Cheney: “I think it would be a mistake for us to moderate”
posted at 7:12 pm on May 7, 2009 by Allahpundit
Courtesy of the Scott Hennen show, 15 minutes on topics as diverse as the economy, waterboarding, and even Scare Force One — although it’s his comments about the future of the GOP that are being headlined. Those come right up front in the first three minutes; if you can’t be bothered, Ben Smith has a full transcript. Between the “listening tour” that Eric Cantor’s organized, the rhetorical self-reproach from leading Republicans like Tom Ridge about how we need to be “less judgmental,” and the fact that a surprisingly high number of GOP Senate candidates next year are very moderate indeed, I think Cheney’s going to lose this battle in the short-term. Politico:
For the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s recruitment list for 2010 reads like a roster of some of the party’s best-known RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and squishes — the derisive terms applied to centrists by movement conservatives…
“I’m absolutely committed to recruiting candidates around the country that fit their states. Who would have thought we would be looking at states like Delaware, New York, Illinois and Connecticut for Republicans to run — and have a reasonably good shot at winning?” Cornyn told POLITICO. “It really is a recipe for permanent minority status and irrelevance if we don’t pay attention to the arithmetic and get back to a position so we can shape legislation.”…
“Their voting records are more moderate than the party as a whole, but I still think those candidates would hold Obama’s policies to a certain standard,” said Kaiser. “I don’t think they would be coming to Washington to see they make sure Obama got everything done he wants to do.”
Will social cons go along to get along or is there an anti-moderation backlash brewing? Hmmmmm.
Link: 
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
The middle is largely comprised of people who are simply uninformed about political issues. It’s not that they’re stupid, it’s just that they have other priorities in their lives.
BadgerHawk on May 7, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Clinton bombed Iraq and signed the Iraq Liberation Act and he and Tony Blair were SAID they were poised to go in at one point (since we’re talking Clinton I grant one cannot take his word as his bond, however).
Speaking of “Act”, the one where people pretend that there was no issue with Iraq until GWB and (cue JAWS music) Cheney is pretty sick.
KittyLowrey on May 7, 2009 at 8:41 PM
As for no child left behind, we were sending kids to highschool who could not read or write. That is a disgrace. In fact when 60% or more of inner city school students do not graduate high school that is a disgrace also. So while conservatives might want to complain about No Child Left Behind, they might also remember that education is important to most Americans and just letting Democrats take the issue over will not help conservatives, it will just be one more place where they lag behind Democrats.
Terrye on May 7, 2009 at 8:42 PM
honda: about gay marriage: the Commonwealth of Virginia has an extremely harsh stand against gay marriage, in fact, we even have an amendment to our Constitution in defense of marriage (the trad’l kind).
but after the decision in Iowa, there will be some gay couple who lands at the circuit court’s office one day & says to the clerk “hey, recognize this”. ultimately, the circuit court judge gets to rule (& if this happens to be my husband, he’ll wish for his standard day of 45 criminal trials), then it gets appealed. it will ultimately go to the big Supremes in DC.
it might take 10 years as you say. but i fear that it is coming.
kelley in virginia on May 7, 2009 at 8:42 PM
BadgerHawk:
Most Americans do consider themselves in the middle or moderate. They do not think that means they are uninformed, in fact I think that zealots on the left and the far right…have actually pushed them to the middle. For instance, most Americans do not support gay marriage, but they also don’t support a Constitutional amendment to stop it.
Terrye on May 7, 2009 at 8:45 PM
I agree with your point somewhat, but the Republican party can make an effort to extend the message of fiscal conservatism and its relation to individual liberty to urban areas.
At the end of the Steele thread yesterday, I mentioned Steele’s efforts to reach out to city centers, the young, and minorities with such a message. His RNC leadership recently sponsored such a plan in Chicago with a rally that responded with resounding, vocal success. This kind of messaging has to grow in order to spread the message of the opportunities that fiscal conservatism offers to all.
