Peter Beinart: Petraeus is the only candidate who can unite the GOP
posted at 10:21 pm on October 13, 2009 by Allahpundit
As personalities, the syntax-mangling Ike and the self-consciously intellectual David Petraeus don’t have much in common. But politically, they’re in a parallel position. Today’s GOP has a right-wing base that can damage Obama, but none of its favorites have a prayer of winning the White House. The reason is that just like the Republican right of the early 1950s, which kept insisting that the New Deal constituted socialism (or fascism), today’s conservative activists have not accommodated themselves to some basic shifts in public mood. Over the past couple of decades, the American people have grown more pro-environment, more culturally tolerant, and more suspicious of the unregulated free market, and yet the Republican Party has responded with a series of litmus tests for its presidential candidates that represent the political equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “la la la, I can’t hear you.”…
Like McCain in 2008, Petraeus could largely skip the Iowa caucuses, which evangelicals dominate, and instead focus on New Hampshire, where independents can vote. In both 2000 and 2008, it was New Hampshire that boosted McCain, and New Hampshire, as it turns out, is the closest thing Petraeus has to a home state. From there it would be on to South Carolina, where military pedigrees go a long way.
All this is wildly speculative, of course. But there’s a political logic to it: Parties that have grown narrow and extreme tend to spiral downward until they nominate someone who is not beholden to their narrow, extreme base. That person has to be so popular that he or she can defy the normal rules about how candidates get nominated. Right now, David Petraeus is the only Republican who fits the bill. In the weeks ahead, McChrystal may become a conservative folk hero for opposing Obama on Afghanistan. But for Democrats looking toward 2012 and 2016, it’s Petraeus who represents the real threat.
We’ve been over this before. He gave a Sherman statement to Chris Wallace back in 2007. Even if he was inclined to renege, it’s hard to believe he’d do it to challenge his own commander-in-chief in 2012. If it’s going to happen, it’ll happen in 2016, and that’ll require another crushing GOP defeat against The One.
That said, Beinart’s larger point is well taken. Among the major Republican candidates, the only one who truly excites the base is Palin, yet she’s sufficiently poisonous to moderates at the moment that Bob McDonnell won’t even take her up on her offer to campaign for him in Virginia while sitting on a nine-point lead. Petraeus is the only person on the landscape, it seems, capable of intriguing the base and centrists. His problem is that, for the foreseeable future, the country’s problems don’t play to his strengths. Ike was an easy choice for post-war America because he epitomized strength and victory at a moment when the red menace was top priority; our own top priority for most of the next decade, I imagine, will be unemployment and debt unless Iran or North Korea does something astoundingly nutty. Why look to a general to deal with that? Like Beinart says, a serious look at Petraeus would require another Republican flameout in 2012, driving the party to such desperation that they’ll practically be forced to look outside the box. He’ll only be 64 in 2016. Why not?
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 3 4 Next »
Jetboy
Go back and look at the Rass. Polling from earlier in the year and you will see Gov. Palin polls in the mid 70% range with the base. She beats Huck and Mitts by 15-20%.
The PPP poll is sh!t.
She does poll in the low to mid 40′s with Indies. I think Gallup and Pew bear this out. Let the Indies hear Sarah unfiltered and a lot can change. There is some sentiment of this already going on. Her stepping down hurt some but not that much with the base. She did very well with Indies in AK. and she can do it again in time.
Clyde5445 on October 13, 2009 at 11:24 PM
I reject your characterization of Palin. Why is she toxic? Because the media puppetmasters says she is?
I think battleoflepanto1571′s response is a more likely reason….IE, if you’re ahead, you stay on course and you don’t do anything to distract or detract.
I think at this point, he’s just running out the clock. Why introduce someone to the mix who’s bound to garner a ton of attention and could distract from your campaign?
powerpro on October 13, 2009 at 11:24 PM
“Say, listen GOPers. If you wanna win, and I mean REALLY win BIG, you’d better nominate someone who’s moderate and will appeal to independent voters! Trust me on this!!”
Hmmmmm….I get this weird feeling I’ve heard that song before…
ddrintn on October 13, 2009 at 11:28 PM
They ignore the finer details, which is why a thousand Ayers or Rev. Wright connections likely would not have derailed Obama.
Erich66 on October 13, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Iwon’t go into the litany yet again, but there were a 1000 connections, and you’re right no one either noticed or cared. Sad but true.
Archimedes on October 13, 2009 at 11:30 PM
When we had majorities in Congress every RINO helped us keep control of the gavels. That matters a lot.
