Quotes of the day

posted at 9:30 pm on January 3, 2010 by Allahpundit

“The parallels between the 1990s and today should offer only so much comfort for the Republicans, Barbour says, particularly on the presidential level. The year 2012 won’t be an easy one for the GOP. After all, ‘the predisposition of voters’ is to reelect a president. At the same time, he cautions those who foresee a great, long liberal era to recall recent history. ‘After 1992 the press wrote, ‘The Republicans are dead; there’s going to be a long Democrat era.’ And after 2004 they wrote, ‘They’re going to have a long Republican era.’?'…

“One key element of Barbour’s recipe for revival: expanding the Republican Party by reaching out to moderates. In the ’90s, he backed moderate candidates in the Northeast and Midwest and helped to elect moderate governors like California’s Pete Wilson, New Jersey’s Christie Whitman, and Massachusetts’s Bill Weld. He thinks the party ought to be doing the same thing today: ‘People are crazy if they think we win by getting more pure. We win by getting big.’

***
“The National Republican Congressional Committee, the key cog in helping to finance GOP campaigns, has banked less than a third as much money as its Democratic counterpart and is ending the year with barely enough money to fully finance a single House race — no less the dozens that will be in play come 2010…

“Republicans are already expressing concerns that they may not have enough resources to fully take advantage of the political climate, which is shaping to be the most favorable for the GOP since the last time they took control of the House in 1994…

“The NRCC was also hurt financially during last month’s special election in upstate New York. in which the committee endorsed and spent money on a moderate nominee, Dede Scozzafava, who quickly drew the ire of the conservative grass-roots.

“The committee spent nearly $1 million on the race, but more worrisome, lost support from many of the small-donor conservatives who have traditionally been a significant element of the committee’s fundraising efforts.”

***
“‘A whole new cultural paradigm to the political process.’ That must be what’s gotten armchair activists like ourselves — who’d never done anything much political but gripe and moan on the blog and maybe write a few letters to the editor — to get up out of that armchair last March and April, Tea Party signs in hand, to tell the powers that be that we are “as mad as hell and aren’t going to take this any more.’…

“Could anything be cooler than disintermediating a bunch of old fuddy-duddies via the Internet?”


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

lost support from many of the small-donor conservatives who have traditionally been a significant element of the committee’s fundraising efforts.”

So where the “f” are all those moderates bankrolling the GOP that so fervently desires them?

chickasaw42 on January 3, 2010 at 9:36 PM

The NRCC was also hurt financially during last month’s special election in upstate New York. in which the committee endorsed and spent money on a moderate nominee, Dede Scozzafava, who quickly drew the ire of the conservative grass-roots.

But aren’t people contributing directly to candidates? I know I have been.

“One key element of Barbour’s recipe for revival: expanding the Republican Party by reaching out to moderates.

Moderates are fine. Leftwingers like Weld or Whitman are not.

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 9:40 PM

I knew there was a Palin post in there.

I just wonder where the investment is really going?

Kini on January 3, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Let the moderates finance the GOP, my money is going to conservative candidates. If the GOP refuses to listen to it’s base it deserves what it gets, or doesn’t get as the case may more accurately be.

doriangrey on January 3, 2010 at 9:42 PM

The race is on and the GOP has to go for broke.

Real Conservatives only.

Luck Fiberals!

Speakup on January 3, 2010 at 9:42 PM

A whole new cultural paradigm to the political process.’ That must be what’s gotten armchair activists like ourselves — who’d never done anything much political but gripe and moan on the blog and maybe write a few letters to the editor — to get up out of that armchair last March and April, Tea Party signs in hand, to tell the powers that be that we are “as mad as hell and aren’t going to take this any more.’…

Oh, and this is *really* dangerous to the Left. One of their biggest advantages is an under-employed, over-politicized group of “yutes” to act as their activist base.

As conservatives, we have jobs, families, and responsibilities. If the Left has really gotten a critical mass of us to mobilize, they could be in for a world of hurt. If.

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Anyone else creeped out like I am by the refinance ad underneath the thread? What’s with those teeth?

Bishop on January 3, 2010 at 9:46 PM

The NRCC was also hurt financially during last month’s special election in upstate New York. in which the committee endorsed and spent money on a moderate nominee, Dede Scozzafava, who quickly drew the ire of the conservative grass-roots.

— and who then ended up endorsing the democrat candidate. That is not being a moderate.

The NRCC was hurt a lot more than financially. Their entire credibility is shot. No conservative is going to trust these idiots with their money any more; we’ll be donating directly to the candidates (at least until the current crop of incompetents are gone).

rmgraha on January 3, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Let the moderates finance the GOP, my money is going to conservative candidates. If the GOP refuses to listen to it’s base it deserves what it gets, or doesn’t get as the case may more accurately be.

doriangrey on January 3, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Looking at the extreme nature of what Obama and his allies have been up to, one would expect true moderates to have little difference with conservatives in what do about it. If you support cap and tax or Obamacare you are no moderate.

As for the Republican party, they just don’t seem to understand that we are tired of their limp response to the Democrats. Obama has a large congressional majority and he has embarked on transforming the country into a national socialist state. The Reps in a similar position tepidly tried to slightly reform social security. They did however waste tax dollars on leftwing social programs.

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 9:49 PM

‘People are crazy if they think we win by getting more pure. We win by getting big.’

Phbbbbbbtttt! We win when we nominate and elect candidates who are willing to stand for what we believe in and not cowtow and shmuzzle with the left. Stupid moderates like John McCain are why we’re suffering through the bowing Obambi for the next 3 years.

AubieJon on January 3, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Key to what a moderate is. Squishy on social issues. Rock solid right on financial, monetary, national security and economic policy.

I can accept a pro-abortion Republican. I cannot accept a pro-Welfare state Republican.

Holger on January 3, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

The GOP began to shrink when they stopped being Republicans.

