Video: Glenn Beck on the rise of independents

posted at 5:19 pm on May 23, 2009 by Allahpundit

A prelude to the next round of GOP-bashing tomorrow morning from America’s favorite squish. Portrait of two men interpreting the polling equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot: Beck, the Beltway-hating libertarian, is eager to see the GOP decline as evidence of a backlash to Bush’s spending while John Avlon, the Giuliani centrist, reads it as a reaction to social conservatism. Either way, the two-party system’s losing ground to the no-party movement, a phenomenon that naturally thrills GB. The clip’s interesting but more interesting still is the incredibly wide-ranging Pew survey from which the data’s drawn; if you can spare a few minutes, page through and eyeball some of the graphs (the “next page” link is almost hidden at the very bottom of the screen). Here’s the latest on where indies stack up versus Repubs and Dems:

They’ve actually trended right since 2007, although that “national security” question seems to be a bit stubborn. As for the GOP’s abysmal overall numbers, here’s the data that shocked me the most:

As a percentage, they’ve declined more precipitously among moderates (dropping from 24% to 16%, a loss of one-third), but in absolute numbers they’ve shed more conservatives, a surprise suggesting that Beck’s right about longstanding erosion among the base over spending. How longstanding and how much of an erosion? Dude:

Some of that’s simply disgruntlement over electoral defeats, but compare the surge among liberal Democrats as their fortunes turned to the collapse among conservative Republicans. It’s a 51-point swing. Mind-boggling.

Like I say, lots of fascinating data at the link — e.g., a perfectly predictable public flip-flop on national security vs. civil liberties since 9/11, a five-point gain in support for a path to citizenship for illegals since 2007 (support now stands at 63 percent) — but I want to post three graphics worthy of special attention. Beck and Avlon don’t touch on generational differences but maybe they should have. The kids aren’t alright:

Maybe Carville was right about the Democrats having a majority for the next 40 years. What could go wrong?


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

According to this site:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-16917341.html

May 22nd the Supreme Court nullified the term limits imposed by 23 states.

It’s from the Economist, I assume a reputable source.

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 8:55 PM

I’ve found HA commenters are some of the smartest

most funny

most kind

humorously sarcastic

friendly

blatantblue on May 23, 2009 at 8:57 PM

petunia on May 23, 2009 at 8:45 PM
But the Founders were professional politicians and they never expected the people to be represented by professional politicians. For some reason I thought that term limits had already been deemed unconstitutional but the voters can put them in place anytime they are ready even without a law. We need to stop being so “dependable”.

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 8:49 PM

Some states have term limits I think.

The President is term limited. That was done by constitutional amendment after Roosevelt finally died in office. People didn’t want any more four term Presidents.

And for some stupid reason the voters always vote in the incumbent. Unless they are under indictment or something and sometimes even then!

Holding the office just has so much power for re-election.

I think we need a citizen government. The congress has to go back to the private sector and live by the laws they pass.

petunia on May 23, 2009 at 9:00 PM

LOL why yes, I am AllahPundit under a pseudonym.

But in all seriousness, she’s a real classy broad, and HA commenters are the best of commenters in the blogosphere, IHMO.

It reminds me of Qur’an 3:111

Ye are the best of peoples commenters, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah [Pundit].

blatantblue on May 23, 2009 at 8:55 PM

Hehe, we might want to clarify that you are only AP from the hours of 8-9:01PM on Saturday nights, in case the inquisition comes a knocking…

Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Hehe, we might want to clarify that you are only AP from the hours of 8-9:01PM on Saturday nights, in case the inquisition comes a knocking…

Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Or we need to question why the two of us aren’t out on a Saturday night..

lol

blatantblue on May 23, 2009 at 9:04 PM

petunia on May 23, 2009 at 9:00 PM

I just noticed that I put that the Founders were professional politicians and that was an error. According to the link I posted at 8:55 The Economist stated that the Supreme Court overturned term limits in the 23 states that had adopted them. It was a 1995 story about the Contract With American.

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 9:05 PM

It’s from the Economist, I assume a reputable source.

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 8:55 PM

I didn’t know that.

So we would have to have a Constitutional amendment then it becomes part of Constitution by definition.