If we keep trying to make the GOP a pure conservative party by fighting against our moderates and libertarians who were elected by their constituents in their home states, what are we telling those voters? To me, we are telling them, “Don’t vote for us, because we can’t stand you.” That’s not a great message for winning national elections.
Loxodonta on October 13, 2009 at 11:32 PM
This stuff is so stupid. Obama is what unites the GOP. And the GOP candidate, Governor Someone-who’s-not-Obama, is going to get 90% of GOP votes in 2012, just like McCain did.
Whether that candidate inspires large turnout and whether that candidate can convince moderates to defect from Obama in Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado in large numbers – that’s the question. And that will have virtually nothing to do with the candidate the GOP picks, and virtually everything to do with Obama himself.
Proud Rino on October 13, 2009 at 11:32 PM
And when he turns out to be a Snowe/Collins Republican on non-foreign policy issues, he’ll unite the GOP in teeth-gnashing.
Siobhan on October 13, 2009 at 11:33 PM
But more often than not proceeded to govern like Dem Lite. That cost them the gavels.
ddrintn on October 13, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Gen Petraeus is more important to this country in his current command than he would be as POTUS or Party leader.
Gen Petraeus is the one responsible for the war planning we will need as a nation for many years to come. I would rather have him at CENTCOM? I do not know his positions on the issues and I do not think he has expressed them. All we know he could be another (cough) Powell.
Clyde5445 on October 13, 2009 at 11:36 PM
What does Petraeus stand for? We need someone who will stand up to socialism, who will defend the Constitution, capitalism, individual liberty.
Again:
Socialists (“liberals”): 30%
Real/classic liberals, libertarians, independents: 40%
Conservatives: 30%
Conservatives vs liberals = WIN for socialists
The Republican party needs someone who can capture the anti-socialist mainstream. Unfortunately as long as “the conservative base” runs the party, we’ll be stuck with candidates like McCain, Huckabee or Petraeus.
modifiedcontent on October 13, 2009 at 11:38 PM
The fact that McCain was the nominee shows how much the “conservative base” runs the party.
ddrintn on October 13, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Tell me how you assemble a social, fiscal and security conservative majority in this country? I don’t know how to do it without reaching out to and including moderates and libertarians within our tent.
Loxodonta on October 13, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Is Petraeus a known Republican?
silvernana on October 13, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Palin/Cheney
Palin/Petraeus
Cheney/Petraeus
Palin/Bachman (dude?)
SouthernGent on October 13, 2009 at 11:43 PM
I know its boring…but it is still to early to talk about 2012 scenarios. How well was Hillary polling in 2001? Yet she would have had at least a decent chance of winning in 2008 if Obama’s supporters hadn’t, uh, outworked her supporters at a number of caucuses…
18-1 on October 13, 2009 at 11:43 PM
One of the Ps:
Palin, Pence, or the General and I’m down.
lavell12 on October 13, 2009 at 11:46 PM
You run on conservative principles down the line, and stand by them. We haven’t had a national candidate like that since Reagan in 1984. Not Bush Sr or Jr, not Dole, not McCain. The media don’t want such a candidate. The very thought terrifies them. Which means we’ll probably never have a truly conservative presidential candidate for a long while.
ddrintn on October 13, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Well, starting in early 2005, it was pretty clear that it was going to be Clinton, Edwards or Obama.
ddrintn on October 13, 2009 at 11:48 PM
The problem with this analysis is that is exactly what the Democrats did in 2008. In fact, one can make a strong argument that the Democrats started purging their party of moderates in 2004, and rolled to victory in 2008 after largely succeeding.
While I would not argue this is why they won, it does show that electoral victory is not achieved by kowtowing to you party’s moderates.
18-1 on October 13, 2009 at 11:49 PM
It does. The “conservative base” vetoed Giuliani, Romney and probably other viable candidates that didn’t even bother to run. McCain emerged as compromise candidate because he was acceptable to the “conservative base”. And if it hadn’t been McCain, it would have been mushy Huckabee.
modifiedcontent on October 13, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Giuliani vetoed himself out with a boneheaded campaign strategy. I’m a conservative and I voted for Romney. So much for that.
ddrintn on October 13, 2009 at 11:52 PM
I agree we need a true conservative candidate like Reagan. But remember that Reagan was a Big tent Republican. When he went national, he didn’t go after those with whom he disagreed on some issues and try to hound out of the party. He used his charm and powers of persuasion instead of hurling insults. He also appointed non-conservatives to his cabinet.
Somehow, we need to learn to assemble all the anti-socialist, anti-Obama voters into a voting block. To me, that means disagreeing as civilly as we can about the issues that divide us, and pounding the Left as hard as we can on the issues that unite us.