Stop the stupidity.

Saltysam on January 3, 2010 at 9:52 PM

I can accept a pro-abortion Republican. I cannot accept a pro-Welfare state Republican.

Holger on January 3, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Winner.

BPD on January 3, 2010 at 9:53 PM

“One key element of Barbour’s recipe for revival: expanding the Republican Party by reaching out to moderates.

Barbour:
“Conservatives send us your money and we’ll decide who you support!”
This Conservative:
“EF U! I will donate directly to the conservative candidate of MY choice!”

dhunter on January 3, 2010 at 9:56 PM

The year 2012 won’t be an easy one for the GOP. After all, ‘the predisposition of voters’ is to reelect a president

Look at the last few re-election attempts:

1) Bush 43 – reelected on the basis of his desire to win the WoT.
2) Clinton – reelected on the basis of the strong economy, there were no issues of note in the election. Note there were in 1994, but Clinton responded by tacking to the center.
3) Bush 41 – failed to be reelected because he raised taxes and the economy, while out of recession, hadn’t recovered
4) Reagan – strong economy and a stark choice between leftwing and rightwing policies
5) Carter – failed to be reelected due stagflation and failed foreign policy.

So, looking at the last few reelection campaigns it seems a few things stand out.

1) The status of the economy has a major effect. What was the worst unemployment rate of any of the winner? 5%? 6%?

2) If the election comes down to an ideological choice, the voters tend to choose the conservative. If the election is muddled, they generally pick the better muddler which has historically been the Democrat

It is really to early to analyze 2012, but I see 1980 all over again so far. A leftwing presidency that was sold as a moderate one that has been a complete failure both domestically and internationally. We just need to make sure we choose a telegenic, well spoken, thoroughly conservative candidate to run against Carter II.

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 9:57 PM

I can accept a pro-abortion Republican. I cannot accept a pro-Welfare state Republican.

Holger on January 3, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Winner.

BPD on January 3, 2010 at 9:53 PM

I’ll second that!

heshtesh on January 3, 2010 at 9:57 PM

It’s going to be those of us at the grassroots level making contributions to conservative Republican candidates particularly during the primaries and following up in the general elections. There are a lot of us who have written off the NRCC primarily because of people like Barbour and we aren’t donating to them because we don’t want to see our money going to support people like Scozzafava, the Maine Sisters, or that guy who is opposing Rubio in Florida (the governor, “moderate”, whatsis name).

AZfederalist on January 3, 2010 at 9:59 PM

All things are good in moderation.

Not if you are the GOP.

They just don’t want to listen to the millions of people who took to the streets and they wonder where the money went. Nobody who would vote GOP is crying out for moderate candidates. Were the Tea partiers protesting because we didn’t have enough moderates….?
Hey NRCC…PAY ATTENTION YOU ASS CLOWNS!
The whole country was sending money to Doug Hoffman in N.Y. 23 while the NRCC was giving a million dollars to someone who endorsed the Democrat. Heckuva job.
Remember. Every time the GOP moves towards the DNC my wallet closes just a little bit tighter.
I can have a Democrat for free and may actually get a payout too.
No RINO’s

NeoKong on January 3, 2010 at 9:59 PM

One key element of Barbour’s recipe for revival: expanding the Republican Party by reaching out to moderates.

Ooooof course it is. That’s been the super secret, fail safe, sure fire recipe for electoral success for decades. If only the base would stop electing their fringe icons like McCain for their national elections!

Weight of Glory on January 3, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Didn’t that moderate John McCain make us big (if that is the formula for getting big, Mr. Barbour)?

No.

If repeating the same behavior expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity democrat, then never ever learning from a mistake is the definition of stupid republican.

Carolina Kat on January 3, 2010 at 10:00 PM

One key element of Barbour’s recipe for revival: expanding the Republican Party by reaching out to moderates. In the ’90s, he backed moderate candidates in the Northeast and Midwest and helped to elect moderate governors like California’s Pete Wilson, New Jersey’s Christie Whitman, and Massachusetts’s Bill Weld. He thinks the party ought to be doing the same thing today:

People are crazy if they think we win by getting more pure. We win by getting big.’

YOU LIE!

dhunter on January 3, 2010 at 10:01 PM

According to an article at Gateway Pundit, Ms. Coakley, is so sure of her election to Sen. Kennedy’s seat that she has gone on a twenty day vacation instead of campaigning. And the GOP has abandoned Mr. Brown. And they wonder why they are going broke.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Key to what a moderate is. Squishy on social issues. Rock solid right on financial, monetary, national security and economic policy.

I can accept a pro-abortion Republican. I cannot accept a pro-Welfare state Republican.

Holger on January 3, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Actually, abortion is generally the touchstone for how seriously conservative a candidate is. Since advancing the pro-life cause comes at quite a cost in media venom, those who hold to it are not easily swayed by the MSM. For every Guiliani, who does seem to be willing to fight for the right as a whole, you get a slew of Specters, Chafees, Welds, and Whitmans…

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:02 PM

At least the RNC quit calling me. I guess they’ve had it with my angry tirades and put me on a list. I still get mail, however.

Lanceman on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

I can have a Democrat for free and may actually get a payout too.
No RINO’s

NeoKong on January 3, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Just about sums it up.

heshtesh on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

As for the Republican party, they just don’t seem to understand that we are tired of their limp response to the Democrats. Obama has a large congressional majority and he has embarked on transforming the country into a national socialist state. The Reps in a similar position tepidly tried to slightly reform social security. They did however waste tax dollars on leftwing social programs.

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Which is why they have lost our trust, they don’t understand or are cowards. Some, like Allahpundit are playing it strictly by what they perceive the numbers to be, failing I believe to grasp the true nature of the TEA party movement.

The Tea Party movement isnt a Republican political movement, it is an American conservative movement and its members are Republican Conservatives, Democrat Conservatives and Independent Conservatives.

