is just an issue to couch inside of a bigger states rights platform. Nothing more. Nothing less. If CA wants pro-choice, cool. If FL wants pro-life, cool. Let the people in their states decide.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 12:02 PM

What’s funny (Weird) is how quiet the libertarians are. You’d think they’d be all over this big government crap. But nope. I want them to come to the front, but it seems that they won’t or don’t know how.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I’m a libertarian. Just because I’m not screaming RON PAUL RON PAUL doesn’t mean I don’t support this discussion.

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 12:02 PM

And your way worked… pfft!~

Reagan did it, let’s do it again, let’s show the differences, then let me know who’s right, your way has proved to lead to loss after loss after loss…

Now, stfu!

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I have news for you Mark – we don’t live in the 1980s. Not the 1990s. Not even the early 2000s.

Just look at the public’s acceptance on gay marriage. Hardline social conservatism worked … 30 years ago. 20 years ago. Maybe 10 years ago. No longer.

A Axe on March 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM

If there’s no pot involved they don’t show up.

True_King on March 6, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Bingo!!!!!!!!

Quiet as a mouse cause the can under the sofa will be full soon!

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Stainless Steele?

jeff_from_mpls on March 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Yeah. Too bad they are really only concerned with pot or they’d be taken seriously.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM

You figure it is harder to get he libertarians to drop the pot issue than to get the republicans drop the life issues?

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 12:04 PM

You figure it is harder to get he libertarians to drop the pot issue than to get the republicans drop the life issues?

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Pretty stereotypical statement. I am a libertarian and I don’t smoke anything.

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 12:05 PM

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 12:04 PM

You all read what you want into everything, don’t you? I don’t suggest libertarians drop it – just couch it (like abortion) into a bigger states rights platform.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 12:02 PM

I’m saying that’s how the logic of America works.

You are deluding yourself if you don’t recognize this.

Again:

every man deserves the right to speak however he wishes.

every man deserves the ability to speak however he wishes.

every man deserves funding to publish his radical newsletter.

This is how rights degenerate into trillion dollar burdens in America. It is the history of America.

jeff_from_mpls on March 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Pretty stereotypical statement. I am a libertarian and I don’t smoke anything.

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 12:05 PM

I guess you are not following the discussion.

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM

McCain was committed pro-life and anti-gay marriage, so I don’t know how you can call him a social moderate – and the reason he alienated so many conservatives was because of his many pro-government and pro-amnesty positions.

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM

If you continue to see urban constituents as “rattle-snakes” you’ll continue to lose elections. These regions are growing, rural areas are not.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Yes, it’s so much easier for welfare queens and womb to tomb’ers to suck from the Gobmit’ teet if they are close to the welfare offices, place to get Govmit’ cheese and unemployment check… Urban blight, filth, crime, gangs, union thugs, hell holes are what we should ALL want to live in according to DTMH… And under the Messiah we all soon will be… Urban centers are the bane to America, not the blessing… Rat infested, corrupt, full of crime and blight, lazy welfare queens with 4 kids from 4 different “babbys daddy”… Yeah, can’t wait for that to come here to the rural areas… Sounds fun…

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM

You figure it is harder to get he libertarians to drop the pot issue than to get the republicans drop the life issues?

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Not at all. The libertarians need cash to buy pot, so I would imagine fiscal policy is at the forefront of their minds.

MadisonConservative on March 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM

You’d be surprised how many democrats/liberals are all over small government, but don’t want to embrace social cons and all the baggage they bring.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Bingo. There are many people — I’m one — who resent not only Osama Obama’s increasing interference in our lives with nanny-state policies, but also do not want the opposite, which is “conservatives” pushing policies that are 180 degrees from the child-president’s, but depend on the same government control over our lives.

Fiscal policies, defense, building of interstate highways and — maybe — a few other functions are the federal government’s province. Morality is not.

MrScribbler on March 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM

These are valid issues with the social conservatives (of which I am to a moderate degree). As I’ve expressed on other threads, it seems to me that a compromise can be struck whereby the social liberals and social conservatives can agree to keep fiscal and defense issues at the federal level and keep the social issues at the state level. In that scenario it would seem that some states would ultimately end-up with more liberal laws than other states, but it would be by the will of the people of those states. Can this not be something we could all get on board with?

KickandSwimMom on March 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I guess you are not following the discussion.

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM

You mean your offtopic discussion?

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM

jeff_from_mpls on March 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM

That is the most broken pattern I’ve seen in some time. By your logic, liberty devolves into socialism. It does not.

MadisonConservative on March 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Pretty stereotypical statement. I am a libertarian and I don’t smoke anything.