Loxodonta on October 13, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Run the Dem’s 2008 playbook against them. Make the conversation about Obama and Congress’s failures. Make your opponent Obama, or Pelosi, or some other easy target. If pressed be vague in what you are going to do or guide the conversation back to something you want that is popular. Don’t do hostile interviews.
18-1 on October 13, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Giuliani: Florida Strategy. That’s what doomed him.
Romney: Creepy waffling on every issue is what got him.
lorien1973 on October 13, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Reagan didn’t bend himself to the moderates, and the moderates didn’t constantly carp about how “polarizing” and “divisive” Reagan was, at least from what I can tell. I was just a kid then.
ddrintn on October 13, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Every Republican presidential candidate that has run as a credible right of center candidate in recent memory has won:
2004*
2000*
1988
1984
1980
Every Republican presidential candidate that has not run as a credible right of center candidate in recent memory has lost:
2008
1996
1992
1976
* Bush 43′s campaigns were pretty weak in this regard, but the 2004 campaign was over the WoT and judges and the 2000 campaign was fought over tax cuts.
18-1 on October 13, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Lifers are squishes. Avoid at all costs.
This election will be about the economy and political philosophy and Generals don’t know anything about that.
They are careerist asskissers and not political leaders.
One military disaster (McCain) and a near-disaster (Colin Powell) is enough for me.
TexasJew on October 14, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Do we know he is a Republican or are we assuming that? Most people in the military when I was in were pretty fierce independents.
crosspatch on October 14, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Here’s what you clueless conservatives don’t get: Yes, the Republican party should stand on clear principles, namely present a clear alternative to socialism and a clear defense of individual liberty, capitalism and the Constitution.
That is not what conservatives stand for though. Conservatives stand against abortion, gay marriage, immigration, evolution, etc. I’m not commenting on the merits of those positions, my point is that conservatives have different priorities. Economic issues always get reduced to taxes.
Conservatives don’t understand how the urban academic marxists left thinks and operates. They don’t know how to respond to it. They seem incapable of defending classic America principles. They almost never look further back than Ronald Reagan. They let the Democrats coopt and rewrite America’s history.
Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas in 1948:
“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.”
So night after night you have obnoxious creatures like Sean Hannity wagging their fingers against those “liberals” and all they do is play into the Obamacrats hands.
modifiedcontent on October 14, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Did Ronald Reagan kowtow to moderates and liberals in teh GOP? I don’t think so.
I’m not calling for anyone to submit to anyone else. I’m suggesting that conservatives can and should look for areas of agreement with anti-Obama independents, moderates, liberals, and libertarians, and focus on our agreements.
There are over 50 House members in the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition in the House. These are the ones that more often cross party lines and vote with Republicans, and these are the ones most vulnerable to being defeated by Republicans in 2010. Right now, I have no idea how many moderate or liberal Republicans are vulnerable to defeat by more liberal Democrats. However, I certainly don’t want any moderate or liberal GOP member defeated by an even more liberal Democrat.
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 12:04 AM
You’re good people and you’ve asked the right question. The answer is that you don’t.
All the answers are in Scripture. Best part about that is that the reader does not have to be a certain type of believer or anything.
We do it the way the real Messiah did it – he converted them to his way of thinking. He had twelve disciples and tons of followers. They were following because they were hungry for spiritual nourishment.
The GOP is dead unless it repents of its sins. Then the repenting people can see the light of truth. Now I just happen to think that is Sarah. Not as my messiah but as a political leader.
BHO had the messiah thing going but he was in it for himself. Sarah will not be in it for herself. The real Messiah came here to deliver a message of promise. The same tactic will work anywhere there is despair and fear.
Sarah knows how to do this and she believes in the message she carries. That message is conservatism. No regrets. No apologies. No squish.
Victory in 2012!
platypus on October 14, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Actually they did. The ’76 nomination saw the moderates beat ‘scary’ Reagan and then go down to defeat in the general election. In ’80 the moderates picked Bush 41 for the primary, but after it was over Reagan and Bush were able to settle their differences and bring the party together to fight against the Democrats.
Hopefully the current Republican moderates can learn something from the ’76 and ’80 elections, especially since ’08 was eerily similar to the ’76 election. Frankly, until the moderate wing of the party gets its act together we are likely to be screwed – but they seem obsessed with selling out conservatives every chance they get – see the McCain campaign’s treatment of Palin as one obvious example.