Steele also has opened up a fundraising arena for the RNC that specifically targets young people and that will attempt to reach them via the techno-toys by which they communicate.
onlineanalyst on May 7, 2009 at 8:45 PM
The problem is not actually with differing positions, it’s when those who hold them demonize those with whom they disagree. Cheney is demonized by the left but he doesn’t run around demonizing them and bearing false witness as is done to him, etc. Ms. McCain is demonizing those on the right that disagree with her over a host of issues including the one you cite. People are more against her snotty attitude than her positions, really.
Cheney didn’t lobby for gay marriage, he was pressed on the matter and answered truthfully. He didn’t then sally forth to badger the rest of the country to agree or suffer his wrath.
I see a difference, anyhoo.
KittyLowrey on May 7, 2009 at 8:46 PM
badger: most people do not keep up with the news & politics as we do. you are very correct.
kelley in virginia on May 7, 2009 at 8:46 PM
The answer is states’ rights. Voters in many states continue to express by high numbers their rejection of the idea of “‘gay’ marriage” yet their stated opinions are ignored.
Unless there’s a federal marriage law like Bush attempted, then, states’ rights is the answer to how to see that respective state’s voters’ opinions are upheld and represented.
Lourdes on May 7, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Yeah, I know Dick did. Again, he doesn’t seem to promote individualism very much. I think DHS may be a mistake. If nothing else, DHS is not a right of center position. It’s centrists if not left of center.
Perhaps. But at best this is pragmatic. Again, it’s not right of center.
OK, first for Katrina, the states should be better equipped to deal with such disasters. If I lived in that area, I’d probably have have insurance for such disasters. Also, New Orleans was “hardest hit” mostly because the population was totally unprepared. When you have a culture that encourages a welfare state, then when disaster strikes, everyone is going to look for the big government to save them.
The war? Well, yes, something had to be done. I think there could have been some better spending though. If we were going to war, we could have cut funding to say the UN – they didn’t do much for us. The question must also be raised as to whether Americans really can stomach nation building. Nation Building is LEFT of center.
Yes, there is a difference, but Bush clearly believed that the only solution was a government solution. He believed that the government had the inherent right to be involved. Whether this is true or not, it is on the left side of the spectrum.
Upstater85 on May 7, 2009 at 8:48 PM
See, right there, that’s the perspective that I find off-putting (not you personally, but the perspective there).
It’s reflective of a caved and weak or hopeless/hapless politic, that gay-marriage, so-called, is inevitable, some invading force that our nation is unable to stop or even has to “stop”.
It’s a fringe belief (“‘gay’ marrige” is) if the public’s point of view is taken seriously.
The big lie by the Left is that to oppose it is hopeless, that it’s inevitable (one cannot withstand “it”) and that only “zealots” and “wingnuts” (or, extremists, to use that timely term) oppose “it”. That’s all a lie…
Lourdes on May 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM
i feel better when we discuss what we are going to do rather than what was done & why.
kelley in virginia on May 7, 2009 at 8:52 PM
I think the Repubs should run as moderates and then pull an Obama and veer hard right after being elected.
Big John on May 7, 2009 at 8:52 PM
BRAVO, very well said!
Lourdes on May 7, 2009 at 8:53 PM
…….and my old lady has a fat a$$, what’s your point?
Old Hippie Vet on May 7, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Lourdes: i think gay marriage is gross. and yes, it erodes alot of “core” values. however when the jihadists are in your front yard beheading your children, do you engage them in a discussion about gay marriage?
national defense. protecting our purse. the Constitution.
p.s. i believe the Constitution will ultimately be interpreted to allow gay marriage.
kelley in virginia on May 7, 2009 at 8:55 PM
oooooh. big john, that sounds so delicious.
kelley in virginia on May 7, 2009 at 8:56 PM
They can, do, and should continue to make their case in the large urban centers…but one will find that their experience in actually governing will involve some distasteful compromises.
Large concentrations of very poor, especially elderly poor, are not something that traditional conservatism is apt to manage. See: 65 year old women picking up garbage in the street as per early Giuliani welfare reform attempts.