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Let’s talk reality. I applaude you for your choice. More folks need to take a stand but you must admit that the Libertarian vote is chock full of the right-to-smoke crowd who care nothing about fiscal order.

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM

If there’s no pot involved they don’t show up.

True_King on March 6, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Bingo!!!!!!!!

Quiet as a mouse cause the can under the sofa will be full soon!

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM

And I lean heavily libertarian/federalist. If they ever got serious and organized they could make a move. They would also need a charismatic candidate.

True_King on March 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM

“The glass is half-full.”

Lourdes on March 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM

every man deserves the right to speak however he wishes.

every man deserves the ability to speak however he wishes.

every man deserves funding to publish his radical newsletter.

This is how rights degenerate into trillion dollar burdens in America. It is the history of America.

jeff_from_mpls on March 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM

You can’t seriously believe that the first amendment leads to socialism. Can you? If social cons believe this; then they are truly sad.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM

McCain was committed pro-life and anti-gay marriage, so I don’t know how you can call him a social moderate – and the reason he alienated so many conservatives was because of his many pro-government and pro-amnesty positions.

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Scroll up, I’ve already answered this.

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Moron. He was pro amnesty, pro global warming, anti bill of rights (see McCain Feingold), lukewarm on gun rights…I could go on and on.

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 11:59 AM

I think you’re confused with what social conservatism is. Social conservatism is not Republican party’s entire domestic agenda. Social/Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that argues the nation was better off when a certain set of religious/cultural values held greater hegemonic sway over the populace. These include but are not limited to:
1. The promotion of the Christian religion in public life. Ensuring that school teachings do not contradict the higher authority of the the Bible.
2. The centering of life long heterosexual marriage (with kids) as the ideal social relation.
3. Restricting public presentation of sexually charged imagery, words, music.
4. Promoting sexual purity until marriage.
5. I guess you can throw in hunting.
Part of the “social conservative” message is the age-old rural vs. urban conflict. Social cons believe rural ways of life/philosophy should be modeled in policy where applicable.

But global warming, campaign finance, etc. those are part of the corporatist wing of the party (which masquerades as fiscal conservatism). The opposition to global warming is about protecting corporations from having to shift the way they use/produce energy. The opposition to campaign finance is about protecting corporations ability to control the electoral cycle via donations no individual American can match. That’s something, but it’s not social conservatism. McCain was a social con.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 6, 2009 at 12:09 PM

I have news for you Mark – we don’t live in the 1980s. Not the 1990s. Not even the early 2000s.

Just look at the public’s acceptance on gay marriage. Hardline social conservatism worked … 30 years ago. 20 years ago. Maybe 10 years ago. No longer.

A Axe on March 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM

EPIC FAIL, CA along with the last 8 States that have voted on the issue ALL have voted AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE…

So not only are you wrong, it’s the exact opposite…

Social values DO still count, just not as much as fiscal, I agree…

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 12:09 PM

How can you be ’sorta’ pro life?

Can a woman be a little bit pregnant?

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 11:57 AM

I personall would not choose abortion as an option under any circumstances, but I don’t like too much government making too damn many rules.

I like freedam. An example is hunting leases. I have been on hunting leases that have too much government/too many rules. Can’t do this, must do that etc. I like a lease where the only rules are the state laws.

I look at gay marrage as a completely stupid issue. Marrage is marrage and has been for thousands of years. To waste any time inventing thousands of more laws to deal with this stupid crap is rediculous. So I am against it, primarily because it will produce more laws and rules.

saiga on March 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Let’s talk reality. I applaude you for your choice. More folks need to take a stand but you must admit that the Libertarian vote is chock full of the right-to-smoke crowd who care nothing about fiscal order.

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM

I don’t have a problem with pot being legalized, but it’s not my BIG issue. I’m more concerned with other issues.

If you’re going to paint libertarians with the broad brush of the party, make sure you use a capital L. Not all libertarians (small L) vote party.

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM

You all read what you want into everything, don’t you? I don’t suggest libertarians drop it – just couch it (like abortion) into a bigger states rights platform.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM

I have no problem with that. What I am asking, in the light of people who identify themselves as libertarians pushing for the republicans to put social issues in the back burner, is if they feel that it would be harder to reform the libertarian party to suit their needs than it would be to reform the republican party. It is not an attack, simply a question.

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 12:11 PM

This is not rocket science.

Listen, the demographic make-up of the country didn’t change that dramatically between 2004 & 2008. There was no “re-alignment” in 2002 and there was no “re-alignment” in 2008.

The GOP is not doing that bad. New polls shows we’re about even in the Generic Congress Poll (vast improvement from November); we’re ahead in the NJ Governor race which will take place in November.

Sticking to conservative values (both fiscal and social) is a winning strategy. Especially after 4 years with the Obama Economy.