18-1 on October 14, 2009 at 12:07 AM
The friggin’ country stands against abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration. Most of us conservatives are pretty cool with evolution too. Don’t try to tell us that it’s just the abortion and gay-marriage issue that’s keeping Republicans down. They’ve won too many election cycles for that to be true. Plus, absolutely NO national Republican candidate has made social issues and evolution centerpieces of their campaigns in recent memory. Try again.
ddrintn on October 14, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Reagan was a former Democrat, divorced, from Hollywood. But Reagan was a firm and explicit anti-socialist. I don’t see that from any conservative these days.
Except Palin. It is no coincidence she is “going rogue”, separating herself from the party establishment, moving into a more libertarian/independent direction.
Giuliani was very similar to Reagan and should have been president. The primary schedule was stacked against any urban, coastal candidate, thanks to “the conservative base”.
modifiedcontent on October 14, 2009 at 12:09 AM
True, but they shut the hell up when they saw a conservative could win where they lost.
ddrintn on October 14, 2009 at 12:10 AM
If you can’t say yes to life, I can’t say yes to you.
Mojave Mark on October 14, 2009 at 12:10 AM
So why did that friggin country vote for Obama then?
Assuming you’re right, obviously voters had other priorities.
modifiedcontent on October 14, 2009 at 12:12 AM
I don’t think its the problem of moderates vs conservatives in the GOP. I think is the battle between social and economic conservatives. There are people who believe that social issues like abortion are more important than issues such as spending and taxes. I am socially conservative and economically conservative but I think too many of the social conservatives are unwilling to accept someone who is just economically conservative. Palin is both but was sold to America as a social conservative only. If somene agrees with you on every issue but one (such as abortion or gay marriage) they are not a liberal. If they are for big spending and big gov’t then they are a liberal even if they are pro-life.
lavell12 on October 14, 2009 at 12:12 AM
The same friggin’ country that voted for Bush twice. Obama wasn’t elected because he was perceived to be pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage and an orthodox evolutionist.
ddrintn on October 14, 2009 at 12:13 AM
That is fair. Our general objective should be to elect the most conservative candidate we can for any office. That will certainly be very different for say a Senator from WA or NH then once from TX or SC.
But there are a few problems with this general plan.
We have moderates from conservative locations – see L Graham for example. We also have had moderate Republicans that are not worth the support we have given them – see Specter or Jeffords.
And finally, some of the time you have to fight an election on principle and lose. Imagine, for a moment, if the 2006 election had seen the Republican congress actually advocate conservative ideas. We might have lost a few more seats in that election – but election 2008 might have been very different. After all, it was hard to explain the economic collapse in 07 when most Obama voters thought the Republican Congress and their lasseiz faire policies brought it on.
18-1 on October 14, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Exactly!
modifiedcontent on October 14, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Americans may oppose gay marriage and abortion but when the economy is in the tank and you are talking about abortion and marriage you lose those voters. That was the problem. You need to run a campaign focusing on the issue at the time not other issues people aren’t paying attention to outside of the bases which already chose who they would vote for. I’m pro-life but realize it is stupid to talk about abortion when your opponents weakness is their economic policy.
lavell12 on October 14, 2009 at 12:15 AM
I haven’t seen a political candidate who is “just economically conservative”. It usually turns out that social liberal/economic conservative ends up being liberal all down the line.
ddrintn on October 14, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Yes. Exactly.
No. We have to state our beliefs clearly, but without hostility to those Obama opponents with whom we disagree.
Then, how do we get interviews on any network other than Fox? We have to be prepared to be hit by every “impartial” left-wing “journalist” out there. And they seem to be the majority now.
More conservatives in journalism schools!
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Given the current system, cutting spending is rather difficult. It does not excuse Bush and co spending so much money, let alone Obama pissing away the country’s future, but their is a reason that tax cuts are more popular then spending cuts for politicians.
18-1 on October 14, 2009 at 12:16 AM
There are some but the right has labeled them liberals bc they are pro-life. Rudy for example was economically conservative and cut taxes and spending in NYC but is labeled a liberal b/c his social policies.
lavell12 on October 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM
That’s my point. Those issues ultimately aren’t top of the agenda for most voters.
modifiedcontent on October 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM
@18-1, my point is that conservatives nowadays talk about taxes in an ideological void. They don’t connect it to a broader vision, as Reagan and Thatcher did and as the tea party movement does.
modifiedcontent on October 14, 2009 at 12:22 AM
The way the Republicans win is to talk about the economy not abortion and gay marriage this time.
lavell12 on October 14, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Oh no. That is exactly when you don’t do. If you get into what you will and will not do in any specifics, you open yourself up to attacks. If you vaguely assert principles, you shield yourself. Again, look at campaign 08. If Obama had announced he will run a $2T deficit so he can give the money to his political allies he would never have won the D primary, let alone the presidency.