It has to be ratified by 2/3 of the states (I think) and it appears that 22 already did it on their own. Not quite half. Hmmm.

petunia on May 23, 2009 at 9:05 PM

Proof reading is hard. Please read what I’m thinking not necessarily what shows up in the post…. long distance mind reading is easier than proof reading… apparently.:>

petunia on May 23, 2009 at 9:09 PM

Beck and Avlon don’t touch on generational differences but maybe they should have. The kids aren’t alright:

The “kids” will be quite fine thank you …

Once those 40-50% taxes kick in and they realize they did it to themselves.

HondaV65 on May 23, 2009 at 9:16 PM

I quote from the video, “There is a new generation of voters that dont’ think in terms of left or right, white vs black, or red state vs blue.”
Could it be not that they are disenchanted with one party or the other but rather that our modern education system doesn’t teach them the differences between the parties? And that many modern families don’t teach the difference from wrong or right?
If a new generation doesn’t know this, then why should we expect them to identify with one party or the other? What I think is interesting is that most of our youth coming out of the education system know the liberal set of values and therefore identify more closely with the democratic party. If they had been exposed to more conservative values through out their education process, I wonder how much closer that line would have tilted towards the Republicans?

MichiganMatt on May 23, 2009 at 9:18 PM

petunia on May 23, 2009 at 9:09 PM

I always proof read but I still see what I meant to say. Pitiful.

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 9:20 PM

They never die………

……. they just exist under a different name.

Seven Percent Solution on May 23, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Mmmm…perhaps. I don’t know the history of those enough to know. The description might fit. (I will have to concede that it’s not easy coming up with completely ended programs.)

Let’s say they are continuations – are they continuations at anything but a rump of what the WPA once was? Could they be ended now without huge political outcry? Do they encompass more than .0000000001% of the federal budget?

trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 9:23 PM

Maybe Carville was right about the Democrats having a majority for the next 40 years.

People change: Those in the 50-64 range were (literally) children of the 60s.

calbear on May 23, 2009 at 9:25 PM

Proof reading is hard. Please read what I’m thinking not necessarily what shows up in the post…. long distance mind reading is easier than proof reading… apparently.:>

petunia on May 23, 2009 at 9:09 PM

Best post of all time.

trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 9:25 PM

Oh and I would add one thing to Allah’s pessimistic analysis.

“Flip-Flops” in public opinion are just that – they are immediate changes. If public opinion “flipped” on National Security in the eight years since 911 – then, to me, this proves it can and IS likely to flip back if another attack happens.

I would say this – were I Osama Bin Laden – I would not be in a hurry to attack America just yet. I would wait – because Obama is disassembling the resilient components of our economy that would enable the U.S. to quickly recover from an attack. If Osama gives Obama enough time – then an attack would be more effective than one carried out today.

Additionally – Obama is in the process of destroying the morale in our intelligence agencies. Osama is probably going to give Obama a chance to do his worst there because it will make his attack easier if he waits a bit. But he will not wait for long – and, of course – not knowing if “Osama” is alive or dead I use his name only as a label for Islamo-fascism and whoever is in charge these days.

If I were a member of the Islamo-fascist cause – I’d be quite excited right now since it appears that much of the radical islamic agenda will be accomplished by Obama – without a shot having to be fired until the very end – when America is weakened beyond it’s ability to put up a real fight anymore.

HondaV65 on May 23, 2009 at 9:29 PM

Your mentality about government is the very reason the RRepublican Party is losing, but hey just keep on clinging to it and before long you might finally join your true party, the Democrat, when the Republican party ends up folded into that party….

woodythesingingcowboy on May 23, 2009 at 8:52 PM

yep, just might. Bully for us both.

trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 9:33 PM

Or we need to question why the two of us aren’t out on a Saturday night..

lol

blatantblue on May 23, 2009 at 9:04 PM

Hehe, sorry for the long response. I actually did go out for 40 minutes (to get food).

Yeah, I think that’s a good question. I know that I have to get some serious crap done before my adviser gets back in town. So, don’t want to feel guilty about going out.

Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Rational Thought on May 23, 2009 at 8:38 PM

You are absolutely correct.

The left is scared and they are playing us like a fiddle. Wake up people the Alinsky tactics were in full force for 8 yrs. with the Bush/Cheney smear. The left is not letting up & every tactic will be used against ANY oppositon they view as a threat for the next 4 yrs. The left picked McCain. Now we are suppose to embrace Colin Powell because he is the kind of Republican that will bring more people into the tent. Pleazzzzzzzzzzze.