We in the TEA party movement are not Socialists or Marxists, we are not liberals praying that the government will save us and provide for all of our needs. We believe that we not the government are the solution and the the government is the problem.

If the GOP doesnt get that then the GOP’s time is done just like the Federalists or the Whigs.

doriangrey on January 3, 2010 at 10:06 PM

“Sssssssssscccoooooozzzzzzzaaaafffffaaaaavvvvvaaaaa!!!”

… and the NRCC wants more of our money?

BBBBWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA…

Seven Percent Solution on January 3, 2010 at 10:06 PM

If repeating the same behavior expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity democrat, then never ever learning from a mistake is the definition of stupid republican.

Carolina Kat on January 3, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Analyzing the last few presidential elections, let’s see if we can see a pattern. I’ve noted what the public thought the candidate was from my interpretation in each election.

2008
Obama – Moderate
McCain – Moderate

2004
Bush – Conservative
Kerry – Liberal

2000
Bush – Conservative
Gore – Moderate/Liberal

1996
Clinton – Moderate
Dole – Moderate

1992
Clinton – Moderate
Bush – Moderate

1988
Bush – Conservative
Dukakis – Far Left

1984
Reagan – Very Conservative
Mondale – Far Left

1980
Reagan – Very Conservative
Carter – Moderate/Liberal

1976
Carter – Moderate
Ford – Moderate

So…anyone see the pattern?

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM

He thinks the party ought to be doing the same thing today: ‘People are crazy if they think we win by getting more pure. We win by getting big.’

Right, and that’s why General Motors is the most successful car company in the world: it has a mediocre product for every niche market. When you give everybody a lesser evil to choose, then you dominate!…oh wait.

I hope Mr. Barbour doesn’t get eyestrain avoiding looking at how Republicans won in 2004–by convincing more people to trust the Republican agenda. It wasn’t by telling pro-choice people that Bush could go either way on judges; and telling doves that Bush was ambivalent on the war; and telling global warming advocates that Bush might cave on Kyoto. Republicans got more people to see it their way. They ran into trouble refusing to deliver.

The derogatory “pure” is so telling. I don’t think of Ted Kennedy as too “pure” on the issues; he was dead set wrong, and I hoped to be straight up right. I’m opposite. I have definite ideas, called “convictions”. I wouldn’t like to be considered “not pure”, it would suggest I failed to measure up to something. Guess I’m not as “sophisticated”.

Chris_Balsz on January 3, 2010 at 10:08 PM

McCain was the the MODERATE’s ideal loser candidate.

So much for moderates.

profitsbeard on January 3, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Being socially moderate and fiscally conservative makes no sense – someone has to pay for those bad behaviors that the ‘moderates’ want to ignore. That’s why government grew under Bush. Tolerating social mores that tax society with illegitimacies and abortions etc ultimately result in a huge price tag.

Case in point, I have a very conservative friend whose son fathered two illegimate children. Does he plan on marrying the girl and supporting them? No. We taxpayers do – she’s currently on welfare with those two babies. My ‘conservative friend’ doesn’t want to judge his social conduct, but she gets angry at spendthrift politicians. Anybody else see a disconnect?

Moderate is by definition addlepated.

Carolina Kat on January 3, 2010 at 10:09 PM

If the GOP doesnt get that then the GOP’s time is done just like the Federalists or the Whigs.

doriangrey on January 3, 2010 at 10:06 PM

I can understand the argument that we can’t rollback 40 years of the welfare state in one go, but the “moderate” path the Republicans have tried to sell since 2004 is everything the left wants, just slower.

Well, why in the hell would I choose that? I’d rather go down with a fight, and have some chance of winning, then just surrender for a little extra time.

We’ve gone too far down the lefthanded path to negotiate any further down that road. Fight, fight, fight.

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Key to what a moderate is. Squishy on social issues. Rock solid right on financial, monetary, national security and economic policy.

I can accept a pro-abortion Republican. I cannot accept a pro-Welfare state Republican.

Holger on January 3, 2010 at 9:50 PM

+100. And I know a lot of posters here will disagree b/c this is a hard core conservative site for the most part, and that’s fine, but the reality is that this description — fiscally conservative and socially moderate — describes most Americans I think. And if you plotted those sensibilities on a map of political leanings, you’d find most of those folks have more in common with the GOP than with the Democrats. Assuming, of course, the GOP sticks to its core principles of smaller, fiscally responsible government and defender of personal liberties. As they’ve ventured away from that moderates and independents have found little reason to stick around.

My feeling about things is this: We’ve got a big tent and all are welcome. But there are rules in the tent and it is up to those who may not agree with everything the party stands for to determine whether or not they can live with the rules. If they can’t, let them join the jackass tent. I know I don’t subscribe to every single plank in the Republican Party platform, but I certainly subscribe to more of them than I do the Democrats’. As I say, I think most Americans would say the same. The GOP needs to stop being afraid to stand up for its principles out of fear of alienating people. It’s like they are paying too much attention to what the Beltway insiders and the LSM are whispering in their ears. None of it is true. Be what you are and let the chips fall where they may. I think they will be surprised at the outcome.

As for the RNC and the others being low on funds, I think it’s no secret where the $$$ has gone. I, like many here and all across the country no doubt, no longer contribute to the backstabbing party that brought is Dede Scozzafava. My money goes to individual candidates and to PACs I support: Hoffman, Brown, Toomey, Bachmann, SarahPAC, just to name a few. This trend will continue, I predict, until the national party leaders — and opportunistic nobodies like Haley Barbour — get on board and start having some fricking standards again.

NoLeftTurn on January 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM

So…anyone see the pattern?

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Exactly. Well said.

Carolina Kat on January 3, 2010 at 10:14 PM

IMHO, the RNC has missed the boat on many opportunities to climb right up on BHO’s head and shat. I like Mr. Steele, personally…But don’t think too much of his “dithering” style as chairman.