One will find public support for what seem like nonissues. Bike lanes and the like. Things that cost money, tax money…but that have sufficient support to merit providing the service. So long as the absolutist ranting of the conservative commentariat is not a prerequisite to governing as a republican, things will turn out ok.
ernesto on May 7, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Tune in NOW to see a video exposing campaign finance and bailout corruption !!!
http://www.tellyourneighbor.com/icaucus/invite/
A voice of reason on May 7, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Clinton deployed U.S. Troops 44 times in his 8 years, Balkans, Somalia, Rwanda, Macedonia, Ecuador, East Timor, Kuwait, Liberia, Albania, Congo, Gabon Sierra Leone and Sudan to name a few. In the previous 45 years the Military had been out of our borders 8 times.
thomasaur on May 7, 2009 at 8:57 PM
I think that you have the right idea, joe. Republicans need to hammer home solutions that offer opportunity, economic growth, and liberty to American citizens. Republicans do have ideas about the issues that you mention. They need to be creative and repetitive in getting those messages out. They must keep hammering on positive pocketbook outcomes for all Americans.
onlineanalyst on May 7, 2009 at 8:58 PM
I don’t (at all) follow you there. Just because some threat exists does not mean that all other concerns/issues are to be abandoned. That suggests a preference for anarchy, if so.
If you think that it’s most important (no. 2 on your scale of concerns there), to be “protecting our purse,” you won’t be voting to support “‘gay marriage” nor supporting politicians who are hapless to enforce the voters’ opinions to uphold marriage as being between one man and one woman.
BECAUSE that alteration to marriage would create increased social costs demanded of the taxpayers, with many liabilities that the Left won’t discuss.
I think more highly of many others as to voting and that most people can walk and talk and chew gum at the same time (meaning, they can maintain beliefs and uphold their social concerns while also engaging in other issues such as defense and minding the purse).
Lourdes on May 7, 2009 at 9:01 PM
And about that, I completely disagree with you. There’s no “right to marry” nor any “right” based upon homosexuality…
Lourdes on May 7, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Leading Repubican Tom Ridge? That would explain a lot about what’s wrong with the GOP.
sdun1 on May 7, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Exactly. The reason we are supposed to have a limited role for our federal government is push the governing as close to the governed as possible. Social issues shouldn’t even come into play at the national level. Let those battles go to the states where they belong.
The citizens of our several states are different… very different. What the freaks in San Fran think is normal just doesn’t fly where I live, but if that’s what they want fine, just don’t shove it into my community.
At the federal level it should be a battle between the expansion of the state into every aspect of our lives versus sovereign states and sovereign individuals.
crashland on May 7, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Upstater:
No, I don’t think Bush thought the only solution was a government solution, but when regulators told him that there was a possibility of the complete collapse of the financial system, he probably felt he had to react. And if there had been a complete collapse, who do you think people would have blamed? And to be honest, after Lehman Brothers collapsed huge sections of the financial system stopped working or working properly and I think there was a certain level of fear about what would happen next.
But that does not mean that Bush would have done what Obama has done. I doubt that any Republican president would have. This has gone beyond any level of spending or intervention that we have seen before.
Terrye on May 7, 2009 at 9:03 PM
ernesto: you’re right about the unique political perspectives found in urban environments, which exist mostly due to cities containing larger numbers of renters than elsewhere (and the elderly and youth, due to availability of services those groups particularly are more in need of and dependent on, like paratransit, public transit, entertainment, education, social-service centers and agencies, doctors, etc.).
So urban environs are special circumstances as to their usual demands for big government and big government solutions to human needs of nearly all sorts, which runs contrary to the expectations and wants of many people in non-urban environs.
Lourdes on May 7, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Thats a good explanation. The Left definitely does a lot more demonizing of their opponents than the Right does, even if they won’t admit it. But if we don’t want to totally abandon the Northeast and West Coast states to the Democrats, we will have to elect some people who support gay marriage. That means social cons holding their nose and voting.
Speedwagon82 on May 7, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Hmm, sure a lot of advocation for “‘gay’ marriage” going on here from people who are concerned about the Republican Party.
Every voter count taken in various states does not support that point of view. Yet Liberals continue to say that’s what “should” be done…
Lourdes on May 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Been there, done that. I’ll do it again if I have too.