Norwegian on March 6, 2009 at 12:11 PM

A Axe on March 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Conservative values and principles fill households across our nation. One doesn’t adapt these principles to a more modern way of life, as these principles have been proven generation after generation after generation… The world’s inventions and creations flow through freedom of thought & expression; work ethic; people of all colors and faiths working together on a common goal… The common ingredients that make all of this possible is the principles and values that guide these individuals.

Explain your thoughts for a modern day Conservative agenda A Axe…

Keemo on March 6, 2009 at 12:12 PM

1. The promotion of the Christian religion in public life. Ensuring that school teachings do not contradict the higher authority of the the Bible.
2. The centering of life long heterosexual marriage (with kids) as the ideal social relation.
3. Restricting public presentation of sexually charged imagery, words, music.
4. Promoting sexual purity until marriage.
5. I guess you can throw in hunting.
Part of the “social conservative” message is the age-old rural vs. urban conflict. Social cons believe rural ways of life/philosophy should be modeled in policy where applicable.

And the problem is???

I don’t see anyone wanting to outlaw abortions on that list, it should be States Right issue, same with local control of schools and school choices…

Not sure if your trying to prove that Social Conservatives are not that far out of “main street” afterall or what…

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 12:12 PM

You all read what you want into everything, don’t you? I don’t suggest libertarians drop it – just couch it (like abortion) into a bigger states rights platform.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Ya, what lorien1973 said…

ornery_independent on March 6, 2009 at 12:13 PM

I personall would not choose abortion as an option under any circumstances, but I don’t like too much government making too damn many rules.

I like freedam. An example is hunting leases. I have been on hunting leases that have too much government/too many rules. Can’t do this, must do that etc. I like a lease where the only rules are the state laws.

saiga on March 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM

So outlawing abortion is just another pesky rule to you, instead of being an act that is considered another form of murder.

Do you think babies would prefer the freedom to live?

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 11:53 AM

I don’t want Dem lite. I want a committed pro-liberty, small government conservative who doesn’t alienate 50% of the population hardline social values. If you want a hardline social conservative in the White House, you need to change American culture first. I want to win the election now.

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 12:14 PM

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Point taken and like I said I appreciate someone who has stand on issues. One commenter above tried to liken the right-to-smoke crowd to the right-to-life crowd and that is about as far fetched as can be. If the libertarians can focus on fiscal issues, and drop the anything goes smell, I would be more prone to listen. As it is I can’t take the party seriously.

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 12:14 PM

You mean your offtopic discussion?

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM

If you read the thread you might find out that someone said that the libertarian party is too busy with the pot issue to be taken seriously, I asked if they feel that it would be hard to get them to drop that issue. I did not bring up the pot issue myself. This is what happens when you join a conversation in the middle and have a knee-jerk reaction.

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM

1) Read their damned book.

2) Cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of your tanks.

3) Don’t hold anything. Let the Dems do that. Advance constantly and don’t hold onto anything, except the enemy. Hold onto him by the nose and kick him in the ass. Kick the hell outta him all the time and go through him like crap through a goose.

/That is all.

Christien on March 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM

As it is I can’t take the party seriously.

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 12:14 PM

For what it’s worth, I voted McCain/Palin.

fossten on March 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Whig Party is in its final death rattles. How long would it take/how hard would it be to convert one of the conservative organizations to a new Conservative Party? I’m not talking about a third party, I’m talking about a new second party.

james23 on March 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM

I’m talking about a new second party.

james23 on March 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Just time. The Rep/Dem critter has, for all practical purposes, started to turn into one species. Time will fix it. How painful a fix that will be, well, again, only time will tell.

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Ed, you might want to add Cyrus’ blog post about his resignation. It sounds like he just wants to try something new and has high hopes for the RNC. Characterizing it as a meltdown is little over the top.

commodore on March 6, 2009 at 12:24 PM

I can’t read this whole thread because I am at work but I am cracking up over the fight about social vs fiscal conservatives. While complaining about the old fashion things that social conservatives believe in,(so twenty years ago) we are allowing a party that wants to control EVERY aspect of our lives in the door. So when you are told where to live, what to drive, where to work, what to eat and what to say, I am sure we are all going to look back and say “Damn, Pro-lifers!”.

Cindy Munford on March 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Whig Party is in its final death rattles. How long would it take/how hard would it be to convert one of the conservative organizations to a new Conservative Party? I’m not talking about a third party, I’m talking about a new second party.

james23 on March 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Recent Canadian history is interesting in this regard. When Reagan was president the PC (conservative) party was in power in Canada. After a couple of back-and-forth the Liberals took over and the PC party pretty much disappeared into oblivion. After experimenting with a few conservative coalitions with mixed success the Conservative Party of Canada emerged and they are now in power. Granted, the Canadian system is quite different than the American, but something like that could happen here.