We don’t need a “screaming Howard Dean”, but we do need a candidate who can lock in the grassroots voters with common sense and at least a hint of personal INTEGRITY.

GoldenEagle4444 on January 3, 2010 at 10:15 PM

And I know a lot of posters here will disagree b/c this is a hard core conservative site for the most part, and that’s fine, but the reality is that this description — fiscally conservative and socially moderate — describes most Americans I think.

I’m always amused when I hear this. What makes you think that the mushy middle are socially liberal and economically conservative? Opposing abortion and gay marriage are significantly more popular then any significant, specific spending cuts.

Heck, how many moderates do you think McCain won promising to fight earmarks? How many did Obama win promising them them handouts?

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:18 PM

I can understand the argument that we can’t rollback 40 years of the welfare state in one go, but the “moderate” path the Republicans have tried to sell since 2004 is everything the left wants, just slower.

Well, why in the hell would I choose that? I’d rather go down with a fight, and have some chance of winning, then just surrender for a little extra time.

We’ve gone too far down the lefthanded path to negotiate any further down that road. Fight, fight, fight.

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Exactly, the GOP is little different than the Democrats, the only difference is the number of conservatives who get elected as Republicans.

As has been noted up-thread in every presidential election in the past 40 years the conservative has won, Americans are conservatives, the Democrats win when the convince the Republicans to follow their strategy, which is of course for the conservative republicans to lose. Why in gods name would any Republican strategist ever listen to the advice of a political opponent who wants them to lose?

doriangrey on January 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Disintermediation: n. Withdrawal of funds from intermediary financial institutions, such as banks and savings and loan associations, in order to invest in instruments yielding a higher return

Put THAT in the next envelope the RNC sends you!

lovingmyUSA on January 3, 2010 at 10:23 PM

In the ’90s, he backed moderate candidates in the Northeast and Midwest and helped to elect moderate governors like California’s Pete Wilson…

Moderate? Really? Here in the Peoples’ Republic of California, the Democrats and their lackeys in the Media ALWAYS portrayed Wilson as a right-wing radical.

o_O

Spiny Norman on January 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

McCain was the the MODERATE’s ideal loser candidate.

So much for moderates.

profitsbeard on January 3, 2010 at 10:08 PM

One of the oddest things about recent politics is how many Republican insiders studiously refuse to consider just what happened in 2008.

Yes, yes, Palin is a conservative. But she was not the candidate for president. We lost running the media’s favorite Republican. A man who had an inspiring life story and a reputation as Mr Maverick. He was running against a neophyte who had as bad of a history as any candidate to have ever for President.

If the perfect moderate Republican couldn’t beat Obama, why do they expect some other moderate will be a better candidate? It would be as if in 1979 the Republicans convinced themselves they needed another Ford…

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:25 PM

The National Republican Congressional Committee and the RNC should get their money back from Scuzzyfava since she was never a Republican.

Branch Rickey on January 3, 2010 at 10:25 PM

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Issues like gay marriage and abortion and other social issues elicit an emotional response in most people. It’s not hard to see why these things would resonate more readily with the average voter than more dry and mundane topics like taxes, Treasury rates, budgets and deficits, etc. The former are things that can and often do affect a person directly in a very tangible way. People don’t really see the effects of sh!tty fiscal policy so they are generally less inclined to rail against it. It’s just not “sexy” enough, for lack of a better word. I mean, how many shows has Oprah or The View done concerning the fact that we’re on the brink of bankruptcy as a nation? How many have they done on social issues like abortion and gay marriage? I rest my case.

NoLeftTurn on January 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Let me see if I can get this right.

The Democrats take a turn to the left and they are the party of the big tent. But, if Republicans take a turn to the right they’ll all lose because the same dynamic doesn’t apply.

Excuse me, but I’m being beat with a BS stick.

Special Forces Grunt on January 3, 2010 at 10:27 PM

NoLeftTurn on January 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Amen

Gracelynn on January 3, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Why in gods name would any Republican strategist ever listen to the advice of a political opponent who wants them to lose?

When he wants the Alphabet Networks to speak kindly about him?

Spiny Norman on January 3, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Actually, abortion is generally the touchstone for how seriously conservative a candidate is. Since advancing the pro-life cause comes at quite a cost in media venom, those who hold to it are not easily swayed by the MSM. For every Guiliani, who does seem to be willing to fight for the right as a whole, you get a slew of Specters, Chafees, Welds, and Whitmans…

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Exactly!

Branch Rickey on January 3, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Why in gods name would any Republican strategist ever listen to the advice of a political opponent who wants them to lose?
When he wants the Alphabet Networks to speak kindly about him?

Spiny Norman on January 3, 2010 at 10:27 PM

So after he is a good loser and a “good sport” he can still get put on the alphabets and somehow convince himself he is still relevant and has a clue?

dhunter on January 3, 2010 at 10:33 PM

‘People are crazy if they think we win by getting more pure. We win by getting big.

And we get big by being pure — standing for something!

“Republicans are already expressing concerns that they may not have enough resources to fully take advantage of the political climate, which is shaping to be the most favorable for the GOP since the last time they took control of the House in 1994…

Can you hear us now? We will be giving to candidates, not the NRCC, RNC, until, well… until they hear us loud and clear AND their actions back up their words!

PrincipledPilgrim on January 3, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Actually, abortion is generally the touchstone for how seriously conservative a candidate is. Since advancing the pro-life cause comes at quite a cost in media venom, those who hold to it are not easily swayed by the MSM. For every Guiliani, who does seem to be willing to fight for the right as a whole, you get a slew of Specters, Chafees, Welds, and Whitmans…

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:02 PM

+10

PrincipledPilgrim on January 3, 2010 at 10:38 PM

America Rising open letter

J_Crater on January 3, 2010 at 10:38 PM

I think the NRCC missed the point of the ‘Tea Parties’ by about 500 miles and 60 years…

Time for the unemployment line.