I’ll support candidates & policies I agree with, though, to try to keep from being in that position if possible.
cs89 on May 7, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Hence the legitimate need for the GOP to run those who can represent these areas, even on the federal level. There should be no barrier to entry based on a position on gay marriage or the farm bill. The latter also happens to illustrate the other challenge for “blue state republicans”…contradictory GOP positions.
the GOP rightly rails on welfare payouts as wasteful, counterproductive, and ultimately permanent expansions of government. Yet, one of the largest no strings cash payouts in the budget is the farm bill. straight welfare to farmers who grow crops in supplies we don’t need. serving no purpose other then as vehicles for pork barrel spending and hair-brained schemes like subsidized ethanol.
ernesto on May 7, 2009 at 9:17 PM
A voice of reason: How do you get the video to work?
onlineanalyst on May 7, 2009 at 9:17 PM
If Bill Clinton’s non-UN-sanctioned war of choice was a “success”, why are our troops still there 10 years later? When are they coming home?
BTW, I wasn’t aware that Dick Cheney had “started a war” anywhere. Which war are you talking about?
Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2009 at 9:59 PM
And yet, if none oppose the advocates of it, then they get what they supossedly don’t support by default. Then after the camel’s nose is in the tent, they will be powerless to stop the camel. This argument applies to many other issues as well.
America seems like a sleeping giant (in many ways). We may be unable to respond to a ‘sneak attack’, when it is followed up rapidly and the power of the state pushes back against the members. A cancer has taken control of the head.
AnotherOpinion on May 7, 2009 at 10:00 PM
“Subsidized farming” has been going on for a long time. Read your history books.
BTW our Federal masters have now added subsidized farming to help the blue state that O’bama claims to have been born in to make ethanol out of sugar cane.
In other words, the ultimate welfare for farmers who helped to elect him.
Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Cheney: “I think it would be a mistake for us to moderate”—-Cheney is the man!!!
christene on May 7, 2009 at 10:16 PM
I explain this to a lot of people, but for some reason people can’t seem to grasp this. Really, it’s not a difficult thing to understand at all.
If you define yourself and stick to it instead of flip flopping and constantly contradicting yourself as the wind blows you will attract more people that will agree with portions of what you say versus the flip-floppage of your opponent.
The second part of the argument is directed at the far right that want to insist that everyone BE far right to be a republican; leave the goddamned social issues out of it. Like it or not an issue like abortion clearly has no majority on either side large enough to declare any sort of victory over the other side. Leave it as it is and start teaching the children to respect life at all stages, starting with the act of consummation, and leave the law alone. It has no business being part of law until we can agree 90% to 10% or better that it should be, either way.
You aren’t going to convince the left or even moderate left that gayness is an aberration. Let them live their damned lifestyles in peace. Remove all references of marriage from the law, including any exemptions in the tax code for it. That way nobody is punished for being married or not. Again, teach your children well, but don’t demand a lifestyle from them (it always backfires anyway).
Those are just two examples of social issues that the far right continually try to squeeze into the laws in an attempt to manipulate the behavior and morality of the populace. STOP IT. Stick to FISCAL CONSERVATISM and you win, simple as that. Let SOCIETY determine social issues, not the law.
If the GOP doesn’t get this soon, it’s over for them. The consensus I’ve been gathering (unscientifically) backs this up, with the two above points always seeming to float to the top first.
Get a grip GOP. Define yourselves politically, legally, but leave the social stuff ALONE, and the libtards will never win again.
Spiritk9 on May 7, 2009 at 10:21 PM
I fully understand its a crock being perpetrated by both parties. The GOP is the anti-welfare/pro trade party is it not? its their responsibility to act like it and withdraw support for subsidized farming. if they don’t…what the hell are they running for? the democrats can avoid it because at the end of the day they can justify spending all sorts of federal money…their ideology allows for it. if the GOP’s really differs…it must show it, or resign itself only to the areas that agree with it on everything else.
ernesto on May 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM
I’ve never heard them called ‘squishes’, but you can be damned sure I’m going to use it in the future! Awesome word.
Kevin M on May 7, 2009 at 11:09 PM
The so-called “Big Tent” has an entrance door for moderates and democrats. It has an exit door for conservatives like myself who have contributed financially, in canvassing, and voting.
You can count on me and many other conservatives who will use the exit door if the party loses its moral bearings.