I would like to ask the Obama voting Powell, just what Republican policies do you support?

redridinghood on May 23, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Who Are the Big Spenders?

Michael in MI on May 23, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Thanks for posting that. That article is essential to disprove a lot of the myths being pushed about Republicans. It shows that they still did not do as good as I would prefer, though. Yet, compared with the past few months, Bush looks like a tightwad.

Loxodonta on May 23, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Loxodonta on May 23, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Hey there!! Are you fully recovered from your fall?

Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 9:58 PM

Who Are the Big Spenders?

Michael in MI on May 23, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Wow! That is an eye opener. I had a vague idea but this… Obama should be called out for lying yet again.

petunia on May 23, 2009 at 10:19 PM

@nelsonknows, you are right, Ron Paul has no future, but his young (often somewhat confused…) supporters have. If the Republican Party rejects them they’ll go somewhere else.

“Centrists LOST the 2008 election”

I don’t argue for centrism. I argue for agressive opposition to socialism and a strong defense of the Constitution and capitalism, something I’ve never seen from clueless conservatives.

I have seen it from Giuliani. Or Thaddeus McCotter, who would be my pick for 2012.

modifiedcontent on May 23, 2009 at 10:41 PM

HondaV65 on May 23, 2009 at 9:29 PM

Pretty astute, especially given how Obama has gutted defense spending.

trailboss: You forget that Clinton had also cut defense spending because of the peace initiative. Thus, he had “balanced” the budget.

onlineanalyst on May 23, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Rational Thought on May 23, 2009 at 8:38 PM
You are absolutely correct.

The left is scared and they are playing us like a fiddle. Wake up people the Alinsky tactics were in full force for 8 yrs. with the Bush/Cheney smear. The left is not letting up & every tactic will be used against ANY oppositon they view as a threat for the next 4 yrs. The left picked McCain. Now we are suppose to embrace Colin Powell because he is the kind of Republican that will bring more people into the tent. Pleazzzzzzzzzzze.

I would like to ask the Obama voting Powell, just what Republican policies do you support?
redridinghood on May 23, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Ditto here.

onlineanalyst on May 23, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Who Are the Big Spenders?

Michael in MI on May 23, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Now this would make a great ad for the RNC. This message definitely needs to be pounded until the Obots finally get the picture.

redridinghood on May 23, 2009 at 10:54 PM

petunia on May 23, 2009 at 10:19 PM

Nah, he didn’t lie. He just didn’t know this. Although even if he did he’d probably would have lied.

Trov on May 23, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Beck was calling himself a conservative last year. I wonder if he has even changed his views on anything or if he’s just going with the cooler label?

V15J on May 23, 2009 at 5:36 PM

That’s about it. Libertarian is the cool keyword of the day, but I will never be one. I actually care if my behavior affects my neighbors.

I like Beck because he addresses the issues no one else wants to touch, but there is inconsistency in some of the stuff he says and does. Promoting Michael Sheuer is one. Also, he made the big brave “I don’t care what they do in their bedrooms” statement last week while agreeing with CA parents that the LGBT should stay out of schools. He misses the whole point on that one.

Connie on May 24, 2009 at 12:10 AM

I wish people would quit whining about the GOP. America wouldn’t be much different than a lot of countries in Europe if not for the Republican Party. The ideals of the party are great. It’s just a shame people get caught up in social issues so much, when there are much more important issues.

therightwinger on May 24, 2009 at 2:44 AM

Libertarian is the cool keyword of the day

Connie on May 24

The Founding Fathers were far more libertarian than today’s social conservatives.

John the Libertarian on May 24, 2009 at 2:47 AM

These may be so-called “experts” with the same proclivities, as those who advise Barry Soetoro, on the economy, and Al Gore on Global Warming.

sinsing on May 24, 2009 at 8:38 AM

The Founding Fathers were far more libertarian than today’s social conservatives.

John the Libertarian on May 24, 2009 at 2:47 AM

+100

BobAnthony on May 24, 2009 at 8:44 AM

I think its more like this.

That’s because the entire region is awash in moderates, and Republicans are losing ground with them. According to a report on Monday by Gallup, Republican support among moderates fell by 9 percent from 2001 to 2009.

Are the Republicans softening some positions to reverse the trend? Of course not. As a Gallup report on Wednesday noted: “Most of the uptick in support for conservative positions over the past year is the result of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) moving to the political right in their views.”