Seven Percent Solution on January 3, 2010 at 10:39 PM

NoLeftTurn on January 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Close… but the polls really show that most Americans are Fiscal Conservatives, and (small L) Libertarian.

They don’t want the Government to be forcing any lifestyle… or HELPING any lifestyle.

Most really don’t care if Gays want to Marry, until its shoved in their face by one side or the other trying to force an agenda…

Most want STATES to decide Abortion issues…

Most just plain want the Ole Constitution back… the one with LIMITED Federal Power…

But we don’t have a Political Party which runs on that agenda…. ESPECIALY not the GOP.

Romeo13 on January 3, 2010 at 10:43 PM

The choice between “pure” and “big” is a specious one. But I can understand why someone like Barbour would propose it. The real-world meaning of “pure” (i.e., right and principled and true to the best of our traditions) terrifies him, as it does all establishment GOP satraps.

rrpjr on January 3, 2010 at 10:44 PM

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Thank you for pointing that out. When we actually run Conservatives, we win more often than when we run Dem lite candidates.

You do have to look at the big picture culturally, of course. If things are humming along smoothly, people are happy, if you throw a “fringe” rightwinger into the mix, people may get nervous and vote against “upsetting the apple cart” as it were. However, when people are unhappy with Liberal policies (1980, 1994) a clear contrast serves the Conservative cause.

It’s still early, but I’d lay better than even odds a principled Conservative could eat Obama’s lunch if he keeps doing the stuff he’s pulled in his first year.

cs89 on January 3, 2010 at 10:46 PM

America Rising open letter

J_Crater on January 3, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Nicely done.

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Today, I went through my mail after arriving home from my roadtrip to CA.

I got two RNC requests for money. On both, I wrote $0 and “I trust Sarah.”

After the Scozzafava betrayal, it will be a long time before I trust anybody at the RNC every again.

They just are so out-of-touch with the grassroots, reality, and the REAL danger we are in right now with the statists tipping the country possibly to the point of no return.

It’s getting to the point where I’d risk another term with Obama if the GOP does not become the right of center party of limited Constitutional government. And there is nothing extremist about my views. I am not for no government, simply scale it back to where it functions better and within the Law.

To the GOP national leadership: We are not asking for much here. Simply gather your testicles up and fight. You only get one life to do what is right so just start leading for crying out loud.

Take back the House and Senate on a prudent, conservative, limited government platform that has room for all the types of cons and libertarians, and push hard for peace through strength.

Then, Sarah will have a right of center Congress and then REAL progess can take off.

Sapwolf on January 3, 2010 at 10:49 PM

I remember being proud of McCain after Fred Thompson’s convention speech. He was not as horrible a candidate as the lifeless Dole/Kemp. One needs to remember Zero had every media outlet promoting voting for him. That, in 2012, will be plenty stale.

Marcus on January 3, 2010 at 10:49 PM

So where the “f” are all those moderates bankrolling the GOP that so fervently desires them?

chickasaw42 on January 3, 2010 at 9:36 PM

The mods and indies don’t give – they wish to be tempted.

OldEnglish on January 3, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Romeo13 on January 3, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Nice post. Unfortunately, that appears to be the situation at the moment.

Sapwolf on January 3, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Fuck Haley Barbour, that country club putz. He’s exactly the type of douchebag I won’t support with money. Show me a race that is worth supporting, and I will directly support that candidate via the internet.

And I hope that there are 10 million conservatives who think the same way.

Jaibones on January 3, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Key to what a moderate is. Squishy on social issues. Rock solid right on financial, monetary, national security and economic policy.

I can accept a pro-abortion Republican. I cannot accept a pro-Welfare state Republican.

Holger on January 3, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Bullsh*t!

Every moderate I have ever known in politics has been not only limp or left on social issues but ultimately turned out to be for MORE spending.

There is NOTHING fiscon about a moderate.

Sapwolf on January 3, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Jaibones on January 3, 2010 at 10:56 PM

That is the best way now to bypass the RNC and get the money to the BEST candidates. I even received two pieces of mail from Marco Rubio’s campaign. He is getting a line in my 2010 budget. So is Toomey. So is whoever wins the Nevada GOP primary so we can oust Reid.

The stupid national GOP will want to run mods and libs rather than supporting right of centers because winning is more important to their big-gov souls as opposed to a Sarah Palin who will fight for what is right AND pragmatic harder than any other GOP politician.

Sapwolf on January 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM

And the stupid thing is that the RNC has not figured out that you WIN with right of center candidates and a strong platform and vision of the Founding and Reagan.

Sapwolf on January 3, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Fuck Haley Barbour, that country club putz. He’s exactly the type of douchebag I won’t support with money. Show me a race that is worth supporting, and I will directly support that candidate via the internet.

And I hope that there are 10 million conservatives who think the same way.

Jaibones on January 3, 2010 at 10:56 PM

There are a lot of us who feel exactly as you. And putting our money where our mouths are.

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:05 PM

There is NOTHING fiscon about a moderate.

Sapwolf on January 3, 2010 at 10:56 PM

But as the Bush Admin showed… there is not really a connection between Social Con and Fiscal Con either….

Problem is that we try to descibe a multi dimensional political belief system, with a simple Linear description…

Take myself for example… I don’t think ANYONE should get an advantage for being married… its NOT the Governments place to give an advantage to one group over another for personal decisions they make… thus in “my” perfect world… gay marriage would not be any type of Governmental issue at all anyway… as Marriage to me is a Covenent between the Couple, and God… not between the Couple, and the State (the rest is Contract Law… even when it has to do with child support issues).

So… where does that put me on the Simple Right/Left or Conservative/Liberal spectrum??? I’m WAY outside the “box” of either “view”.