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 12:27 PM

I am sure we are all going to look back and say “Damn, Pro-lifers!”.

Cindy Munford on March 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM

I seriously doubt that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will ever pass under that yoke. It will be the line in the sand, new party or not.

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM

It’s ok, Michael Steele will go on the View to cozy up to Joy, Bawbrah and Whoopie to agree with them that the Republican party and Conservatism are trying to bring back slavery. He’ll diligently ignore what’s-her-face (some conservative chick on the show) in order to avoid any controversy.

This strategy brought to you by David Frum, Brooks, and Noonan.

Montana on March 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Cindy Munford on March 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Laugh all you want, it’s about forming a message to win the next election. If you don’t think it matters then go look at the exit polls.

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Does anybody with knowledge on the electoral college and the ability to get on the state Presidential ballot know if it would be feasible for a new political party to be successful in 2012? And if not, why not?

technopeasant on March 6, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Rahm is a genius.

getalife on March 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM

technopeasant on March 6, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Gone by 2010. The Barrymobile will run over it with spiked tires.

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Montana on March 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Remember. McCain agreed with that concept during his View appearance.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Can this not be something we could all get on board with?

KickandSwimMom on March 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I agree with what you said 100%. It seams like such in easy way to unite hypenated conservatives and libertarians. We will keep the federal government small and out of moral issues. Moral issues can be legislated at the state level.

WashJeff on March 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Recent Canadian history is interesting in this regard. When Reagan was president the PC (conservative) party was in power in Canada. After a couple of back-and-forth the Liberals took over and the PC party pretty much disappeared into oblivion. After experimenting with a few conservative coalitions with mixed success the Conservative Party of Canada emerged and they are now in power. Granted, the Canadian system is quite different than the American, but something like that could happen here.

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 12:27 PM

This is a good example. The Progressive Conservatives basically split in two; with the Reform Party being the more conservative, both fiscally and socially.

Guess what happened: The “moderate” PC party lost big (reduced to just 2 seats), while the much more conservative Reform Party grew. Eventually, they joined forces to form the Conservative Party (although the most moderate socially liberal faction still refused, known as the “Red Tories”, their version of David Frum/K. Parker).

The new Conservative Party won power in the latest election.

Norwegian on March 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Rahm is a genius.

getalife on March 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Like Caesar?

Limerick on March 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM

DeathToMediaHacks on March 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Are you black?

True_King on March 6, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Remember. McCain agreed with that concept during his View appearance.

lorien1973 on March 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Exactly. Spineless moderates. Fence sitters. More willingly to safely criticize their own party than to fight for what they believe in (which apparently, isn’t much aside from their own popularity among the Left).

Stockholm Syndrome.

Montana on March 6, 2009 at 12:39 PM

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Sorry, never have nor will live by exit polls. Conservative values of small government and freedom work for everyone. We have common values and to key on the differences is counterproductive.

Cindy Munford on March 6, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Laugh all you want, it’s about forming a message to win the next election. If you don’t think it matters then go look at the exit polls.

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Sounds like we have a plan. Get Steele to get the word out: “The Republican Party hereby resolves that Social Conservatives must cease to expect their issues to be actively supported by the Republican Platform. Your social issues are irrelevant to the majority of of the population, henceforth we will limit our championing of issues to the economic arena.” That should do it.
Welcome Republic super-majorities in 2010.

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Exactly. Especially the younger crowd, which the Republican Party has effectively lost at this point.

WisCon on March 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Oh, you mean the yonger class that is going to be in poverty, paying all of the bills for The Messiah ???

That group???

Generational Theft… Learn it, live it, own it…

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Rahm is a genius.

getalife on March 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM

The Ballerina? LMAO, yeah, some real genius, all right. Blew the 93′ Clinton Healthcare Disaster, and is about to blow it again.

Norwegian on March 6, 2009 at 12:47 PM

I can’t read this whole thread because I am at work but I am cracking up over the fight about social vs fiscal conservatives. While complaining about the old fashion things that social conservatives believe in,(so twenty years ago) we are allowing a party that wants to control EVERY aspect of our lives in the door. So when you are told where to live, what to drive, where to work, what to eat and what to say, I am sure we are all going to look back and say “Damn, Pro-lifers!”.

Cindy Munford on March 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM

+100000000000000000

Mark Garnett on March 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM

True_King on March 6, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Yeah he is, gay and supposedly a college professor.

neuquenguy on March 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Nicely done. By Marginalizing Evangelicals and other Christians, the Republican Party would doom themselves to never winning another national election.

kingsjester on March 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3