So, the outreach folks have a decision to make: do they want their erstwhile base to leave the party or do they want to reach out to those who have yet to support the party.
Captain America on May 7, 2009 at 11:48 PM
I love to hear Dick Cheney dispose of our long-winded opponents with his short, sharp, to-the-point comments.
Cheney “gets it”: that’s why the Libs spend so much time trying to demonize him.
I’m also constantly amused by Cheney’s trick of speaking softly: thus forcing the loudmouths across the table to shut up and strain to hear his every word. It’s an old trick, but nobody executes it better than Dick Cheney.
landlines on May 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Is moderation that thing you do when you give up any pretense of standing for larger ideals and exchange your core principals for political expediency, political correctness, and trying to get people to like you. Cuz that’s what it looks like.
Mormon Doc on May 8, 2009 at 1:57 AM
It is the commonly held view today that politicians should simply forget about their core values and “go with the flow” in order to win elections.
In other words, the direction of America should be decided by the whim of public opinion, no matter what form that takes and no matter who or what is influencing that opinion.
And if we look at what influences public opinion – especially in the young – we see that the mainstream media plays a huge part. On the one hand we have a never ending stream of ideological and social messages from Hollywood (crafted by people who live in a world of fantasy and make-believe) and on the other, we are subjected to the constant word flow and editorializing of journalists, who again represent a relatively insular and not-exactly-diverse section of the population. Both groups are largely sheltered from the full range of life experience and the realities of much of daily life – for instance, how many Hollywood writers have run a large manufacturing plant? How many journalists have owned and run their own construction business? How many Hollywood producers are familiar with basic economics?
Both groups have a niche in society and that is largely to sit on the sidelines of reality and offer up their own opinions and judgment of others. And for the record, the vast majority of them are liberals. In fact virtually everyone who has a cultural influence on the developing minds of young adults – from rock stars to journalists to Hollywood producers to college professors – leans toward the left and promotes the values of the left relentlessly.
The electorate is enormously influenced by the messages, sent almost perpetually via the media, of a group of people who are not what I would call politically diverse. So to say that Republicans should just forget about core conservative values like individualism and small government and ‘go with the flow’ is to surrender the direction of America to the influence and whims of a small elite of cultural role models whose opinions are shaped largely by the expectations of the narrow circles they exist in.
The point that I’m trying to make is that we should not under any circumstances see the role of politicians as simply catering for a demand which is shaped by TV shows and movies and by journalists and professors who live in ivory towers of liberalism. The role of politicians – real politicians – should also be to shape and influence public opinion themselves.
Saying “Republicans need to reshape themselves into the image of x, y and z if they want to stand a chance of winning votes” is to completely ignore the cultural fight for the hearts and minds of the American population. It is to forget about the meaning of political movement, which is not simply to win votes by groveling at the feet of whichever cultural trends happen to be in vogue with the masses.
If hearts and minds can be steered one way by a process of influence and education then they can be steered the other way too. Republicans should think less about adopting policies they don’t really believe in and more about doing something about turning the tables of culture and reshaping popular opinion. If Republicans admit en masse that “liberalism is where it’s at” then the public will just pick the party who seems to believe in liberalism the most – Democrats. In other words, Republicans make terrible liberals and everyone knows it.
The meme is being hyped in the liberal media that conservatives have lost the hearts and minds of America’s youth forever. This is a pointless thing to say because the hearts and minds of America’s young people have *always* leaned toward the left. As people get older, they tend to head more to the right – which is why the vast majority of political conversions, which are the result of people becoming wiser with age, travel from left to right and rarely the other way around.
Sharke on May 8, 2009 at 3:18 AM
I cannot find a reason to dislike Cheney
I have yet to hear an explanation of why the left, the RINOs and the moderates hate Cheney
Of the current gigantic crop of idiot players in both parties, he is one of the few who can speak in complete sentences and lucid paragraphs.
Few dare debate him because he can turn them inside out
entagor on May 8, 2009 at 3:20 AM
Spiritk9 on May 7, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Good post, I agree completely. Conservatives need to form an ideological agenda and stick to it. And I agree wholeheartedly that that agenda should emphasize fiscal responsibility and individual freedom. To me, those are the core conservative values which should never, ever be compromised to placate the left.