And I think there are a LOT of Americans who don’t fit the simple Boxes the two party system pretty much forces us to decide between…

Romeo13 on January 3, 2010 at 11:05 PM

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Thanks. That makes it pretty f’in clear to me.

RNCC you out there? Didn’t think so.

$100 to SarahPAC this week.

Sapwolf on January 3, 2010 at 11:07 PM

I can accept a pro-abortion Republican. I cannot accept a pro-Welfare state Republican.

Holger on January 3, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Hear, hear.

Kafir on January 3, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Romeo13 on January 3, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Simply imagine this choices:

Obama for a second term, or Palin for her first.

Crist? Or, Rubio?

Easy choices whether you are fiscon, socon, hawk, libertarian, etc. You can even be a male gay dude of the log cabin variety and make these very easy choices.

Easy easy choices.

Sapwolf on January 3, 2010 at 11:11 PM

There is NOTHING fiscon about a moderate.

Sapwolf on January 3, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Bingo.

You will capture a majority when defending the legal definition of marriage.

You will capture a majority when pro-life, or at the very least, pro 10th amendment.

You will capture a majority when defending the 2nd amendment.

You will capture a majority when standing against amnesty for illegals.

All of these will carry NOTHING if you are for subsidies for Amtrak and AIG, expansion of entitlements, and Keynesian economics.

All too often, the CW definition of “moderate” is the fabricated version perpetuated by the DNC’s MSM, and the GOP leadership doesn’t even know what hit them.

Saltysam on January 3, 2010 at 11:16 PM

I’ve never contributed to a candidate outside of my own state before, but so far this year I’ve donated to Marco Rubio and Scott Brown. I don’t need the NRCC, NRSC or the RNC telling me who to support, thank you very much.

parteagirl on January 3, 2010 at 11:18 PM

Easy easy choices.

Sapwolf on January 3, 2010 at 11:11 PM

LOL…. agree… but all the choices you mention are much more fiscal con… than social Con…

I believe in straving the beast… the ONLY way to limit the Federal Gov is to limit its ability to use the Tax system to socialy engineer society…

Which is why I consider myself an Origionalist… as in the Origional Constitution (sans slavery stuff).

Capitated Taxes administered by the States… Senate back to being direct representatives of the States… Enumerated Powers for Congress… Only CONGRESS being able to print money (not a Private Bank called the Federal Reserve)…

And most of all… if you want to change the Constitution, then AMEND it… don’t reinterpret it…

Romeo13 on January 3, 2010 at 11:19 PM

Part of the Rep problem is, in CA, that they prefer “go along to get along” to making an issue of what is clearly a failure of leftist policy decision.

And this is endemic in Rep “establishment” in CA. They prefer their jobs over reality. They have, in a different way, bought into the idea that they are secure and too big, controlling, to fail. That is part of the problem here and part of why Arnold’s well-founded intiiatives failed. They would have rocked the boat for dullards in the Rep establishment that have no other job prospects, no alternative to their current “rice bowl”.

Call them idiots if you wish, I just think they rate their position as more important than the overall health of the state and its tax base. The failure is letting dullards rise past their competence.

So. The “cleanout” has to be, at minimums, the kind of zips who endorsed Scondawhatever, and let the Rep CA Assembly group decide among themselves who would take the bullets for raising taxes…not if taxes should be raised, but who would allow it in public.

And I will note that how to replace these zips is hard, because not many people want the job. Poltics has focused on such minute issues (such as who texts) that at least I could not gracefully deal with someone focused deeply on such an issue of logic.

Harry Schell on January 3, 2010 at 11:21 PM

You know what… kids are idiots.. so are you, AP…

fabrexe on January 3, 2010 at 11:24 PM

But as the Bush Admin showed… there is not really a connection between Social Con and Fiscal Con either….

The connection is, if we want a big tent, you stand apologetically on both. Bush failed the Fiscal con test to those that understood what was going on.

Romeo13 on January 3, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Problem is that we try to descibe a multi dimensional political belief system, with a simple Linear description…

Take myself for example… I don’t think ANYONE should get an advantage for being married… its NOT the Governments place to give an advantage to one group over another for personal decisions they make

I agree. Except that I would say that specifically about the Federal government, because it is not its role. The issue of whether or not there is special tax considerations for families living in one house falls under the 10th amendment IMHO.

… thus in “my” perfect world… gay marriage would not be any type of Governmental issue at all anyway… as Marriage to me is a Covenent between the Couple, and God… not between the Couple, and the State (the rest is Contract Law… even when it has to do with child support issues).

Well…

it is not that simple. If it was, there would not be an issue.

So… where does that put me on the Simple Right/Left or Conservative/Liberal spectrum??? I’m WAY outside the “box” of either “view”.

I believe if I has an hour with you, you would be simply on the right part of the spectrum. I don’t believe, from the way you’ve described yourself, that you would stand on the side of those that demand that the government provide a legal mechanism that makes marriage a “right”.

Romeo13 on January 3, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Saltysam on January 3, 2010 at 11:35 PM

Yikes! I need to re post this with corrections!

But as the Bush Admin showed… there is not really a connection between Social Con and Fiscal Con either….

Romeo13 on January 3, 2010 at 11:05 PM

The connection is, if we want a big tent, you stand apologetically UN-apologetically on both. Bush failed the Fiscal con test to those that understood what was going on.

Saltysam on January 3, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Saltysam on January 3, 2010 at 11:35 PM

Agreed…. but I also do not really care if Gays self describe their personal Relationships as marriage…

Mainly because unless there is an overideing LEGAL reason for it… I don’t think its the Federal Governments business to be telling us how to live…

Of course, I also believe that its your RIGHT to speak PUBLICLY about lifestyles that you think are harmfull… ie no hate speech laws.