The problem is not so much republicans becoming indepents. The democrats are losing a few points to independents or remaining stable. People leaving the party are not running towards the democrats, they are running AWAY from republicans.
So in a vote scenario, Independents are more likely to vote with the democrats.
Centerright nation no more.
>:(

strangelet on May 24, 2009 at 8:46 AM

The Founding Fathers were far more libertarian than today’s social conservatives.

John the Libertarian on May 24, 2009 at 2:47 AM

The founding fathers were elitist landholding social-snobs that tried to prevent common yeoman farmers demagogues running for office with the mechanisms of congress and the electoral college.

strangelet on May 24, 2009 at 8:50 AM

The founding fathers were elitist landholding social-snobs that tried to prevent common yeoman farmers demagogues running for office with the mechanisms of congress and the electoral college.

strangelet on May 24, 2009 at 8:50 AM

What crap. Did you learn that in college or is the brainwashing starting in high school now?

Itchee Dryback on May 24, 2009 at 9:21 AM

“Libertarian is the cool keyword of the day” because “conservative” is just an awful label to anyone under 40 and anyone who isn’t a political masochist. Conservative sounds like canned food. It denotes stuffed shirt old white men.

The founding political philosophy of America was liberalism, classic (!) liberalism; individualism, popular sovereignty, democracy, capitalism, freedom of speech, rule of law, seperation of powers, etc.

Longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas in the 1940s: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

Socialists coopted liberalism. The Democratic Party is now America’s socialist party – and imho something beyond that under Obama, like Mussolini-style fascism.

The Republican Party was captured by “conservatives”.

The true Americans, the REAL liberals, are left in the cold. Because the label liberal is taken they have to call themselves something else; conservative, libertarian, independent, whatever.

The way back for the Republican party is not please “the conservative base” or to move towards a lite version of socialist “liberal”, but reclaim classic liberalism and become agressively pro-capitalist, pro-individualist and pro-Constitution.

modifiedcontent on May 24, 2009 at 9:55 AM

modifiedcontent on May 24, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Well said.

Itchee Dryback on May 24, 2009 at 10:07 AM

The Constitution Party : America’s next great party.

RightXBrigade on May 24, 2009 at 10:59 AM

The Republican Party was captured by “conservatives”.

when did this happen? I must have missed it with Bush the elder and bush the younger…other than Reagan there is no one that conservative. you do know that we just had john mccain as a nominee of the republicans, right? he’s not conservative by any stretch. and you do know the party backed Specter and is backing Crist now in FL??

I know this is a popular talking point but its not grounded in reality…

The way back for the Republican party is not please “the conservative base” or to move towards a lite version of socialist “liberal”, but reclaim classic liberalism and become agressively pro-capitalist, pro-individualist and pro-Constitution.

modifiedcontent on May 24, 2009 at 9:55 AM

again did you miss mccain as the last nominee?? what makes you, or anyone, think the republicans are trying to please conservatives???? get a clue, they’re not.

you’re just the typical ‘lets kill babies and have gay marraige’ and everyone will love us….megan (moooooo) mccain type of republican….you can have the republicans…hell with em…

right4life on May 24, 2009 at 11:23 AM

The Constitution Party : America’s next great party.

RightXBrigade on May 24, 2009 at 10:59 AM

I agree, the republicans are going the way of the whigs..

right4life on May 24, 2009 at 11:25 AM

What crap. Did you learn that in college or is the brainwashing starting in high school now?

Well I graduated HS in 1998 and heard that garbage a long time before I went to college. I’m sure it’s even worse now.

RightXBrigade on May 24, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Connie on May 24, 2009 at 12:10 AM

Do you honestly care what “they” do in their bedrooms? I don’t. As long as no one dies.

But I do want what they do in their bedrooms to stay out of the classrooms of America. Out of the laws of this country altogether.

And I don’t want the entire nuclear family turned on it’s head because of what they do in their bedrooms.

And I want the state not to dictate religious doctrine. It is not the state’s business to overturn the bible.

Is that inconsistent? I guess I’m guilty.

petunia on May 24, 2009 at 11:59 AM

This whole topic is missing the main point about party affiliation. The reasons less people are identifying with the republicans is because the republicans are not acting like conservatives. They have to get off the Groucho Marx attitued that “I wouldn’t join any club who would have me for a member.” Conservatives, like me, have been totally disgusted with the cowardly behaviour of the republican party. As much as democrats criticize the republicans, they don’t even realize that the voters hate repubs…only when they act like democrats!