As for hostility, yes, our political leaders and their direct spokespeople need to stay positive and fair. Everyone else in the conservative world needs to crank the hostility meter up to 11. Obama won in large measure due to the success of the anti-Bush jihad on the part of the left. It is our job to do the same to Obama before 2012.
Don’t do hostile interviews.
Why? Take Palin, had she spent more time on FOXN and less time with Couric would she have fared better or worse? No matter how well you do, a hostile interviewer gets to chose what to show…
18-1 on October 14, 2009 at 12:23 AM
So you want to repeat election 08?
18-1 on October 14, 2009 at 12:23 AM
So why did you bring them up? They’re usually just talked about after a Republican defeat to show that the abortion and gay marriage issues are KILLING the GOP. It ain’t true.
ddrintn on October 14, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Reagan spoke his beliefs with passion, but also with charm. He didn’t bend his beliefs. However, he did have to make compromises in legislation.
If I believe in two, you believe in ten, and to get anything done, we compromise on six, have we changed our positions? I would not have. i would still be arguing in favor of the lesser number, but would have simply agreed on a pragmatic compromise, until the next time a decision has to be made.
And please never stop being a kid, and especially never become a grumpy old man, like me.
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 12:24 AM
All well and good but we get to control what we talk about. We don’t get to control what is talked about.
Look at what the sodomists are doing. They just run one of their in-your-face marches in DC. Do you seriously think that they are going to be quiet while the normal people run election campaigns?
Or do you think they are going to do more of the same, over the next year?
platypus on October 14, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Obama ran as anti-gay marriage candidate. He was more open about his extremist abortion standards, but the media successfully ran defense for him on the issue.
Overall, arguably Obama’s greatest success was making election 08 about no issues whatsoever.
18-1 on October 14, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Geez, were you born stupid, or did you have to work really hard at it?
Why in the WORLD would Sarah Palin waste one second in the Senate? What good could come from it? What benefit?
We ain’t waiting until 2016 either nimrod. There won’t be a Republic left!
As for Petraeus, great general, but we know absolutely NOTHING about his politics. I can’t believe people would even fall for this rope-a-dope deal.
Before we start handing out wedding invitations don’t you think we need to go out on a few dates?
We already know where Sarah Palin stands on the issues, ALL of the issues. And she is right on every one, from a conservative’s standpoint, and don’t forget, every single state has a conservative majority.
Most polls I have seen by REPUTABLE firms have Sarah in the mid to high 70′s, among Republicans, in approval. WAY higher than the rest. Same for who they would like to see as the nominee.
Check out this poll (unscientific as it is) from US News And World Report:
Who poses the biggest political threat to Obama?
1. 90.33% Sarah Palin
2. 5.0% Mitt Romney
3. 3.56% Newt Gingrich
4. 0.62% Rush Limbaugh
5. 0.48% Bobby Jindal
http://www.usnews.com/polls/obamas-biggest-opponent/results.html
Again, unscientific but it certainly speaks the truth.
Now Sarah has deep respect for the military, and hand picked Lt General Craig E Campbell to replace Sean Parnell as Alaska Lt Governor when Parnell became Governor. So should he show some interest, AND be a real Reagan/Palin conservative, he might make a decent VP, which would give us Palin from 2013 to 2021 and possible Petraeus from 2021 until 2029.
But we need to know a lot more about the guy. I’m not against him, for VP, but I certainly want to know a lot more. We don’t need no more Collin Powells.
gary4205 on October 14, 2009 at 12:26 AM
I think abortion, especially, ends up being a good measure of a politician’s character. As the most important issue to the Media-Government complex they will bring the full weight of their influence down on pro-life politicians. A man or a woman that can take that kind of abuse and not waver is unlikely to surrender on any other issue.
18-1 on October 14, 2009 at 12:29 AM
Just ignore the homos and other nuts, they have no power and no way of changing the topics for debate.
lavell12 on October 14, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Those are generally seen as the defining issues of the GOP. The GOP is not seen as the party of individual liberty and opportunity; it’s the party of the Christian right, family values, anti-immigration, school prayer, white suburban families (“racists…”!), the military, etc., all things that are now widely seen as sinister and reactionary.
modifiedcontent on October 14, 2009 at 12:34 AM
President McCain was a perfect fit for your desire to move left into the middle of the Democrat Party, but he was soundly defeated and it would have been a truly embarrassing loss without Sara Palin to rally the base.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also moved hard left into the middle of the Democrat Party, but he’s at 27% approval now.