Let Society figure out how it wants to live, don’t codify it…

Sooo…. in essence… I can’t describe myself as any type of Social Conservative… and in fact am horrified and will not vote for people like Huckabee… who want to enforce THEIR view of relgion on the rest of us.

Thus, the debate… Right? it depends on the defintion… and who is making that determination.

IMO we really need to expand the way we describe ourselves… get past the Right / Left or Conservative/Liberal labels… because it does not give enough flexibility to really self descibe…

But, with a Two party system… its how THEY want us to descibe ourselves… just like last election where I was constantly told I HAD to vote for McCain, because Obama was SOOOOO far left.

Romeo13 on January 3, 2010 at 11:49 PM

‘People are crazy if they think we win by getting more pure. We win by getting big.’

Barbour is nothing more than another moderate Republican establishment type who are blinded by their own arrogance. The fact that this individual has so much influence within the party is scary. Those of us who have argued against the formation of a 3rd party are rapidly losing our argument, I fear. Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on January 3, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Sooo…. in essence… I can’t describe myself as any type of Social Conservative… and in fact am horrified and will not vote for people like Huckabee… who want to enforce THEIR view of religion on the rest of us.

Romeo13 on January 3, 2010 at 11:49 PM

I’m going to respond to this, because I think you’re overstating it.

I bet you are a social con to a degree.

And if you and I were to sit down for awhile, I bet you’d be surprised at how socially conservative you are.

Also, I’m actually surprised to learn that Huckabee wants to “enforce” his religion on you.

That being said…

I’m not a Huck fan, but its his ambivalence and muddled fiscal ideas that concern me.

Saltysam on January 4, 2010 at 12:04 AM

The Newsweek articl on Barbour is a pure “puff piece” designed to introduce him as a viable candidate. Of course the biased libs at Newsweek would love to pick our candidate and see Barbour as a perfect choice. An easy win it’d be for Obama in 2012, too. DD

Darvin Dowdy on January 4, 2010 at 12:15 AM

get past the Right / Left or Conservative/Liberal labels… because it does not give enough flexibility to really self descibe…

Romeo13 on January 3, 2010 at 11:49 PM

IMO, the problem is the spectrum is not defined correctly.

In the MSM, and with our distinguished institutions of learning, the spectrum has been defined as Communist on the extreme Left and Fascist on the extreme right. They have been successful at perpetuating this false argument since the 60s.

Cleon Skousen described it right when he said that Communism and Fascism are practically the same that the difference is irrelevant.

The real spectrum is a police state on the Left and anarchy on the Right. As Americans, we have always been concerned with a responsible balance between the two. That we need government has always been true, as the founders were clear. That we must be a virtuous people is paramount to a self governing society, or this balance between these two extremes is doomed.

And it is when we put the spectrum in this proper perspective that we begin to understand that Moderate America is conservative.

Saltysam on January 4, 2010 at 12:18 AM

I can accept a pro-abortion Republican. I cannot accept a pro-Welfare state Republican.

Holger on January 3, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Winner.

BPD on January 3, 2010 at 9:53 PM

I’ll second that!

heshtesh on January 3, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Oh, yeah. Because murdering helpless preborn infants is so manly and just what the Founding Fathers hoped for. And, if you can murder enough you won’t have to pay for them with welfare. Oh, wait…that’s been the Dem plan for years now, especially the part about killing minority babies.

You girls are in the wrong place, you can share make-up with barry just Left of here.

tigerlily on January 4, 2010 at 12:19 AM

Saltysam on January 4, 2010 at 12:04 AM

Interesting… You do realize that you make my point for me?

Yes, there are “some” things that I agree with Social Conservatives about… but there are other issues on which I DON’T agree with them.

Yet, you try to place me in the “category” of being a Social Conservative, without knowing me, my life, my philosophy, religion… or what I do belive…

Its much easier to force people to be in “one” category or another… even if you are enforcing an artifical false choice.

Romeo13 on January 4, 2010 at 12:22 AM

So where the “f” are all those moderates bankrolling the GOP that so fervently desires them?

chickasaw42 on January 3, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Great question. And where are the moderates stuffing envelopes and doing phone banks?

PackerBronco on January 4, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Carolina Kat on January 3, 2010 at 10:09 PM

If your friend is really a conservative then he should be supporting his grandkids with the sweat of his brow not the sweat of others brow. In addition after the first he and his son should have had a heart to heart in the wood shed.

chemman on January 4, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Yet, you try to place me in the “category” of being a Social Conservative, without knowing me, my life, my philosophy, religion… or what I do belive…

Romeo13 on January 4, 2010 at 12:22 AM

Well…placing a bet, at least where I come from, does not mean I’ve placed you in a category. And I admit, I know nothing about you, except that you appear to hold the Constitution dear, which means I bet I’m right. ;-)

Saltysam on January 4, 2010 at 12:32 AM

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Very helpful. Thanks. The RNC needs a copy of this.

redwhiteblue on January 4, 2010 at 12:33 AM

18-1 on January 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM

You’ve nailed it.

Saltysam on January 4, 2010 at 12:37 AM

I remember being proud of McCain after Fred Thompson’s convention speech. He was not as horrible a candidate as the lifeless Dole/Kemp. One needs to remember Zero had every media outlet promoting voting for him. That, in 2012, will be plenty stale.

Marcus on January 3, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Good points. McCain did have a few bright spots (Thompson’s speech, Sarah Palin, “Joe the Plumber”) while I remember nil about Dole’s campaign (aside from the derision that is) or Bush Sr.’s re-election bid (aside from the fawning over Slick Willy).

Voters want strong leaders, surely a mere perception, but if you look back and compare the candidates as objectively as possible I think you can see that in the match ups.