Politics is a tug of war that no side should ever win. Don’t listen to those people who would tell you that you would be smart to start the tug of war from the middle of the mud. This has been the mistake of the GOP.

Bikerken on May 24, 2009 at 12:08 PM

This whole topic is missing the main point about party affiliation. The reasons less people are identifying with the republicans is because the republicans are not acting like conservatives…Conservatives, like me, have been totally disgusted with the cowardly behaviour of the republican party…
Bikerken on May 24, 2009 at 12:08 PM

By George, he’s got it!!!! The Republican Party was rejected by its members because of it abandoned its conservative principles, especially regarding social issues.

sinsing on May 24, 2009 at 12:47 PM

I agree with Clinton on this issue. People vote according to an internal set of principles. Often there are conflicts. We have to decide which one takes priority.

That can’t be polled or graphed. The polling mechanisms are great as long as the priorities are clear. They don’t work at all when it’s subtle.

I also agreed with Clinton’s remark that people often guage and factor in who is going to be effective. It’s not strictly logic.

If I like McCain’s policies but think he’ll get none of his ideas through, and I like SOME of Obama’s policies and see that he’ll probably get them through, then I’m probably going to lean toward voting for Obama.

That’s just how it really works.

AnninCA on May 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM

right4life on May 24, 2009 at 11:25 AM

The funny thing is, you don’t see the irony of that, because you don’t know who the Whigs are. I want the Republican Party to restore back to its whig roots.

modifiedcontent on May 24, 2009 at 9:55 AM
I would agree, though I would argue that defending a persons life is part of the constitution and fundamental rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….the battle is when is a person considered a person…some people think it isn’t until the person is born…some are even more extreme than that. So Going pro-abortion isn’t the ticket…but being just pro-life isn’t the ticket either.
On defending traditional marriage, another social conservative thing, and the family should be protected and strengthened. The issue doesn’t show itself at the time two people get married…it manifests itself in education ( example, father was upset that MA was teaching gay marriage as acceptable and normal, without being notified as a parent, and the school didn’t feel the need to notify him because its legal ); in divorce court cases; and with foster care and adoption…let alone it opens the door for hate crime to be used against religion. I agree with the libertarian philosophy of live and let live, for the most part.

Conservative Voice on May 24, 2009 at 1:43 PM

AnninCA on May 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Did you really put Clinton and principles in the same sentence?

Conservative Voice on May 24, 2009 at 1:54 PM

The funny thing is, you don’t see the irony of that, because you don’t know who the Whigs are. I want the Republican Party to restore back to its whig roots.

so you’re for slavery?? or tariffs and protectionism?? or the fed?? which of these ‘roots’ do you want to return to??

right4life on May 24, 2009 at 2:01 PM

I think the data is pretty clear that the downtrend for the GOP can be traced directly to the negative Iraq coverage and Katrina. The portrayal of the party in the media encourages further defection. It’s the equivalent of a reverse bandwagon effect. More than anything else those two issues damaged the Republican brand.

It will take time to overcome Katrina, but Iraq could be easily overcome by branding Obama as more of the same of the Bush policies. It neutralizes it as an issue that benefited Dems. The more Republicans point out that Obama is just like Bush the better it is for the GOP. Conservatives won’t vote for Barack no matter what, but it could lead to disenfranchisement among the far left.

Butter! Sorry the butter thing doesn’t have any meaning … I’m just a fan of butter.

Stickeehands on May 24, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Slavery is immoral, unless the slave master is government right? /sarc
The Whig Party was a political party of the United States during the era of Jacksonian democracy. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from 1833 to 1856,[2] the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the executive branch and favored a program of modernization and economic protectionism. This name was chosen to echo the American Whigs of 1776, who fought for independence, and because “Whig” was then a widely recognized label of choice for people who saw themselves as opposing autocratic rule.[3] The Whig Party counted among its members such national political luminaries as Daniel Webster, William Henry Harrison, and their preeminent leader, Henry Clay of Kentucky. In addition to Harrison, the Whig Party also counted four war heroes among its ranks, including Generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott. Abraham Lincoln was a Whig leader in frontier Illinois.

