Dear Allahpundint;

If you wish to include left-wing “Republicans” like David Frum in your quotes of the day, at least include ones that make some sense.

This guy brings nothing, nothing, to the debate about the Republicans future. All he is is a Washington insider who hates Conservative values almost as much as he hates your boss.

Quoting him does nothing to further the discourse in any meaningful sense. It’s like quoting Charles Barkely on what he thinks is the future of the Republican Party .

Joe Pyne on April 29, 2009 at 1:12 AM

Agree 100%.

David Frum is totally irrelevant. I guess Allah is quoting him for the outrage-factor in hopes of driving up comments, but not even that is working (only 300 or so comments, a fraction of what your ususal Palin thread brings).

David Frum is an abject failure in everything, including motivating HotAir commenters.

Give it a rest, Allah. Spare us the nonsense from this Frum clown.

I’m not a strategist regarding anything, let alone politics. However, I don’t see the benefits of demanding ideological purity in politics. I have difficulty imagining an election in the foreseeable future that would go more than 60-40, one way or the other. Therefore, conservatives will need moderates, even if this means tearing our hair out now and then.

I’m a better half a loaf than none type of person. So, what does that make me? If I am willing to compromise, am I really a conservative? I think so, and I think my posts here would demonstrate that, but I suppose some who post at Hot Air would not consider me conservative. Anyone is invited to color code me, if you wish.

Loxodonta on April 29, 2009 at 1:37 AM

I’m not in favor of targeting everyone with less than a 90% lifetime conservative voting record and showing them the door, either… it won’t do conservatism any good to start asking every Republican if they prefer the Flat Tax or the Fair Tax, and tearing off their American flag lapel pin if they take more than two seconds to answer. In a time when radical leftists have gained the power they need to implement a disastrous agenda, I do think we can do without the people who would not reliably vote against the worst elements of that agenda. It does no good for the conservative movement to marginalize itself in the quest for ideological purity, but is consistency too much to ask?

The argument against socialism will always be difficult, because the emotional appeal of greed and envy is so strong. “We will take money from rich people and use it to give you free stuff” is an attitude rightly mocked by intelligent conservatives as a ridiculous principle for structuring a society… but it makes a killer advertising slogan. The task of making the conservative argument is always made more difficult with the worst of the RINOs racing to eager journalists and explaining how they’re not like the knuckle-dragging trickle-down tools of the wealthy that dominate their party. In the months and years to come, we will be able to afford less of that static than ever before. Besides the useful cover the Specter types give the Democrats by voting with them, they demoralize the serious conservative Republicans at crucial moments. It’s tough to expect people to stay hunkered down in the trenches during a savage battle, when they see a bunch of their fellow soldiers crossing over to the other side and hoisting the enemy’s flag.

The spirit of capitalism that we defend includes the embrace of risk in the pursuit of reward. This is a good moment for conservatives to measure the risks and rewards of the marginal members of the Republican Party, and even a Democrat or two. I feel the risk of giving Toomey his shot, and letting Arlen Specter finally pick up the hammer and sickle he’s longed to hold for his entire political career, is worth the reward that would be gained. I also think keeping people like Lindsay Graham around is worth it, even though it will require us to grit our teeth a bit. It’s also worth tolerating John McCain’s never-ending flamenco dance on the edge of reason, because he does do the right thing sometimes, and seems likely to do it more often as the shadow of Fascist America rises above him. We should take these people one at a time, and perhaps err on the side of tolerance for the odd elephant with a vestigial RINO horn, but Arlen Specter was well outside the margin of error.

I just saw on the news that Sen. Specter was originally a Dem, switched in 1966 to Republican now back again. The thought process in that time line would be interesting.

Cindy Munford on April 29, 2009 at 6:23 AM

1966: Gotta get elected.

1967 – 1997: Gotta stay in office.

1998: Gotta find some obscure reference to Scottish law that will let me vote to keep Bill Clinton in office.

1999 – present: Gotta stay in office.

Now he’s gone, and with him the last Republican leverage within any of the elected branches of government…

Right . . . like that “Republican leverage” that was used so effectively in the Senate to curb some of the (many) excesses of the “stimulus” bill before its passage? Oh wait . . . . the Republicans didn’t have any leverage in the Senate because Specter, as usual, voted with the Democrats on that disgraceful waste of taxpayer money. Or maybe he means the “Republican leverage” that Specter used for such good purpose in fighting against the amnesty bill in the Senate? Oh wait . . . Specter voted with the Democrats for that piece of crap too.

When the only “Republican leverage” you’re losing is illusory, you’re not really losing anything, are you?

Other independents of a more thoughtful nature will find it increasingly hard to remain “independent,” as the definition of a “conservative” becomes “someone who doesn’t think a political operative should be authorized to deny him a kidney transplant.”

The electorate was weary in 2008, so tired of being hammered over Bush’s every word and deed that they rolled one lazy eye over McCain, saw nothing to inspire them to fight the tide, and let the media push them into Obama’s arms. I think “weary” will not be the adjective to describe them in 2012. In an energized environment, the “moderate” cachet can wear pretty thin.

Doctor Zero on April 29, 2009 at 1:16 AM

For years the left has been saying “the personal is the political” in an attempt to “energize” people they thought should be voting for lefties because “the system” was keeping them down. However, the left always ignored (and hoped would stay out of politics), the group that wasn’t voting but that supported, albeit in an inchoate manner, limited government and free markets. A lot of the same people that Ward Churchill would end up calling “little Eichmann’s”. Sorta like the guy Susan Roesgen interviewed in Chicago at the Tea Party. Not really sure of how to articulate it all because politics “aren’t his thing, really”, but supportive of the basic ideas.