Voters don’t seem to care about past indiscretions and the like…nobody understood nor cared about the McCain-Feingold fiasco, but on the other hand few enough cared about Vince Foster, Arkancide, Whitewater, and so on either. Nor about the birth certificate, the Kenyan political connection, voting ‘present’ constantly, the associations with Wright, Ayers and other radicals…

The press is the key. The Doofy One tripping over a door way, walking through the wrong door, bumping his head at the hatch of Marine One, bowing ridiculously, etc. did not elicit a Chevy Chase-like caricature along the lines of what Gerald Ford got. Race is also a factor that shields this politician.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 4, 2010 at 12:38 AM

Anyone else creeped out like I am by the refinance ad underneath the thread? What’s with those teeth?

That has been creeping me out for weeks! I think it’s a photoshopped mouth photo turned upside down. But why? Just to get someone to click on it?

YehuditTX on January 4, 2010 at 12:40 AM

Oh, yeah. Because murdering helpless preborn infants is so manly and just what the Founding Fathers hoped for. And, if you can murder enough you won’t have to pay for them with welfare. Oh, wait…that’s been the Dem plan for years now, especially the part about killing minority babies.

You girls are in the wrong place, you can share make-up with barry just Left of here.

tigerlily on January 4, 2010 at 12:19 AM

If you end the Welfare State that has broken families and locked generations into perpetual poverty, you put a big fat dent in the number of abortions.

Holger on January 4, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Romeo13 on January 3, 2010 at 11:19 PM

Make that as the plank of the Republican Party and this social con would rejoin. This would return social issues to the people instead of the courts and I could live with it.

chemman on January 4, 2010 at 12:44 AM

NoLeftTurn on January 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Holger on January 3, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Totally agree. The small government movement will succeed if social libertarians and social conservatives can at least agree that small government and individual rights mean that you can advocate for some social ideas but it’s not the business of the government to enforce them.

I’ve seen this coexistence growing for the past year and people agreeing on what is most urgent: Freeing capitalism and initiative from the proliferation of bureaucracy and federal criminal statutes. Restoring the balance between the 3 branches, between the states and the federal government, between the sovereign individual and the State. Restoring fiscal sanity. Restoring our respect among nations through strength and support for individual rights everywhere (how much we back that up with firepower TBD). Etc.

I’m pro-choice and pro-gay marriage but that’s 8th or 9th down on the list.

YehuditTX on January 4, 2010 at 12:57 AM

Q: If Steele, McCain, and Graham were in a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved?

A: The republican party.

csdeven on January 4, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Sounds like to me they had better court those small conservative donors instead of going after the “dede” big tent theory.

just saying…

archer52 on January 4, 2010 at 12:59 AM

The republican establishment has more to fear from the conservatives than the liberals. They’re just now getting it? I think they’ve been too elated with the American people turning on liberals to realize they’re next. Here’s a news flash for them, stop compromising on conservative issues, get the RINOs out, and start articulating (in word and deed) the hope we have in freedom.
 
I wouldn’t give a nickel to the republican establishment. I would, however, consider giving more money than I ever have to a good conservative candidate.

ClanDerson on January 4, 2010 at 1:10 AM

I wouldn’t give a nickel to the republican establishment. I would, however, consider giving more money than I ever have to a good conservative candidate.

ClanDerson on January 4, 2010 at 1:10 AM

http://www.brownforussenate.com/

18-1 on January 4, 2010 at 1:12 AM

I’m pro-choice and pro-gay marriage but that’s 8th or 9th down on the list.

YehuditTX on January 4, 2010 at 12:57 AM

See, GOP?

These types will enter the tent of a pro-life & pro-marriage platform. And pro-life and pro-marriage are both majority positions. Its the pro-liberal economics for which they’ll abandon ship.

And why the hell shouldn’t they? If they want all three, they can get that on the dark side. I’ve been saying this for years. Fiscal cons that are shaky on abortion and marriage will NOT abandon a Ronald Reagan/Milton Freidman concept.

Get a clue.

Saltysam on January 4, 2010 at 1:14 AM

Oh, yeah. Because murdering helpless preborn infants is so manly and just what the Founding Fathers hoped for. And, if you can murder enough you won’t have to pay for them with welfare. Oh, wait…that’s been the Dem plan for years now, especially the part about killing minority babies.

You girls are in the wrong place, you can share make-up with barry just Left of here.

tigerlily on January 4, 2010 at 12:19 AM

If you end the Welfare State that has broken families and locked generations into perpetual poverty, you put a big fat dent in the number of abortions.

Holger on January 4, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Don’t even pretend concern for the number of abortions. You already said you would support a pro-abort republican. You and your fellow travelers are the pro-aborts that helped bring the most disgusting bloodletting of over 40 million innocent persons into this nation. You are the reason that someone as vile as obama sits in the White House. A country that murders it own in such staggering numbers, and still has people like you condoning it are the reason we are circling the toilet bowl. We can never climb out of the sewer with people like you who are more concerned with your “fiscal” issues than the slaughter of the most helpless among us. Not only will your fiscal issues tank, because without those 40 million, the nation is top-heavy old, with all the economic disaster that will bring, but the moral issue, the one that would save the children and our “fiscal” concerns eludes you. You are a pro-abort, and as I said, the Founding Fathers, who were real men, would spit you out of their mouths and trample you under foot because you are useless to do any good while you promote something so overwhelmingly evil.

tigerlily on January 4, 2010 at 1:24 AM

I close my eyes and imagine the following scene…

The RINOs and ‘Moderates’ come back after the Holiday break, to their desks in power at the head of the GOP.

The phones are not ringing, the mail is delivered, but it is all bills and no cash…

They fire up their computers, then the e-mail accounts, and find out the servers have crashed due to the overload of PISSED OFF Conservatives and other ‘Tea Party’ members.

The room is filled with silence, and cold sweat.

Some where off in the distance, a dog is heard barking…

Then finally, it is said in a whisper: “We are so fu%ked!”

Seven Percent Solution on January 4, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2