“Conservative” to me means being conservative about the original philosophy upon which America was founded, i.e. the Constitution, individualism, keeping the state out of people’s lives. Being thus what I would call a right-leaning libertarian conservative, I fully disapprove of conservatives who wish to use the state to force people to live a certain way.
It is not the case that liberals have a monopoly on “letting people live as they please,” because they quite obviously have serious problems with certain groups of society, especially the capitalist producer classes and those who wish to be economically free of the state. Liberals may be obsessed with sexual freedom and the freedom to abort inconvenient babies, but curiously enough they don’t give a damn about the freedom of individuals to trade with each other on their own mutually agreed terms, or the freedom of the individual to make his own plans for his own money. Conservatives shouldn’t be embracing liberalism, they should be embracing the classical libertarian side of conservatism and taking the REAL moral high ground of individual liberty.
So that leaves the issue of social conservatives and the heavily religious. My opinion of that is that social engineering is not the role of the state and that religion should be kept entirely separate. Sure the state has a role in religion – but that is to protect the rights of individuals to practice religion freely, which is why I always come out in defense of the right of kids to pray in school or to wear religious artifacts. Surely the religious right can be persuaded to limit the interaction between the state and religion to this area?
As for social issues, my opinion is that you have to let people live their lives as they so choose, with one condition. That they don’t interfere with the right of others to do the same. This all ties in with fiscal conservatism, in that the reason why social freedom has caused so many problems is that there exists a safety net – the welfare state – which in its many guises takes away the role of consequence from society. If you want to waste your life on drugs, then fine – but you’re not going live that life on the dime of the taxpayer. If you want to get pregnant at age 14 then fine – but you’re not going to get any help from the state. Take away the safety net, protect everyone’s property rights and you introduce the element of consequence, which automatically encourages an atmosphere of self responsibility. I could not give two hoots about what people get up to in their private lives just so long as it doesn’t abrogate anyone else’s right to be free and it doesn’t cost me a cent.
Conservatives have a real chance to adopt the high road of rational freedom and personal liberty. There is a gap in the market. We don’t have to succumb to the foggy maze of sponge-brained liberalism or a woozy cloud of moderate-nothing. We just need to reassert the original meaning of conservatism – the conservation of America’s founding principles – and do everything we can to win the hearts and minds of the Americans those principles were meant for.
Sharke on May 8, 2009 at 3:42 AM
Moderation worked real well with the nomination of McCain and Dole, did it not.
Johan Klaus on May 8, 2009 at 4:51 AM
Johan Klaus:
Dole is not really all that moderate, back in Reagan’s day he would have been considered a conservative..so would McCain.
Terrye on May 8, 2009 at 6:25 AM
Del Dolemonte:
I was a farmer when Reagan was president. It might have been morning in the rest of America, but it was the dead of night on the farm.
Cargill and Monsanto came out of that a lot better than family farmers did. People can say Reagan would not have done what Bush did, but during the farm crisis the advice we were getting from the Reagan USDA was get big or get out. I remember those times.
Terrye on May 8, 2009 at 6:27 AM
Another Opinion:
A constitutional amendment is a very high bar. It requires the support of individual states and their legislatures. I think a lot of Americans are ambivalent about gay marriage to say the least, but that does not mean that they will be opposed to the degree that a constitutional amendment requires them to be.
Terrye on May 8, 2009 at 7:07 AM
Terrye,
Considered conservative by whom? The only thing McCain got conservative was insisting we not lose a war, and nominating someone with vision and appeal to those of us who brought the Republican party to its peak….. real conservatives who insist the government stop spending our money for unnecessary things and services, insist on protection of the nation from all enemies and interests which wish to reduce our standing or see our influence reduced, and support businesses in the US by getting out of their way with regulations that stifle innovation and insist only one size fits all in business. Other than that, he was a windvane for which way the press was blowing. I admire the Man’s courage and determination. But a conservative he ain’t. (McCain-Feingold, pro-amnesty, insisting that opposing our enemies overseas is the only time to show backbone, but allowing our domestic enemies to run roughshod over our reputations and our pocketbooks….. none of these are conservative positions)
It was not Reagan’s job to make small farmers successful. It was economics that drove the downfall of family farming and ranching (I know, I am one also), pure and simple. The Reagan administration telling you that you had to get bigger or fail is the way business works. If a small farmer can’t compete with a bigger operation, that is neither his fault, nor the fault of the bigger operation, nor the governments fault. It is simply a fact of Life.