Allah, maybe you should think about how we, Republicans and Conservatives, always lose moving left and with Reagan, Gingrich and even GW, who we thought was a conservative, we won. Funny that.
RJL on October 14, 2009 at 12:34 AM
My dear platypus: Jesus wasn’t running for office. I don’t want my church to make compromises in faith. I don’t want any GOP candidate to be crucified.
Politics is quite different from religion. Thank God!
Yes. We must stick to our principles and attempt to encourage others to support what we believe. However, it took political compromise to found our country. Our form of government promotes compromise. Sometimes, those compromises are incredibly difficult to swallow. However, I’d rather be in a governing coalition that requires compromise than to be sitting on the outside, having no say whatsoever. And that is our current position. And look what it has gotten us. We are a debtor nation, that is in retreat, and is dominated by a morally corrupt culture. I would really like to end that, even if that means making some compromises here and there.
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Explain to me just what a moderate is because the ones I know (not intending to be offensive, just stating the facts of my personal experience) want everyone to like them, therefore they have no firm lib or conserve stance; they’re wishy-washy. I’d rather someone be solidly lib or conserve than to be a butt-kissing suck-up who won’t make a decision either way.
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 12:36 AM
True. But like a drunken party, Obumbles ain’t so funny the morning after.
platypus on October 14, 2009 at 12:37 AM
There are two types of moderates.
1) They are all over the board on the issues. They have liberal stands on one issue and conservative stands on the next issue.
2) They can’t make up their mind on anything.
lavell12 on October 14, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Sarah is the heroine America deserves, but maybe she’s not the one we need right now. Maybe she plans to take all the left’s abuse so that someone else can become President.
Maybe Sarah is… (dramatic pause) The Dark Knight
Mr. Wednesday Night on October 14, 2009 at 12:42 AM
American politics is not split between conservatives and liberals. Again:
Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas in 1948:
“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 (“liberals”): 30%
Libertarians, real/classic liberals, “moderates”? (economic “conservatives”): 40%
Conservatives, (“social conservatives”): 30%
Liberalism everywhere in the world means capitalism. The Founding Fathers were liberals.
I’m a liberal from the Netherlands. I’m fanatically anti-socialist and pro-capitalist, but refuse to call myself a conservative. To me conservatives are the definition of wishy-washy.
Many young Americans have the same problem, so they end up calling themselves libertarians, independents, ronpaulians, etc.
modifiedcontent on October 14, 2009 at 12:46 AM
No, no, no, no.
Not churches, or religion, or anything like that. His tactics at convincing the people to hear His message.
Reagan was a charming but strong ideologue. That’s why he won. He expected people to follow him because he knew what they were and what they needed. Surprise – they followed.
Sarah is similar but we haven’t ever seen a female who could lead. This is why the leftards are deathly afraid of her but they cannot articulate it. If they cannot articulate it, they cannot protect against it. Think Pasteur and Salk. We were at the mercy of invisible pathogens until those two identified the enemy.
Conservatism. Like the tea parties. Nothing more. And we will own the country again.
platypus on October 14, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Uhh, not hardly!
When Reagan ended up being the nominee the idiot “moderates” ran John Anderson (The John McCain, Tim Pawlenty, or Mitt Romney of the day) as an independent.
They really were that stupid, still are.
America is a conservative country. look at how people live their personal lives. Look at the mainstream American.
America votes for LEADERS, when none are present, they’ll vote for who is new and shiny. That’s how Obama got elected over the squish.
But you stick a real leader in front of the American people and they will flock to them.
THAT’S how Reagan won, THAT’S how Palin will win.
gary4205 on October 14, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Where we can, I’m all for replacing a GOP member of Congress with a more conservative member. Those opportunities seem few, though. I will be delighted to see Arlen Specter retired. However, we have to be smart about this. it’s a district by district battle for the House, and state by state for the Senate. We have to look at what’s possible that way.
I have gone into battle on many issues based on principal and knowing I was going to lose. So, I know this is important. I don’t want the GOP to be a moderate party, but a conservative lead coalition.
And perhaps I am wrong at the moment, but I have become increasingly worried about the divisiveness between the various anti-Obama camps. I really want to slow Barry’s work by taking back the House and making as many turnovers in the Senate as possible in 2010. I believe this is very important for our nation’s future. I believe Obama is incredibly dangerous. So, I have decided to promote and try to do some bridge-building and fence mending between the various camps who I hope can work together enough to slow our country’s collapse into third-world status.