In an interesting turnabout, the left’s overreach might finally bring some of those people into the voting booth, but on the conservative side. Looking out over the American landscape, I think there are more of those people than in any other “growth market” in votes. I made this point the other day and some troll responded, “Those people never vote”. To which I say, conditions on the ground are changing and at some point those people are going to realize that “politics” isn’t just some game that gets played in DC by a bunch of know-nothings (although it certainly is that), but it’s also a manifestation of power, including the power to, as you say, have some political operative tell you you can’t get that kidney transplant. Obama and co. want “transformational”, well, let’s see how far beyond a bunch of Euro-phile lefty ideologues, multi-generation welfare recipients and wet behind the ears college kids the desire for “transformational” really extends.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

kelley in virginia on April 29, 2009 at 8:19 AM

You get a big tent by showing how less government action and interference in our lives means more freedom and more choice which leads to more economic power for you and me. You have to have people that exemplify that in votes and rhetoric which leads back to my previous post.

It generates apathy.
It removes incentive to vote.
It removes belief that the GOP means what they say.
It gives the other side “bi-partisan” cover.
Its bad for the GOP identity and its bad for conservatives.

thanks matt. i don’t think many on hotair agree with me.

big tent is impt if any election is to be won. (sorry for the passive voice). to win elections, we must have a big tent!

kelley in virginia on April 29, 2009 at 8:19 AM

Another meme that I am sick of is that conservatives don’t want a big tent. Ronald Reagan was a conservative, and a Christian, and won 49 states.

When the GOP can find some principles to stick to and present itself as a choice, it might have a chance. If all it wants to be is Democrat lite, it will lose.

Obama and Biden welcome Specter to Democratic Party…WATCH LIVE.

Oooooooooooooo I think I’ll go pick up the dog business now.

big tent is impt if any election is to be won. (sorry for the passive voice). to win elections, we must have a big tent!

but we really do need to consider being more aggressive in not only attacking dems, but also attracting new republicans. and this might mean compromising on personal views.

kelley in virginia on April 29, 2009 at 8:08 AM

This is why I keep saying that federalism is the ideal glue: all the republicans have to say is that issues such as abortion and gay marriage should be left to the individual states to decide. While that might not be enough for all social conservatives, I think many would go along with that and that approach would work with many libertarians and others who are a bit leery of big government social conservatism. By the way, that’s exactly the Modern Whigs are taking now. The GOP better get on the stick.

but we really do need to consider being more aggressive in not only attacking dems, but also attracting new republicans. and this might mean compromising on personal views.

do you realize that many republicans are pro-choice? is that ok with most of the “base”?

and at the same time, i know a complete left-wing nut who is also a vehement proponent of the 2d amendment.

as bad a specter is to a conservative, the Republicans still needed him. if we wanted him to vote “no” on something, we had to promise him something else. optimal situation? no.

but now we won’t even have that opportunity with him.

kelley in virginia on April 29, 2009 at 7:44 AM

Great, so who is to blame? Toomey, for challenging him?

I am so sick of this meme that it is conservatives’ fault that Specter left.

as bad a specter is to a conservative, the Republicans still needed him. if we wanted him to vote “no” on something, we had to promise him something else. optimal situation? no.

but now we won’t even have that opportunity with him.

kelley in virginia on April 29, 2009 at 7:44 AM

Energize your constituency, beat the streets and sell your political and social philosophies and get good conservative elected to critical positions . . . but turn this piece of excrement loose to wallow with his own kind in their liberal cesspool.

as bad a specter is to a conservative, the Republicans still needed him. if we wanted him to vote “no” on something, we had to promise him something else. optimal situation? no.

but now we won’t even have that opportunity with him.

kelley in virginia on April 29, 2009 at 7:44 AM

Energize your constituency, beat the streets and sell your political and social philosophies and get good conservative elected to critical positions . . . but turn this piece of excrement loose to wallow with his own kind in their liberal cesspool.

a video everyone needs to see on the swine flu:

http://www.wpxi.com/video/19313969/index.html

unseen on April 29, 2009 at 2:58 AM

Watch all of it. The reporters are asking pretty good questions. There’s almost nothing in the interview that is not documented either in John Barry’s book or via wikipedia (including references to external sites). It’s a very precise summary of what can be expected.

but now we won’t even have that opportunity with him.

Exactly! I’m from Boston…South Boston.

TheBigOldDog on April 28,

I’m reading about Paul Revere right now.

I saw that. It is the Gallup survey that is always done in April. I wonder why their poll puts Obama 7 points higher than their survey?

McCain and Graham both voted against the monstrous spending that Obama is asking for. Right now, we need all the help we can get in that department. I think it is time to call a halt to the purging, at least until there is an election to replace the people we are losing.

Otherwise Republicans will be little more than the yapping dog at the Democrats’ heels.

You know the Republican party was not always just for certain types of conservatives. It was a broad based political party that was pro business and pretty much left people alone. It was not intrusive or nagging. A lot of moderate business people felt at home in the party. Maybe we need to get back to that somehow.

And no, I am not saying get rid of conservatives.

At a time when the Washington establishment was the target of widespread public disgust — with the Vietnam war, Watergate and the Nixon resignation — Carter’s campaign emphasized that he was an “outsider” and that strategy helped him edge out Gerald Ford in the 1976 race. Carter had huge Democrat majorities in the House and Senate. In 1976, Democrats held 292 House seats, compared to 143 for the GOP. Their lead in the Senate was 61 to 38 with one Independent. In 1978, the margin was reduced slightly: 277 to 158 in the House and 57/42/1 in the Senate. Getting congressional approval of his proposals should have been almost automatic. But Carter’s complete inexperience with the operations of the federal government were painfully obvious from his first day in the White House.

Obama’s policies will fail – there is not enough money. Stay true to your principles.