The party was ultimately destroyed by the question of whether to allow the expansion of slavery to the territories. With deep fissures in the party on this question, the anti-slavery faction successfully prevented the nomination of its own incumbent President Fillmore in the 1852 presidential election; instead, the party nominated General Winfield Scott, who was soundly defeated. Its leaders quit politics (as Lincoln did temporarily) or changed parties. The voter base defected to the Republican Party,

From this we can see that the Whigs were divided on slavery, and for the most part was anti-slavery.
They were for tariffs and were protectionists…the Pat Buchanans if you will. Right now this would not be feasible, but at the time this made sense.

President Jackson was a racist donkey, putting it politely…the party was in direct opposition to him….

Where I agree with the Whigs…they were strong states rights, …especially when it came to Jacksons power grabs.Again…states rights and keep the power grabs of the President in check. Where I disagree with the Whigs is tariffs….the central banking…railroad projects and infra-structure…are all good, to a point..

Conservative Voice on May 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM

right4life on May 24, 2009 at 2:01 PM

And on the Fed, I agree that the Whigs largely come from the Federalists party…strong central banking….and the Fed is too strong…
My main point is the Republicans ( and Democrats ) have lost their roots…they are both socialists progressives who seem to have forgotten basic principles in smaller less central government ( The Republicans and Democrats were at one time one party…looks like history has come full circle, as they are again one party, only now there isn’t a viable opposing party…in the beginning it was the Federalists against the Democratic-Republican Party…now its just the Federalists.

Conservative Voice on May 24, 2009 at 2:39 PM

right4life: “you’re just the typical ‘lets kill babies and have gay marraige’ and everyone will love us….megan (moooooo) mccain type of republican….you can have the republicans…hell with em…”

I hadn’t even mentioned those issues. You have no idea what my position on those issues is, so FU.

If the Constitution is followed and government restored to its proper very limited role, it will be up to the people to decide on these social issues and work itself out.

modifiedcontent on May 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM

If the Constitution is followed and government restored to its proper very limited role, it will be up to the people to decide on these social issues and work itself out.

modifiedcontent on May 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM

well said, and sorry for coming to same conclusion that you were against social conservatives when I read…
The way back for the Republican party is not please “the conservative base” or to move towards a lite version of socialist “liberal”, but reclaim classic liberalism and become agressively pro-capitalist, pro-individualist and pro-Constitution.

modifiedcontent on May 24, 2009 at 9:55 AM

I also consider myself to be a classical liberal…I understand the necessary evil of having federal power, centralize banking, railroads, interstate highways etc…but its way over-bloated and powerful. I don’t care if I have to pick up farming again to support my family…I want my freedoms again!

Conservative Voice on May 24, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Looks like AnninCA has to work overtime in her Soros funded job pretending to be a conervative posting lefty comments in blogs.

karenhasfreedom on May 24, 2009 at 3:46 PM

It’s from the Economist, I assume a reputable source.
Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 8:55 PM

Has to be… I heard palin reads it. *uproarious laughter*

benny shakar on May 24, 2009 at 6:56 PM

Do you seriously think the dems are going to continue TARP and stimulus spending levels into the future? I think not. Yes the dems want more government, but all the deficit spending of the last 15 years has been on the GOP watch.

trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 6:45 PM

Huh? I’m no math major or nothin’ but 2009-15 = 1994. And who was president 1994-2001? Oh yea a Democrat. And who has been in charge of Congress since 2007? Oh right the Dems. And who controlled the Senate from 2001 (after Jeffords) to 2003? Why by golly it’s the Dems again.

There’s no denying the GOP did plenty of stupid spending. But to say it was on the GOP’s “watch” is beyond ridiculous.

angryed on May 24, 2009 at 7:01 PM

Where I agree with the Whigs…they were strong states rights, …especially when it came to Jacksons power grabs.Again…states rights and keep the power grabs of the President in check. Where I disagree with the Whigs is tariffs….the central banking…railroad projects and infra-structure…are all good, to a point..

Conservative Voice on May 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM

but Jackson got rid of the central bank…which given the performance of the fed would be a good thing…and he also told the supreme court to stick it, and let em enforce their own rules…so I like Jackson.

my point was the whigs divided over social issues…just as the republicans are doing…they obviously don’t want social conservatives…they are embarressed by us…so why should we vote for them?

if the republicans want to be a ‘small government party’ I would first wonder SINCE WHEN??? you’re right, both parties have embraced the progressive movement, Glenn Beck is right about that.

right now the only real conservative party out there is the constitution party…

right4life on May 24, 2009 at 8:39 PM

modifiedcontent on May 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM

you throw out talking points, then you get upset when you get called on it…poor baby..wimp

go F yourself.

right4life on May 24, 2009 at 8:40 PM

right4life on May 24, 2009 at 8:39 PM

I am not a big fan of Jackson mainly because of how he treated the Cherokees…but good for him to tell the court to stick it.

Reagan was for smaller government….there are a number of Republicans who are for smaller government…esp when you compare the Republicans against Democrats. However, since President Bush I no longer consider myself Republican….a Glennican?

Conservative Voice on May 24, 2009 at 10:32 PM

I really dislike this Avlon character. He’s kind of a twerp and his spin on the numbers is pretty contrived. If Beck is going to be bringing idiots like Avlon onto his show he’s going to lose me (and those like me) as viewers. I like to hear the other side, and these self-anointed “moderates” are the other side, but not from mental midgets. I can talk to a 12 year old to get the Avlon view of the world.

progressoverpeace on May 23, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Avlon is quite possibly the most annoying “pundit” on television, etc., today. His whole “I am the voice of centrist independents, MY voice speaks for all of them” schtick is competely annoying; he’s got to be the most pretentious person I’ve ever seen with his self-appointed “Voice of the Moderates” crap.

I’ve never seen any conservative or leftist “pundit” claim to speak for all of their compatriots, yet this Avlon clown lterally claims to speak for all “Centrists”, the most amorphous group of all. Ridiculous.

Oh and I love the way he’s always trotting out numbers, when he obviously has no facility with them, nor any kind of empirical background. I know he worked for Giuliani’s presidential campaign, and was an editor at the New York Sun. I like Giuliani and liked the Sun, but with this guy involved it’s no wonder both tanked.

Then again, I’m not crazy about Beck either, so maybe they make a good pair.

Dreadnought on May 24, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Beck has much more insight than the poly sci guy. DD

Darvin Dowdy on May 24, 2009 at 11:04 PM

right4life, who the fuck are you?! You’re not calling me on anything. You are the one repeating talking points. Your post went into things I hadn’t even mentioned. You were just assuming stuff, clueless moron…

modifiedcontent on May 25, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Conservative Voice: “I also consider myself to be a classical liberal…I understand the necessary evil of having federal power, centralize banking, railroads, interstate highways etc…but its way over-bloated and powerful.”

Federal power as a necessary evil is NOT classic liberalism; classic liberalism includes the idea of limited government. The Founding Fathers were classic liberals.

I am against centralized banking, railroads, etc. There’s no need for that at all. The market really can sort itself out if contracts between free people are respected.

What is called liberalism in the US now has absolutely nothing to do with classic liberalism; it’s almost the exact opposite of classic liberalism.

What you call conservatism is almost entirely classic liberalism, but conservatism puts the emphasis on social issues and many conservatives are utterly clueless about economics and the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution.

modifiedcontent on May 25, 2009 at 12:23 AM

Wish we could convince Rush, Beck, Michelle, Hannity, Levin, Bortz, and others to promote the Constitution Party, adopt the Republican Party Platform and anyone who agrees to really lead by it. (Yeah, I know that most don’t favor that now, but I think power would immediately be transferred from the RINO’s.) Campaign on small govt, low taxes, balanced budgets, entitlement reform, strong defense, states rights, life, and term limits. Would strike a real chord with the base and maybe many independents who call themselves independent because they are fed up with RINO’s.

Christian Conservative on May 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM

modifiedcontent on May 25, 2009 at 12:23 AM

Hamilton and Samuel Adams are founding fathers yes? Did they not start the Federalist Party, which promoted central banking, railroads etc? In fact “although George Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, he remained an independent his entire term.” Hamilton was part of George Washington’s cabinet.

Classical liberalism is very much conservatism, that part is true…and while some social conservatives maybe clueless on economics and the philosophical underpinnings of the constitution, in many regards they understand it better…because they understand government should protect our freedom to live…especially the innocent and the persons who can’t defend themselves…unless through due process of law government should protect life, liberty and property…oops that was too hard to swallow, because of the slavery issue…so up, the pursuit of happiness…
But just because they are pro-life, or against gay marriage doesn’t make a person a conservative.