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 12:54 AM
I like Romney, but too many in our party cannot overlook his religion. They wont admit it, but I think that is true. They instead say “flip flopper” but I think he would have defended capitalism and the American way if he were elected. I think we would have been in recovery if it were President Romney. I like Sarah Palin too. She just needs to be able to respond to the attacks that she isnt ready for prime time.
WyoMike on October 14, 2009 at 12:54 AM
What exactly is American Conservativism? What do you have to believe to be a Conservative?
A Liberal friend in College called me a Conservative Reactionary. Some ‘Conservatives’ on this site call me all sorts of other slander despite the fact that looking at my political philosophy I am a Classic Liberal which the Founding Father’s were.
Holger on October 14, 2009 at 12:55 AM
@Holger, Classic Liberals are now outcasts. America is torn apart by fake liberal socialists and conservatives, who seem to have their roots in pre-Constitution Christian “city on the hill” ideals.
modifiedcontent on October 14, 2009 at 1:04 AM
Some moderates are indeed squishy, not really standing for much other than popularity and their own re-election. These we can do without, because they are simply driven by polls.
But there are people who are conservative on some issues and liberal on others, and don’t have their finger in the wind. And then, there are the libertarians who can be very conservative on fiscal and national security issues, but very liberal on cultural and social issues. What are we to do with such people? Kick them out? I don’t think that approach helps us.
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 1:06 AM
Can’t sleep…ugh…
Jetboy
Go back and look at the Rass. Polling from earlier in the year and you will see Gov. Palin polls in the mid 70% range with the base. She beats Huck and Mitts by 15-20%.
The PPP poll is sh!t.
Hey, I’ll listen to her. Don’t think she’ll say anything I haven’t heard already, but alas. I realize polls sometimes differ from one to another…but Palin has been losing approval since the beginning of the year across the board.
Again, Lox, totally agree. And libertarians make me shudder…but we all need each other. Thing is, the way the GOP is going, I truly hope we can come together on our future, and the future of this nation. It ain’t gonna be easy tho.
JetBoy on October 14, 2009 at 1:07 AM
*dang…quote malfunction there…should start after my “ugh”
JetBoy on October 14, 2009 at 1:08 AM
Nope, that would be the “moderates” (man I HATE that word)
It’s the moderates, the squishy middle, that you can’t count on.
Conservatives, like liberals, have a set of strong values they believe in, and those values are non-negotiable.
Conservatives, especially those like Sarah, tend to lean libertarian.
I always laugh my butt off at the “big tenters.” Conservatism is the biggest tent. Always has been.
I think for almost all conservatives, the idea of personal liberty and freedom is job one. Small government that doesn’t impede that liberty and freedom is a prized position to have.
Fiscal conservatism, and pro-capitalism are also very important.
The social issues are important as well. It speaks to strength of character. Again, I love Sarah’s approach to social issues. She is fiercely pro-life in her personal life, but very libertarian in governing.
My guess is she is against gay marriage, as is most of the nation, but she vetoed a bill that would have denied gay couples certain rights. She found it unconstitutional.
And that’s the real key to Sarah Palin, and most conservatives. We believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and should be cherished. In this manner, Sarah is a strict constitutionalist. You’ll never loose sleep at night worrying what her next plot to usurp the Constitution will be!
Can’t say that for about the present occupant at 1600!
gary4205 on October 14, 2009 at 1:09 AM
If not politically, we could use Petraeus to bring the troops home and conduct some domestic Regime Change. Yeah, but that would make us look like a banana republic… Oh, wait, the politicians in DC have already done that!
Palin/Bachmann 2012 !!
DTogo on October 14, 2009 at 1:14 AM
To me traditional/conservative values are time-tested and effective because they’re based in common sense and balance; if that’s considered wishy-washy, so be it, I’ll take that label.
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Nobody needs you, except your fellow butt buddies. All you are is a counterfeit practicing your acting skills.
True conservatives do not live in a lie. You do.
Now if you want to vote for conservative candidates, fine. But for regular normal people to let you advise the party is to let a deviant tell them how to be normal.
Go try out normal for awhile and keep your mouth shut during the process. Unless I miss my guess, the silence of not being the center of attention will be unbearable because that’s all you want – to be the center of attention.
Stop disgracing the design of your body and bragging about it and then I might be willing to listen to something you have to say.
platypus on October 14, 2009 at 1:20 AM
I agree.
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Been to any tea parties?
platypus on October 14, 2009 at 1:24 AM
You’re the only one mentioning that….again…ad nauseum…
Go bang your head against a wall. My apologies to the wall.