Changes comes to every life and every age. If you think governments can regulate that, then lets see them direct a Mothers Love for her children into something else, or order someone else’s dog to do tricks. Ain’t happening.
Governments set limits on people. The conservative position is the limits should be as far away as possible without allowing the deaths or bankruptcy of its constituents. The liberal position is government should tell everyone to toe the same line.
So just how well is Change working for us now? Are we going to allow HopenChange to run over us because we want to be run over, or are we going to control it so it can’t be let off the leash again?
Subsunk
Subsunk on May 8, 2009 at 7:09 AM
The only fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats is where they stand on social and scientific issues. Other than that, both parties spend money like it was water.
So, it boils down to who likes the Enlightenment? Social conservatives do not. They are unquestionably anti-science. They also have no problem in peeking into the bedrooms of other people.
Given the choice between overspending idiots who want to micromanage private lives and teach their children that ID is science and the overspending idiots that have no interest in bedroom practices and want their children to have a good education, they’ll pick the latter.
Enjoy the wilderness. You guys did not elect Reagan and you are naught but zealots and luddites.
Krydor on May 8, 2009 at 9:19 AM
DeMint has it right. And I believe that Cheney has it right.
GOP must become an ideological party. The core of that ideology as stated by DeMint is “Freedom”.
Another Hot Air commenter came up with the tagline:
“Freedom, Federalism & Family”.
Sounds pretty perfect to me.
GOP as a *nationwide* party does *not* need to take a hard line stand on social issues that the “Federalism” plank of the GOP says should be left to the states.
Abortion? Leave it to states. Not a national issue.
Gay Marriage? Leave it to states. Not a national issue.
Stem Cell? Leave it to the states. Not a national issue.
Tax burden: National issue because it hits on our most threatened freedom. Our economic freedom.
The state specific GOPs can choose to have the so-called “social” issues as core to their campaigns. Meanwhile the GOP at the national level would be busy DEFENDING the states rights that are required to give them “Freedom”.
jlibson on May 8, 2009 at 9:29 AM
right on jlibson!
The Repubs spend so much time fighting ea. other on social issues, that we can’t move forward to whip the Dems on the fiscal, defense & Constitutional issues.
kelley in virginia on May 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Mark Steyn discussed the many dimensions of “moderation” yesterday. Great discussion and points made on the Limbaugh show.
Conservatives have been giving progressives free rein since WWII and veterans return home, trying to re-establish “normalcy” after war. Trouble is, progressives took it all as free reign. We’ve already passed the middle ground a long time ago, people have forgotten. GWB passed bail-outs, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, and before leaving office empowered the Sec./Treasury and FDIC and all of the Federal Treasury to do whatever they like for their own benefit and power to Socialize America.
Not only do we say “No More Socialism”, we mean RETRACT IT. To “discover” the middle ground, we have to go “right”. The left is already the sinking black hole. I won’t play by their rules any more; I insist on playing by the Constitution.
maverick muse on May 8, 2009 at 9:48 AM
I remember those times, too. The same agricultural “evolution” occurred simultaneously in academia as well as on family farms. We discussed it during dinner many times. University experimental agriculture farms were being sold out, faculty forced into early retirement, and agriculture departments totally converted into bio-chemical engineering and real estate schools. Grotesque mutilation of a beautiful science and art of application.
maverick muse on May 8, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Entagor:
“I have yet to hear an explanation of why the left, the RINOs and the moderates hate Cheney.”
C’mon. They are threatened by Cheney who not only doesn’t cower for their pleasure, but who slices them into pieces whenever they get too close. They react on vindictive cue en mass: vendetta.
maverick muse on May 8, 2009 at 10:03 AM
I don’t understand why social cons get all the flack for any Republican failure or for making the party unappealing. They bring in more votes than they ‘scare’ away. Also, if Republicans were to actually govern conservatively (e.g., actually reduce the size of government, federalism, etc) the Republican brand wouldn’t have any issues. This is not the fault of social cons.
gwelf on May 8, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Doesn’t matter. The GOP is the whipping-boy of the left and the Democrat party. They neither have the spine nor the wits sufficient to mount any kind of viable defense against their betters.
Best that they take the Bob Michel approach and get used to being losers.
spmat on May 8, 2009 at 11:57 AM
.
Two questions.
.
1. Do your really believe we are descended from rocks and water?
.
2. Can you name ten beneficial mutations?
darktood on May 8, 2009 at 12:17 PM
We desperately need to move the dialogue away from viewing right vs. left as being a single continuum that sucks up economic, defense, and social conservatism. They are completely separate issues.
What we need are serious fiscal and defense conservatives. Bush was a defense conservative, but NOT a fiscal one. So along that fiscal axis, we need the party to hold the line and be serious about discipline on spending and deficits.
Where I think we need to give a little to get a little is on the social conservative issues. I know in Ohio, where I live, there are a large number of educated younger voters–many of whom I work with–who voted for Obama because (i) they were turned off by the perception that Republicans hate science and exist solely to castigate gays and pro choice women and (ii) they bought Obama’s rhetoric that he was serious about being restrained on fiscal issues. They openly said that had John McCain opposed TARP and joined with the House GOP, they would have had to “very seriously consider” voting for him.
Outlander on May 8, 2009 at 12:47 PM
I’m still undecided on the whole “moderate or don’t moderate” debate. I’ve posted occasionallt that the Republicans need to attract moderate voters in liberal states in order to gain a majority in Congress and be able to push legislation forward. That seems practical to me. Personally, though, I worry that the Republicans have drifted so far to the middle that there isn’t much appeal to conservatives anymore. I’m not sure what strategy will work to attract a governing majority and actually be able to begin rolling back some of the crazy legislation and policies that are being enacted. How do you see Republicans returning to core principles but also winning back the majority.
Red State State of Mind on May 8, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Excellent points!
Red State State of Mind on May 8, 2009 at 1:11 PM
I’m wondering about some of this, too. There is a difference between state/local and national offices. Democrats run conservatives in conservative districts — that just makes common sense if you want to contest those areas. That’s how we end up with the Specters — you have to satisfy your voters, though, which he did not. I think a presidential candidate should be more conservative, though.
littleguy on May 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM
This one will not.
pannw on May 8, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Sign me up!
gdonovan on May 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM
I so enjoy Jonah Goldberg’s observations.
Great HotAir headline from National Review Online
Discussion is great.
Rebuilding the platform is necessary.
Get the structure built before attempting to name the hero.
maverick muse on May 8, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Cheney/Graham, heh.
maverick muse on May 8, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Cosmopolitan Conservative pool for politician recruits
maverick muse on May 9, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Purging the social cons from the Republicans is just as bad an idea as focusing on those issues. They are a large voting block and where do they go if they are unwelcome in the Repub party? There is certainly no place at the table for them in the overtly and determinedly pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-embryonic stem cell Dem party. The loss of the social cons, who are strong supporters of the rule of law, strong national defense and the right of private property, will leave the Repubs hard pressed to win elections.
And, please, stop with the ridiculous canard that social cons are “anti-science”. Abortion opponents seem to me to be more willing to acknowledge the actual biological realities of pregnancy instead of solely applying the social construct of wanted vs unwanted. Lack of support for federal tax dollars going to support embryonic stem cell research does not mean lack of support for actual successful existing treatments using other stem cells. ID is the pushback by social cons against what I would call Darwinism, which is the elevation of evolution from a scientific theory to a belief system that views dissent as blasphemy and which has become the militant atheist (as separate from atheists like AP) credo pushed in schools to indoctrinate children away from belief in God. Teaching evolutionary theory ceased long ago to be just about the science. Also, just how pro-science is the “belief” in the global warming nonsense that also brooks no dissent? Why does everyone say they “believe” in evolution or “believe” in global warming? The reason these clashes are so intense is because it is belief system against belief system with one side refusing to acknowledge their religiosity.
inmypajamas on May 9, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2