I don’t have a problem with centralize banking, as long as its very very limited in its power….and banks can exist off the matrix. I also don’t have a problem with railroads, anymore than I am against inner state highways. As long as the people can own the majority of the property, than it doesn’t matter. I do have a problem with the federal government being in charge with 30+% of the gdp, this should not be more than 10%.

Classical liberalism understands limited federal power…the founding fathers recognized that some federal power, not a lot, but some was a necessary evil…

Conservative Voice on May 25, 2009 at 2:25 AM

Sheet! The Bambi is a liar and tool. Don’t care how you parse it; he is a wannabe dictator. This is too much fascism and Bambi , “Can’t make the trains run on time.”

Caststeel on May 25, 2009 at 2:41 AM

@Conservative Voice, in regards to liberalism I was talking about writers like John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Charles de Montesquieu and the writers of the US Constitution. Personally I wouldn’t count Hamilton among the founding fathers.

modifiedcontent on May 25, 2009 at 8:39 AM

Please tell me who decided that Republicans would be identified by the color red and Demoncrates in blue.

This further divides the country and gives the impression that those on the Right are Commies (red) while the Demoncrates are Blue the color of the sea and sky.

MSGTAS on May 25, 2009 at 10:58 AM

modifiedcontent on May 25, 2009 at 8:39 AM

I note that you seemed to have missed Samuel Adams and the Great George Washington…do they not get counted in the founding fathers too?

Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757 – July 12, 1804) was the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, a Founding Father, economist, and political philosopher. He led calls for the Philadelphia Convention, was one of America’s first Constitutional lawyers, and cowrote the Federalist Papers, a primary source for Constitutional interpretation.

I also note that you mentioned a few people not considered founding fathers…great thinkers sure, but not founding fathers.

Do not confuse the central bank with todays Fed. The founding fathers first tried the Articles of Confederation…but that was too loose. The founding fathers, who all disdained tyranny like the plague that it is, realized that they needed more…so created the federal government with principles of a republic and balance of power. Hence my statement, I understand the necessary evil, the federal government.

Conservative Voice on May 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM

MSGTAS on May 25, 2009 at 10:58 AM

I like red…new blood, the democrats…old blood.

But the colors don’t necessarily divide…as they are united under the flag.

Conservative Voice on May 25, 2009 at 1:01 PM

right4life, who the fuck are you?! You’re not calling me on anything. You are the one repeating talking points. Your post went into things I hadn’t even mentioned. You were just assuming stuff, clueless moron…

modifiedcontent on May 25, 2009 at 12:16 AM

someone who is a lot smarter than you…you clueless piece of shit.

here’s what you said jackass

The Republican Party was captured by “conservatives”.

that is such a laughable lie you must be some left wing moron…duhhhhhh

and you cannot back up what you say…all you can do is parrot talking points like the left-wing POS you are.

you’re just upset that I called you on your blatant lies and stupidity

bet you’re fat as you are stupid.

right4life on May 25, 2009 at 1:51 PM

The way back for the Republican party is not please “the conservative base” or to move towards a lite version of socialist “liberal”, but reclaim classic liberalism and become agressively pro-capitalist, pro-individualist and pro-Constitution.

modifiedcontent on May 24, 2009 at 9:55 AM

this is something that megan (mooo) mccain, or powell would say…

it worked REAL WELL in the last election didn’t??? mccain sure didn’t please the conservative base…get a clue…God you’re stupid.

now can you defend what you wrote, or can you just call people names like some typical left-wing stooge.

right4life on May 25, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Can we PLEASE be honest about “moderates”?

Moderates are simply those who cannot, have not, will not, or don’t have the balls to take a position on difficult issues.

You cannot compromise on values. Compromised values are s**t, who needs them, and who needs people with compromised values? That’s the dimmies.

The only real solution for conservatives is to stay conservative, and work to convince whomever we can that we are right. If the strategy for “saving” the GOP is to become like the Left, really: Who needs it. Let ‘em have it. Why would conservatives want to enable the goals of the Left?

seanrobins on May 25, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Personally I wouldn’t count Hamilton among the founding fathers.

modifiedcontent on May 25, 2009 at 8:39 AM

Then you are an idiot…hamilton was the FIRST delegate chose for the Constitutional Convention and only Madison and Mason had more input on the Constitution than Hamilton.
Get thee back to Junior High for an education.

nelsonknows on May 26, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3