JetBoy on October 14, 2009 at 1:26 AM
Nope. Your head is the one that needs some shaking.
platypus on October 14, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Yes I have, and myself and a fellow conservative friend were ready to organize one in our area if it appeared none were being planned. How about you?
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Ladies and gents, I give you…”normal”.
JetBoy on October 14, 2009 at 1:31 AM
You betcha!
http://www.olympiateaparty.com
platypus on October 14, 2009 at 1:31 AM
I agree. I, and I beleive most Americans remember Ronnie for his bold vision and strong declarations of belief.
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate.
Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate.
Mr. Gorbachev –
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
Wow! That still thrills me.
However, at the time, I believe the key what gave Reagan his winning majority was not his ideology, but his charm. After all, he never was able to help his fellow conservatives win Congress. And I am very sorry to say this, but what I currently see a very sore lack of in the GOP is charm.
Sarah Palin has a lot of strengths. But she also has several weaknesses. A one term governor from the least populous and most rural state, isolated from the rest of the country, resigned from office prior to finishing her one term, and has a host of news and entertainment media stars who not only hate her policies as they did Reagan, but have no liking of her as a person, very much unlike Reagan.
So, as I don’t know whether she will choose to make a run for the White House in 2012, I don’t know that she could pull it off if she does run. I believe she would be a much stronger candidate in 2016 with more time to change a very negative image of her that has been hammered into many Americans repeatedly by the media.
May I have more, please. Reagan charm. Southern hospitality. Tolerance for the rugged individualism of the Westerner. Pragmatism of the Great Plains.
Less please. Screaming of vulgarities.
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 1:32 AM
Stratfor: Odds of War with Iran Spiking
If Stratfor proves right, this would be a “game changer” in more ways than one.
MB4 on October 14, 2009 at 1:38 AM
I’m not very knowledgeable about a lot of things but I do think I have basic common sense in most areas and imo every social ill (referring to teen pregnancy, abortion, alcohol/drug abuse etc.,) is directly traced back to people turning away from morals and values: it has resulted in the erosion of the traditional family unit; it has resulted in people turning to every form of detrimental political policy in government; it has resulted in people turning to any and every form of perversion or abuse or addiction in seeking peace of mind, happiness, self-respect; it has resulted in nearly every problem we face as far as I’m concerned, political and otherwise.
My point is when we get away from morality and traditional methods that are time-tested and effective because they’re based in common sense and balance, then we start to move towards social, economic and political policies that hurt rather than help (even though it may have been done with the best of intentions).
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 1:39 AM
Been there done that.
We put 1.7 million individuals in D.C. on 9/12.
Zero arrests.
Zero trash/litter.
No State Run Media coverage (except CNN and Fox).
Why?
Palpable fear. They are squatters and they know we are coming to take our country back.
platypus on October 14, 2009 at 1:39 AM
I applaud you (and I certainly wouldn’t call this being wishy-washy :)
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 1:42 AM
You’re way too sensible to be Allahpundit’s wife. Unless there’s some sort of Wonder Woman thing going on. :)
platypus on October 14, 2009 at 1:43 AM
Riiight. Which is why the Dems went from Kerry/Edwards/Gephardt/Daschle to Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Reid. Funny how it’s always the GOP being advised to forget its base.
Bottom line: If the GOP is stupid enough to heed this type of “advice”, they deserve to lose.
Mr. Wednesday Night on October 14, 2009 at 1:43 AM
I think I’m in love lol
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 1:43 AM
All conservative women are Wonder Women :)
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 1:45 AM
/shields eyes from light – looks down/
platypus on October 14, 2009 at 1:47 AM
Run, beachgirl….RUN!
JetBoy on October 14, 2009 at 1:48 AM
They attack her for a variety of reasons. For one, she made fun of The One’s “community organizing” experience by not giving it the “gravitas” they think it deserved. Secondly, they are of the belief that she is an extreme religious nut and if its one thing lefties hate, its devout Christians.
Speedwagon82 on October 14, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Moderates are not just candidates and elected officials. they’re also voters. And it might be very helpful to attract those unreliable moderate and swing voters who can make the difference between winning big, barely winning or being left out in the cold.
How was our nation founded? The Founders had very strong beliefs and argued them passionately. They fought a war and won our independence. But when it came to forming a national government, they had to make compromises.
Were our nations Founding Fathers “squishes” with their fingers in thew wind? I don’t think so.
Ronald Reagan was a Big Tent conservative Republican, he invited people in.
Barry Goldwater wasn’t. He was a conservative purist. He pushed people out.
Their electoral history demonstrates which is the winning approach.
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 1:51 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »