Pajamas Media

104 Comments

1. arhooley:

I’m still opposing this term “moderate.” This so-called moderation is actually policy differences. For example, pro-choicers don’t hold this position because they’ve concluded it’s better to be moderate, or to meet the left halfway on fetal rights; they consider reproductive choice to be correct policy. Nothing moderate about it.

The same goes for Republicans who don’t oppose gay marriage, who support amnesty, who believe in man-made global warming, etc. It seems to me we’ll have to either duke it out over these issues one by one or try to figure out what the core principles of conservative government are and then see which of these issues simply fall off the platform on their own to be taken up by popular opinion, private institutions, and state governments.

May 10, 2009 - 1:50 am 2. Derek:

A fiscally conservative moderate… you do realize the last president to balance the budget was a Democrat? That isn’t the problem

The problem is that Conservatives lionize guys that aren’t small government, aren’t fiscally conservative, then try to turn around and blame them for spending when things go wrong. (when things go right they just pretend the spending/expansion never happened, see: Reagan)

In my opinion the problem is that conservatives aren’t the people in the republican party that set policy. It’s the moderates, the technocrats, the neocons etc. They have all these newfangled policy ideas to build majorities, and the conservatives already exhausted their policy salvos by the 90’s. Once conservatives again become a group that has something to offer in terms of policy, then people will stop deferring to the technocrats, the RINO’s, the party elites.

Now, I’m not saying that no conservatives have ideas, just that those ideas will have to be embraced by conservatives as a whole, not just fringe sections like the ron paul guys. Once there is a dominant force for that, then you will have the candidates with policy you want, rather then just voting for the candidate that only has the rhetoric you want.

May 10, 2009 - 3:06 am 3. Derek:

I mean, I assume you guys consider this site a conservative site.

Just go look at the first page and count the number of articles pushing policy and ideas vs. the number complaining, that are just describing a situation they don’t like.

Grievances are addictive, but they do nothing for you. Because in all reality, no one cares outside of your group.

May 10, 2009 - 3:14 am 4. Ed Wallis:

Author: “Conservatives know something about branding that the moderates can’t seem to acknowledge: Packaging a message is easier when it’s clear and simple.”

Thank you, Melissa, you get it.

See:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lscott/2009/05/06/conservatives-need-to-fire-the-marketing-department/

Arguing conservatism based on “reason” alone will get as many votes as a doctoral treatise on brain surgery (apologies to all those fine surgeons out there, but I trust you get my point…).

Try instead the two sides of the conservative coin: FREEDOM / PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

Eee gads…something FUN! Market appeal, anyone?

In contrast, left unchecked, the tax burdens of the Democrats will only create serfs to the Federal Government out of our children and their children.

A clear enough message?!

May 10, 2009 - 3:20 am 5. RobertG:

Moderation in food and drink is a wise thing. Moderation in defense of Home, Family and Country and Honor is just damn near Treason. For generations now we have been told to “hold you nose and vote for the lessor of two evils”. That kind of “moderation” got us here and Obama is near unstoppable at the moment. There are core issues that must not become compromised-the whore John McCain never understood that.

But that is for Republicans to decide. After a lifetime of Loyalty to the Party I have left. Immediately after the November defeat the Party Leadership picks ANOTHER “moderate” as Chairman. Yes Michael Steele is a nice guy and honest to a fault and exactly the ‘go along get along’ hollowman that got us here. The Whigs became irrelevant and went away-perhaps it is time the Republicans thought about that.

May 10, 2009 - 3:35 am 6. BPT (Australia):

To be honest, I think so-called moderate Republicans have a deep need to be loved by the media and Hollywood, but they’ll sacrifice Mormons, Catholics, and Evangelicals in a heartbeat. It is all about them trying to “fit” in with the “in” crowd.

May 10, 2009 - 3:41 am 7. Phil Byler:

I am one who believes that we need to chart a conservative course for the future for the Republican Party and has spent time recently re-reading old speeches and watching old videos of Ronald Reagan (who was a political philosopher). BUT I really am very, very tired of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and here Melissa Clouthier whining about “moderates.” They are the ones who are depicted in the baby crying.

In the 2008 election, Rush ran anti-McCain parodies up to the election and then afterward, in a cowardly and unmanly way, proclaimed he had nothing to do with the 2008 loss. Ann Coulter went so far as to support Hillary for a period and always showed her disdain for McCain; of course, she too walks away from responsibility for 2008.

Lets get some things straight because if we don’t, we are going to learn the hard way that while delivering a conservative message is one part of the task for the GOP ahead, it is but one part. Rush talks about the Reagan formula of 1984, but he forgets that in 1984, Reagan was an incumbent President at a time of prosperity and peace — a winning combination. In 1996, Bill Clinton won by a wide margin without a conservative message but with the benefit of prosperity and apparent peace (the gathering storm of radical Islam was not on people’s radar).

In 2008, it wasn’t running what Rush unfairly calls a moderate campaign that killed us. It was a combination of factors: (i) a financial crisis that caused economic uncertainties that historically have favored Democrats and did in 2008; (ii) a Bush Administration bailout that muddied the waters of the difference between the parties on economics and diluted the largely Reaganesque message on the campaign trail delivered by the McCain-Palin ticket; (iii) Bush unpopularity, which was unfair but which was a factor; (iv) the Obama money that paid for what was flase political advertising (how do you win against a 7 to 1 advantage?); (v) the media bias that operated day in, day out as a propaganda machine for Obama; and (vi) demographic changes (if the country had the same demographic make up as 1992 and groups voted in the same percentage McCain-Obama as they did in 2008, McCain would have won).

According to the polls in 2007 and 2008, McCain was the only Republican who ever was close to Hillary and Obama; the other Republican candidates polled badly in a putative national match up, with Romney often the weakest. McCain went ahead in September, in the polls, but then the financial “crisis” hit. Had more foreign problems arose and reminded everyone of McCain’s strengths in foreign policy, military matters and national security, then McCain would have been elected despite everything. Instead, we have someone in Obama whom I do not view as competent to be Commander in Chief, and we will in time suffer badly as a result.

The point is that today, we cannot comfort ourselves with easy formulas, but rather confront all that went wrong in 2008. We now are facing a mainstream media bias that is effectively becoming an arm of what is becoming a socialist government, Leftist money is fueling Leftist propaganda and causes, ACORN operatives are out there funded by federal monies, and demographic changes are favoring Democrats. To overcome all that, just talking conservative principles won’t be enough. Among other things, Republicans need to reconnect with the people at such gatherings as TEA parties and Town Hall meetings, and we bring a conservative message applied to the specific circumstances of American lives and explan how multi-trillion dollar deficit spending and Big Government huts people in their every day lives.

That is what we need to be doing. But instead too often and I see and hear conservatives whining about “moderates,” including Rush who still runs anti-McCain parodies and groups McCain with Specter.

May I point out two facts to you? First, check John McCain’s voting record this year. McCain voted: AGAINST tax cheat Geithner to be Treasury Secretary; AGAINST ultra-lib Kagan to be Solicitor General, AGAINST radical pro-abortion Sibelius to be HHS Secretary; and AGAINST every Obama budget and bailout bill. In fact, it was John McCain who formulated the phrase “generational phrase theft” to describe Obama’s absurdly irresponsible multi-trillion dollar deficit spending, a phrase used often by Sean Hannity accurately attributing it to John McCain. Second, one of McCain’s main points in his campaign was that we needed to get out of control spending under control and cut it. As Victor Davis Hanson wrote wisely in his “Why Did Republicans Lose Their Appeal,” Republicans did so because they no longer were the party of financial responsibility. McCain ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility — a conservative message.

It is long past time to cease fire among ourselves and focus on what is to be done ahead.

May 10, 2009 - 3:57 am 8. Dave:

Melissa,

well written! If your only argument with the Dems is how MUCH the tax increase should be, then you should be at their table of power discussing it with them in party meetings!

A republican fights for tax CUTS, not increases.

“DEM LITE” has absolutely NO appeal to voters, who simply vote for the real thing if thats what they want. McCain’s total represents the desperate Repub base who wanted to stop Obama, minus the most principled among them who simply wouldn’t vote for McCain because they knew he was just Dem Lite and the knew it made little or not difference WHICH ONE of them was president.

each passing year leaves us focused more and more on the pertinent question– who is this generations’s reagan? who will focus on the optimistic, self-reliant bootstrapping American spirit? Who will remind is govmt is the problem, not the solution?

He/she is out there. We wait. But we KNOW what we want.

May 10, 2009 - 4:48 am 9. James P. Blackstone:

Excellent. I’ve said the same thing. In emails to Michael Steele…and numerous others. The ground rules for all issues are in the Constitution and every issue must be seen in it’s light. If moderates disagree on this, maybe we can’t coexist in the same party. It’s a “gain the world and lose your own soul” situation.

May 10, 2009 - 5:05 am 10. Bob:

I voted for John McCain but after he supported the TARP bailout, my heart wasn’t in it. I’m basically a libertarian. I don’t think all abortions should be illegal, but I also can’t seem to find the supposed Constitutional right to an abortion discovered by the majority in Roe v. Wade. I don’t think that gay marriage would mean the end of the social order but I see no reason why the majority cannot maintain a thousand-year-old tradition of one man-one woman marriage. I am an atheist but recognize that the vast majority of Americans are Christians and Jews, and don’t expect them to purge all religious reference from public life. I see no harm in having “In God We Trust” on our coins, having military chaplains, beginning sessions of Congress with a prayer, allowing prayers at football games or graduation ceremonies, or allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed at a courthouse or other public building.

The main thing the Republican Party offers me is at least some candidates (not including my former Congressman, Jim Leach, (RINO – Iowa) who spoke at the 2008 Democrat convention and was one of the sponsors of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), who believe, like Reagan, that government is the problem, not the solution. I don’t want to run my neighbors’ lives and don’t want government to run my life or take such a big part of my and any other moderately successful person’s income. I don’t believe in nationalized banks or car companies. I would like to see government do a decent job of protecting decent law-abiding citizens from those who would harm us, both foreign and domestic. This means enforcement of the law, policing the boarders, and strong national defense. I also believe that government that tries to do too much ends up doing very little effectively. Much of what G.W. Bush and the 1995-2006 Republican majority did was contrary to concepts of limited, constitutional government.

The Dems are riding a wave of success mostly based on the personal popularity of the President. Unfortunately, the Republicans don’t have any charismatic figure to lead us. As much as I’d love to see Sarah Palin in the White House, she’s never going to be President – nor are Newt, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Huck or Mittens.

As the minority party, the best Republicans can do right now is to articulate core principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility and traditional values. When the opportunity presents itself, a leader will emerge.

May 10, 2009 - 5:05 am 11. Richard Cook:

Ed Wallis

I don’t know if is that simple. Does feedom mean I get to do what ever I want? No. conservatism inherently has a problem getting its message out because it is more complicated than “the government will do it for you” of the Progressives/Democrats. How do you neatly package small government and increased personal responsibility? How do Conservatives positively package “I am taking away…” whatever benefit, social program, etc. because that is how it is going to be percieved by the electorate at large. Then again the electorate at large wants something for nothing.

May 10, 2009 - 5:14 am 12. TomJW:

Derek

Congress passes the spending and tax laws. The last Congress to balance the budget was Republican, in spite of a Democrat President.

Now, of course, I will hate you forever for making me say someting nice about Republicans. At least it wasn’t for any Republicans in the last 10 years.

May 10, 2009 - 5:17 am 13. Derek:

I was tempted to make the argument made in comment 7 about Mccain. Mccain’s voting record is pretty reliably conservative and he’s actually one of the few republican senators with credibility about fiscal responsibility.

Yet he gets thrown on the fire by pundits because of immigration reform.

May 10, 2009 - 5:46 am 14. David W. Lincoln:

As long as people invest too much in Aristotle (regardless of which area of life it occurs in), and not enough in Plato – people will only see the trees, and not the forest.

However, unless someone else can point to something created, the forest is comprised of what is outside creation.

May 10, 2009 - 5:47 am 15. Phil Byler:

Sorry Dave (re your 4:49 PM post), but you are an example of a “conservative” who helped a narcissistic socialist get elected President. I can say that I voted for a war hero and not a handout. But what can you say? That you are so “principled” that you would not vote for a pro-life fiscal conservative whose knowledge of foreign policy, military matters and national security was heads above every other candidate of any party?

Tell me, what would possess you to sit out the 2008 election? Was it McCain’s market oriented approach to health care that is the opposite of the Democrat socialist approach? Was it McCain’s condemndation of out of control federal spending? Was it McCain’s support of choice in education? Was it McCain’s performance at the Saddleback forum showing him to be a man committed to life and fighting evil? Was it McCain’s commitment to nominating strict constructionists to the federal bench? Was it McCain’s hawkishness in foreign policy, military matters and national security? Did McCain’s personal life story of war heroism turn you off? Was McCain’s campaign slogan “Country First” not for you? Really.

Again, sorry, but you provide an example of why Ms. Coulthier’s article is badly misconceived.

May 10, 2009 - 6:36 am 16. Dave:

Phil,

Point by point in your xummary of 2008 election–

1) “financial crisis” caused primarily by DEMOCRAT POLICY, fannie, freddie, CRA, Frank, Dodd, the CBC, obstruction of reform efforts BY republicans.. they OWN this, and a conservative wouldn’t HESITATE to point this out. McCain blamed it on wall street greed, just like all the Dems.

2) “Bush admin. bailout” that made Bush into a MODERATE, or revealed his MODERATE leanings, the exact thing Melissa is complaining about but that you are dismissing. A conservative would have let the market settle this. Bush was not a conservative. Melissa’s complaint did not begin with McCain.

3) “Bush Unpopularity” which was largely GINNED UP by MSM, not real in any way, and if they hadn’t spent all their time lying and exaggerating about the war and emphasizing the worst while ignoring the best, it might have been different… then again, MODERATES on our side joined the Dems in their concern over these things, while conservatives supported Bush in this area. More support from Republicans would have helped. Too bad we couldn’t GET THAT.

4) “Obama money” that was on an unprecedented level illegally obtained, no traceability, no checks against names/addresses, much of it from overseas, and a true conservative would have made this a campaign issue at the very LEAST, which McCain didn’t do, afraid he’d be called racist or too stupid to be aware of what Obama was doing. Conservatives respond strongly and with law in a case like this, moderates go ‘oh well’…

5) “Media Bias” a strong conservative has an entire section of his staff devoted to catching this, demonstrating it, releasing it in whatever way possible to show the truth and dilute that advantage. McCain LOVES the media and would never waste his staff’s time informing the public that the media was determined to make him LOSE THE ELECTION… he was having too much fun laughing and joking with them. CONSERVATIVES don’t trust the media, and they call them out. McCain didn’t.

6) Demographic changes– Bush got 53 million votes four years earlier.. McCain got about 5 million fewer than that.. we didn’t lose to demographics, we lost to disinterest among the republican base. PERIOD.

The kind of disinterest that is generated by a moderate at the head of a conservative party, even with a conservative at second spot on the ticket.

Bottom line, we conservatives knew McCain loved global warming stuff and crossing the aisle and even tho he voted our side part of the time we didn’t trust him at all, because we’d seen over the years he does not have the conservative instincts and principles at work in him.

So some of us didn’t show up. What was the point? Perhaps instead of tripling the national debt MCCain would only have doubled it. He said himself he knew little or nothing about the economy. He’d have been happily manipulated, and the same folks would be getting rich off taxpayer $$ that are doing it now.

I think even Obama is harder for Frank and Dodd to deal with than MCCain would have been.

Step down off the horse, PHil.. conservative principles are where it’s at, and when our guys don’t have them, we lose. PERIOD.

May 10, 2009 - 6:37 am 17. Reformed Trombonist:

Just as an IQ is an attempt to portray a multi-dimensional phenomenon as a scalar value, portraying the disarray in the Republican Party as a debate between “moderate” conservatives vs. the true believers is not entirely false, but also not entirely accurate. It’s a gross simplification of what’s really going on, and a somewhat deceptive one.

Liberalism is a cohesive philosophy and a united movement. The central tenet is that we can’t depend on God, but must establish perfect justice here on earth. It sounds nice, but it isn’t possible. It exalts human wisdom (so long as it is their own wisdom), and holds that what Christians see as man’s fallen nature is simply a failure of society’s existing institutions — e.g., the Church, the Constitution, law, private property, marriage, free enterprise, strong national defense, etc. Based on its open-ended ideal, it’s a charter for totalitarianism; there is no logical stopping point for feeding the state, because the quest for perfect justice is never over. Everything, from wearing seat belts to how fat your kids are, is political and thus fair game for their intrusion into your life. Leaving well enough alone is only a question of practicality, never a philosophical principle.

Our enemies are united. We (”conservatives”) are not. The people we call conservatives are simply those who rally around and defend their own preferred institution. Religious conservatives are those who rally around the attacks on the institution of the Church and the family. Economic conservatives are those who oppose the intrusion of the government into the free market, and distrust the growth of government. National-defense conservatives oppose the weakening of our military. Libertarians oppose the nanny state because it shoves the freedom-protecting parts of the Constitution aside. These groups are not necessarily 100% discrete, but neither do they share each other’s passions about the pet institutions of their allies.

For want of a better alternative, these disparate and bickering groups have coalesced around the Republican Party, whose pet institution is big business. But when big business’s interests are congruent with liberalism’s (and in an age where government is handing out money to big business, that’s the case more often than not), they sell out their erstwhile allies in a New York second. (You always know someone by his non-negotiables, and it’s interesting how Bush and his crew were willing to compromise with Harry Reid on his Supreme Court selections, but picked a fight with his own base on immigration.)

So, basically, all this unrest is simply telling the Republicans that coalitions require maintenance, and that they’re tired of being sold out. For their part, Republicans have to decide if their future is with the folks who really do want change, or if they have cast their lot as the lapdogs of a socialist state.

May 10, 2009 - 6:38 am 18. Fred Beloit:

#3. A guy who says no one cares continues to expend energy to care here by contributing seven paragraphs. Does this make any sense?
“Grievances are addictive, but they do nothing for you. Because in all reality, no one cares outside of your group.”
It makes as much sense as any Al Gore speech.

May 10, 2009 - 6:57 am 19. Fantom:

The problem is not moderates in the party per say. But rather in the Republican party so called moderates(liberal) republicans set the agenda. They are in leadership roles.

Now juxtapose that with the corrupt democrat party. Sure they ran “conservative” gun loving, pro life candidates in such districts that mandated such a strategy. But these “moderate” democrats had to vote for the most liberal extreme leftist leadership. And it is they who set the agenda. And quite frankly who run the democrat party.

Now if the Repubs would use the democrat model of “Big Tent”. One in which rino’s, moderates are not setting the agenda, then fine. I am all for running a heteraphobic, bible hating, gun grabbing , babby killing unAmerican scumbag in such districts as required.. say the one which elected peloser.

May 10, 2009 - 7:02 am 20. Fred Beloit:

At any rate, Melissa, it was a pleasure to read a piece composed of logical points.
Pols, pols, pols. Go into your bathrooms and look in your mirrors. No fooling around now. We know your first priority is being elected or re-elected. However, if you will not represent ANY of the four principles in the article above, don’t expect conservatives to vote for you, unlessen one of them might be your momma. So look in your eyes and ask, “Is it possible I am really a Democratic?” The answer should be yes; so off you go then and follow Arlen into the swamps.

May 10, 2009 - 7:10 am 21. David Thomson:

The GOP must present candidates with an overall clear message. Rush Limbaugh is right on target saying that the voters will almost always pick a real Democrat over a wishy-washy moderate “imitation Democrat” Republican. The problem is made greater because of the extreme bias of the MSM. Republicans will therefore inevitably have a more difficult time getting their message out. Thus, it had better be fairly clear and unambiguous—or defeat on election day is highly probable.

May 10, 2009 - 7:21 am 22. sherlock:

“To be honest, I think so-called moderate Republicans have a deep need to be loved by the media and Hollywood, but they’ll sacrifice Mormons, Catholics, and Evangelicals in a heartbeat. It is all about them trying to “fit” in with the “in” crowd.”

I shouldn’t repeat someone else’s entire comment, but I can hardly think of a way to improve on it!! Most of the “leaders” in the Republican party have little identification with the average person. They are celebrities, but they perceive that they don’t get their fair share of adoration because they belong to the wrong gang. I wish they would all pull an “Arlen” and quit muddying the waters in my party.

I wonder if “BPT in Australia” will take us in after we let this country got to hell!

May 10, 2009 - 7:49 am 23. Sebastian Shaw:

Melissa gets it. Republicans in the Washington DC take notes. John McCain & all the other moderates, good-bye. Arlen Specter has already shown his true colors…

May 10, 2009 - 8:02 am 24. Self-hating Boomer:

When’s the last time you heard the term “moderate” applied to a donkey? The term itself is dishonest propaganda.

May 10, 2009 - 8:02 am 25. Bilgeman:

#7 Phil Byler:
“May I point out two facts to you? First, check John McCain’s voting record this year.”

May I then in turn point out 3 facts about John McCain’s PAST voting record?

1)McCain-Feingold.”Campaign Finance Reform”.
This is an unconstitutional infringement on the Free Speech under the 1st Amendment.
Personally, i found it highly karmic that the Alleged Hawaiian abandoned his pledge to accept public funding, and then used his Soros money to beat McCain in campaign spending like a red-headed stepchild.

2) Gun Control
McCain began flacking for anti-gun tycoon Andrew McKelvey for his 2000 primary run, and sponsored or signed on to the usual plethora of gun-control legislation.
Call ‘em what you like, but they’re infringements upon 2nd Amendment civil liberties.

3) Illegal Immigration “Reform”
McCain was a principal sponsor of a “reform” act that would have been a de facto amnesty…and this from an Arizona senator, where his constituents who ahppen to live along the border are being overrun.

This represents a mis- or non-feasance, in a President, of faithfully executing the laws.

I guess writing unconstitutional laws to constrain the citizenry while signalling to alien lawbreakers that they need not also be constrained by our laws is what it takes to get the appellation of the “moderate” and “maverick” candidate. eh?

That’s why, in my book, he’s not President today.

May 10, 2009 - 8:03 am 26. Bilgeman:

#17. Reformed Trombonist:
“Just as an IQ is an attempt to portray a multi-dimensional phenomenon as a scalar value,”

SOMEONE was paying attention in Physics 101!

May 10, 2009 - 8:07 am 27. Ed Wallis:

Richard #11,

I was only trying to get at the point that “having principles” and “arguing by reason” does not IMHO inspire (though 1:1,000 exceptions do arise) – in particular with many 18-30 voters…and that speaking to their own self-interest (NOT selfishness) as a conservative “positive” is direly needed.

May 10, 2009 - 8:17 am 28. Blackwater:

I’m:

1. Pro-military,
2. Fiscally conservative
3. Opposed to reverse discrimination
4. Supportive of deporing all illegal aliens and their children
5. Supportive of protecting our borders vigorously
6. Supportive of environmental pragmatism instead of extremism
7. Opposed to any effort to regulate CO2
8. Supportive of exploiting our natural resources like oil and gas
9. Ambivalent to gay marriage
10. Pro-choice
11. A believer in God but am not religious
12. An admirer of every religion except islam
13. Supportive of the war on islamists
14. Supportive of the right for Americans to own any gun they want as long as they pass a background check and buy a lock for each gun
15. Supportive of some of the bank bailouts but not the Obama level of intervention in private companies
16. Opposed to the wasteful Obama “stimulus” bill
17. Supportive of adding more morality to our society in general
18. A believer in evolutionary biology but I don’t feel the need to make a big fuss about it

Not everyone thinks the same. I think we should aim for a big tent Reagan style Republican Party. You can be proudly conservative without excluding everyone who isn’t a social conservative. There’s different philosophies in conservative ideology. Some are libertarian when it comes to social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Not everyone believes we should intervene in peoples private lives. In fact some people think that goes against conservative princibles of respecting individual freedom. I think we could actually win a lot more votes if we abondoned our pro-life and anti-gay marriage agenda. What attracted most independent people to the Republican party was by being the party of fiscal conservatism and strong on national security like Reagaan was. That’s how we’d win more elections.

May 10, 2009 - 8:40 am 29. arhooley:

>>11. Richard Cook: How do you neatly package small government and increased personal responsibility?

How about something along the lines of “Government off your back,” or “Government out of your way,” or “You’re smarter than government” or something unbearably cute like “Keep your pay and make your way”?

I could see lines like that playing below ads on any number of topics — school choice, tax cuts (more money in your pocket, thriving charitable organizations and businesses, jobs), developing our oil resources, the coming mandatory government service (if Obama sticks to that promise/threat), excessive eco-awareness (there are plenty of non-punitive, environment-saving solutions out there), and probably other things that I’m not listing here.

It would be hard to present pro-lifers as “government off your back” or “government out of your way,” however.

May 10, 2009 - 8:40 am 30. Ed Wallis:

Another nice article on this subject:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-viguerie10-2009may10,0,6986091.story?track=rss

May 10, 2009 - 8:55 am 31. Jeff Weimer:

2. Derek:

Do YOU realized he was dragged kicking and screaming into a balanced budget by a Republican Congress? Before 1995, even with his tax hike, he cared not one whit whether it would be balanced.

Yes, Reagan never balanced the budget. But it wasn’t for a lack of trying. How many times did the Democrat Congress declare his budgets “dead on arrival”, and then proceed to break the bank more and more? Then they and people like you turn to it and say “see – Republicans didn’t balance the budget!” The pragamtist in Reagan figured half a loaf was better than none – he got his tax reform, and the increased economic activity and subsequent tax revenues. The Democrat Congress spent every dime and then some.

Conservative policy prescriptions worked in the 90’s, hence the balanced budgets. We set that aside some after 9/11 because we understood the threat required us to loosen our dogmatic adherence to that policy. Did it hurt us politically? You bet. But I’d do it again in that situation. Now that some time has passed, it’s time to get back on that horse. I know Republicans don’t have much integrity where that is concerned. You can thank the “moderates” and even many conservatives who came to believe that having power and not wielding power resposibly was the objective.

And Ron Paul is no conservative, please don’t make that mistake again.

Whing and crying isn’t going to get us anywhere, you are right. We need to take back the party with general principles and policy positions that allow for a measure of dissent in any one or two areas.

May 10, 2009 - 8:55 am 32. Saltherring:

David Thompson @ 21 says: “The problem is made greater because of the extreme bias of the MSM. Republicans will therefore inevitably have a more difficult time getting their message out.”

How true. And that is why Republicans need to take their message DIRECTLY to the American people, through whatever media outlets you can. I told the Republican Party money solicitor on the phone that I would consider contributing again when the Party dumped the milquetoast moderate message/candidates and returned to conservatism. I’m certain others feel the same way. Dump Romney, Huckaby and McCain and bring us some real leaders and we (and the money) will follow.

May 10, 2009 - 9:09 am 33. sheesh:

28. Blackwater:

I’m:
1. Impressed with your equanimity.
2. In agreement with many of your views.
3. Sorry the right wing extremists have marginalized your party.
4. Convinced Republicans aren’t done dying . . . yet.
5. A proud American.

May 10, 2009 - 9:21 am 34. D-wah:

The so-called Republicans lack of a clear message is simply evidence of their rejection and departure from the clear message. Don’t let the smoke and whining fool you, they’ve turned their backs on the message.

When you don’t know what you stand for, you’ve left your foundation to look for something else. It’s a willful acquiescence, compromise for advantage. Every true conservative is disgusted with today’s party politics and lack of true leadership, and rightfully so. And a moderate is a snake in the grass–there’s no such thing.

“Big Tent”. Can’t you just see the empty suits scurrying to be the big cheese in charge…the lawn chairs, lemonade, polite, meaningless chatter, backslapping….no thanks. No reformation needed, but a revolution–turning around to get back on what has always been the right track.

D.L. Moody said “If you’ll just get on fire (with your message) the world will come out to see you burn.” The bonfire over the hill, you know, those whack job Tea Partiers? ..they’re tired of the meaningless, spineless gibberish and talk of “tents”. What tent? Oh, you mean some new fangled philosophy spelled out in fancy, convoluted legalese so the Wall Street Journal will publish it and Peggy Noonan can comment on it? Oh, I get it.

I have to agree it will probably take the clarion voice of a dynamic figure to put the clear conservative message out. Whoever gets our message out, this insane administration is actually a perfect backdrop to contrast our what-has-always-been-clear message. Whether someone takes that mantle or not, even one candle can be seen a mile away when it’s dark enough, so stay lit. Together we’ll light the world with our message. And if we need the right leader, God will raise him or her up.

Let’s take heart in this thought–as the night falls on our great country and this progressive statism darkens the world, the light of true freedom-loving God fearing Constitution-supported conservatism is going to shine with a glory that is going to astound the world!–and bring hope to oppressed people everywhere! Maybe that’s the purpose of all this–because the whole world IS watching!!

May 10, 2009 - 9:32 am 35. The Famous Mo:

Something people don’t seem to grasp is that the moderates are appeasers, compromisers. The problem with this is the tried and true fact that when you compromise with evil, EVIL WINS.

May 10, 2009 - 9:36 am 36. Buckley Brinkman:

Great conversation this morning. I’m beginning to think that the country is best served by TWO strong parties. Clearly, neither one has all the answers, as the past 16 years have shown. Maybe we need two evenly matched parties, battling for the best solutions, rather than ideologies.

For another great read on the plight of the GOP, here’s a link to Clarence Page in this morning’s Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0510page_mdmay10,0,294643.column

May 10, 2009 - 9:42 am 37. michael Reynolds:

Branding doesn’t work too well when you’re selling crap. It’s not just the brand that’s a problem, it’s the philosophy. Or should I say philosophies, plural.

The GOP is a three-winged bird: Money, Bombs and Jesus.

You have no standing after the last 8 years to lecture anyone on limited government. It’s something you folks believe in right up to the moment you get power. And then you abandon your creed and start buying votes with tax money. It was ever thus. Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr never managed to lay a glove on Social Security of Medicare. In fact they dug those holes a little deeper and piled up mountains of debt which requires interest payments that are, themselves, a major component of government expense. The Money Republicans are hypocrites.

The Bombs Republicans as embodied in the execrable Mr. Cheney have been swallowed up in their own black hole of incompetence, ineffectuality and love of brutality for its own sake.

As for your Jesus wing, they aren’t just wrong, they are toxic. They actively repel the people you’ll need in order to win.

The Money Republicans are revealed as hypocrites, the Bombs Republicans are incompetent and immoral, and the Jesus Republicans are still trying to drag their 6,000 year old earth and their Terri Schiavo and their gay-bashing into the 21st century. They aren’t “traditionalists” they’re crazy people.

It’s not your brand that’s wrong, it’s all three wings of your decrepit, discredited, dead-old-white-guys-walking party.

May 10, 2009 - 9:53 am 38. Chris Bolts Sr.:

Remove the second e, add a c, rearrange the letters and “moderate” becomes “Democrat”. And moderates behave exactly like Democrats.

May 10, 2009 - 10:23 am 39. Don:

I’ve been listening to Rush lately. I’m a Democrat, and I’ve been travelling for my job. I’m at a loss to understand the GOP base.

Take the demographics. The Hispanic population is growing. The base is losing when it takes a hard line on immigration. There isn’t any getting around it. Younger voters – at there are a lot of them – have no reason to turn to the Republican party. Another election cycle or two, and they’re gone for good.

Take global warming. Why is there even a fight over it? Do you people actually oppose conservation? Why can’t you offer something constructive?

Abortion: Obama will have several Supreme Court picks, and the bench will remain evenly divided on the question for another generation. Another generation will grow up with legal abortion. You lost this battle.

Take small government. Reagan promised it, Bush I promised it, and Bush II promised it. Government grew under these presidents, just as it did under Clinton (except Clinton squeezed out a momentary surplus). Why should anyone think the ideal of small government can be acheived? What happens is that services get cut for the poor, and the deficit goes up.

Taxes. You guys won on the estate tax: I don’t think we’ll be seeing it again. Reagan did permanently change the debate on taxes, and we will not see, for a long time, the marginal rates of Carter and before. A victory. But where can you go with it? We are bleeding money under Republican and Democratic administrations. We can’t cut taxes anymore. As much as you believe Obama’s spending is irresponsible, cutting taxes is at least as irresponsible.

I appreciate the passion of Rush and his supporters. But you can’t win. Most especially, you can’t win on ALL issues. You can’t be taking a hard line on everything. It doesn’t work. It never DID work for you. You didn’t get your small government, you didn’t get your ban on abortion. You got – for thirty years, a bunch of empty suits making promises to the base, and delivering for their big donors.

And, here you are, shocked, absolutely shocked, that your leaders are hypocrites. Are you seriously praying for a political system and a political movement that will acheive the aims of the grassroots or follows principle? That’s never happened, in all of world history. It isn’t going to happen now.

At least the “moderates” are understanding that you need to take stock, and consider new ways forward. I’m sorry you are all in such pain. I wish you all the best, but one day, you’re going to have to accept reality.

IMHO, btw.

May 10, 2009 - 10:32 am 40. bruce stravinsky:

My only question was:

Who the hell is Rick Moran??? What the %*#@^ did he ever do in the GOP that warrants him being able to pass judgment on us and determine the direction of the entire party himself?

And for being the only party who actually DOES have people on multiple sides of issues like abortion, we sure get a whole lot of crap for that – mostly from the other party who is in favor of a litmus test in order to have a position of any authority at all (who the Dems tolerate a guy like Specter on the Judiciary committee if he were pro-life? damn right, they wouldn’t).

May 10, 2009 - 10:49 am 41. enkephalon:

Michael:

Your hateful screed is so wrong and so off-base that it doesn’t merit even a single minute of anyone’s precious (and limited) time here on earth to bother refuting it. Please crawl back under your rock and return to the delusional comfort zone of your intellectually corrupt, facile and one-dimensional world view.

May 10, 2009 - 10:49 am 42. scott:

The GOP is dead and putrid. It’s the zombie party. But, tradition bound as we are, there can only ever be two ‘real’ parties in America so it slimes on.

Those in control of the pubbie party are all wearing down-hill racing skis shooting straight down an icy slope to hell while they tell us there is NO slippery slope.

Its probably too late to save America but God fearing Americans should all at least head into eternity without the shame of enemy collaboration all over us.

May 10, 2009 - 10:52 am 43. bruce stravinsky:

Oh, and ‘Don’? Dems only two two elections and that required a wholesale sellout by the entire media establishment.

All of the brilliance you believe you have in political science is another temporary adjustment in the constant game which is national politics.

When Nancy Pelosi (the most unpopular Speaker in HISTORY!!!) loses the House, will it be because the Dems LOST or because the gop WON?

And conservation and global warming are not related in any way even in the minds of the people who invented global warming. You might want to keep up to date on your propaganda. And they aren’t using ‘global warming’ anymore since it is already discredited with too much of the public.

May 10, 2009 - 10:56 am 44. Phil Byler:

Dave, re your 6:37 AM post, you argue about my six points as to the factors determining the 2008 election, but strangely do not deal with with my larger point: that these points were the factors influencing the outcome of the 2008 election.

1. I agree that the financial “crisis” was generated by the Democrats — the ultimate October surprise, but that did not change the fact that it influenced the election to the Democrat’s favor. McCain did at times play a bit of populist to try to counteract the political effect of the financial “crisis,” and he at other times reverted to his original free economy platform. But nothing seemed to work. Before the financial crisis, McCain went ahead in the polls; afterward, he fell 9 points behind and did not recover. The economic uncertainties created by the financial “crisis” pulled people to the Democrats.

2. You can argue reasonably that the Bush Administration bailout showed Bush to be a “moderate,” but what both Dick Cheney and John McCain were told at the time and what both have said they were told since then was that the financial system was in crisis and required the TARP intervention. Back then, John McCain was asked to be a team player with Bush; however, in retrospect, there is no question but that TARP sent us down a wrong road. I have no use for Paulson and Bernancke. But the problem for the 2008 election was that the Bush bailout made the Republicans appear to be in favor of state intervention. McCain and Palin were both talking “Joe the Plumber” on the campaign trail, but the point got lost. In terms of electoral effect, the Bush bailout muddied the waters of the difference that did exist between Republican and Democrats on economics.

3. I agree that Bush unpopularity was ginned up by the mainstream media, and the left wing blogs did their own job too. It was unfair. But again, that does not change the fact Bush unpopularity was a factor in the 2008 election favoring the Democrats.

4. I agree that some of the Obama money was illegal, and all of the Obama money paid for what was false campaign advertising. With a 7 to 1 money advantage, Obama could be said to have bought the election. But yet again, that does not change the fact that the Obama money was a factor in the 2008 election favoring Obama.

5. McCain did think that the mainstream media would not hurt him like it would other Republicans. But no question, the mainstream media did hurt McCain. Once more, the fact that McCain thought he would be treated better does not change the fact that media bias assisted greatly Obama. Bill Whittle of Pajamas Media has a very interesting video on the subject; its point is that take away media bias and McCain wins comfortably.

6. McCain got 59 million votes in 2008, so I don’t understand your arithmetic in connection with my point that demographic changes in the country are favoring Democrats. It seems to me that what you write is not facing up to the problem. If your suggestion is that there is not a problem, simply referring to the 2004 election result does not help you.

Dave, I am not going to step down from my horse, particularly not in response to someone who effectively helped Obama win by not voting in 2008 for the McCain-Palin ticket. You, Dave, are engaging in attacks on so-called “moderates” instead of facing up to the multitude of problems that need to be faced for Republicans to win elections in the future. While I do believe that a strong conservative message is needed in the future by Republicans, it is but one part of what is needed.

In the end, Dave, sorry to say this, but you come off as the cry baby pictured at the beginning of Ms. Coulthier’s column. If you don’t have someone running that you like, then you just aren’t going to vote. As I think I have made clear, that made no sense in 2008.

And no, McCain would not doubled the national debt. He promised a spending freeze. He always was a tightwad when it came to spending. But that is almost beside the larger problem that you chose effectivly to help that narcissistic socialist Obama win the White House.

May 10, 2009 - 11:01 am 45. Man Mountain Molehill:

What nearly everyone seems to have forgotten is that the Republicans were for a long time the party of socialism. (And Democrats were the party of, variously, protectionism, racism and urban corruption, but not socialism as a theory, they had no theoretical basis, just a pragmatic approach to winning elections) Think Teddy Roosevelt. Or nelson Rockefeller. It’s in fact a long list. Much as I don’t like it, Republican “moderates” are part of a fine old tradition in the GOP.

May 10, 2009 - 11:03 am 46. D-wah:

Mike Reynolds-Wrap–Simmer down and take your meds, you’re hawking to the wrong people. Take your cornbeef to the Washington bureaucrats where you can really do some shadow boxing and burn all the straw men you want. We’re attempting to articulate the problem here and find some solutions. Your freaked-out broad-brush hate-blinded tirades don’t do anyone any good. Same as liberalism.

May 10, 2009 - 11:12 am 47. jvon:

Your argument might be more credible if the fact that the people running were moderates was the reason they lost. It wasn’t. The reason was that they were Republicans.

You seem to believe that infighting will result in us winning elections. I strongly disagree.

I think we’d better figure out where our common ground is, and work on that. You yourself admit you are ambivalent on the legality of abortion — yet we want to throw people out of the party who disagree with the party line? Really? What will this accomplish except thinning our ranks and giving the Democrats a stick to beat us over the head with?

This sort of thinking, I’m sorry, is a bit naive.

May 10, 2009 - 11:14 am 48. ic:

The Republican Party needs a Reagan-like communicator and connector…

Like waiting for the Savior and the 12th Imam.

May 10, 2009 - 11:14 am 49. Sebastian Shaw:

Self-Hating Boomer (#24), President Obama & all the Leftists Socialists are presented as “centrists” by the MSM.

May 10, 2009 - 11:24 am 50. Sebastian Shaw:

Jvon (#47), John McCain lost because he is Democrat-lite; many of the moderate Republicans lost their seats in 2006 & the erosion continued in 2008. Why vote for Democrat-lite when you have the real thing? It did not help the Republicans who talked about small government, yet they helped it grow & added to the pork. The Democrats who ran to right of the Republicans won. These same Democrats are up for re-election & are in the cross hairs of Socialist, Obama-Pelosi-Reid-bot & their conservative constituents.

May 10, 2009 - 11:31 am 51. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Melissa Clouthier, et al.
RE: Give Em Hell….

Maybe if they hadn’t lost the last two elections, conservatives wouldn’t be so upset with them.
— Melissa Clouthier

….Melissa.

They deserve it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I told them the truth and they THOUGHT it was 'Hell'. -- President Harry S. Truman, the last great Democratic president]

May 10, 2009 - 11:51 am 52. Bender:

For too many years, the GOP has allowed a handful of people (moderate, RINO, squishes) to blackmail, extort, and hold the rest of the Party hostage to their whims.

No more. The truth of Specter has finally set us free.

May 10, 2009 - 12:02 pm 53. terlizzi999:

“Why be a Republican if you can’t even agree with free speech and fiscal responsibility?”…

Can’t agree more with that one line…”Moderates” as a term nowadays has so been watered down that its beyond comical…and the two core priciples you list above are what made the GOP what it was under Regan but sadly as of late those two core principles are ignored all it the name of “Bi-partisanship”.

The GOP will never again regain power and offset if not stop the Hyper-Left spending spree we have now unless they understand this…the “watered down liberals” (Moderate Republicans) should either learn this or leave for the Demorcratic party. Pundits like Powell and Frum who once understood this now seem willing to ignore this reality and as such be ignored for doing so.

Stop letting the watered down libs in the GOP dictate where our goes goes.

May 10, 2009 - 12:34 pm 54. Metz:

It is this type of thinking why I am no longer a Republican. The only two things I could see that the Republicans were concerned about were abortion and gay marriage. No different than the Democrats with their socialist agendas in trying to shove their beliefs down everyones throats.

It’s time to get rid of the radicals on the left AND THE RIGHT, and let the sensible people of the country get back to business. If you are unwilling to compromise on ANYTHING, then you are a part of the problem.

I believe in small government and individual freedoms. This includes a womans right to chose, and your sexual orientation. I guess I’m willing to accept that people have opinions different than my own.

May 10, 2009 - 12:47 pm 55. Sherab Zangpo:

The last sentence of this interesting column is:

“Republicanism has to have a core or else it ceases to be a party.”

Yes, I do understand what you mean.
But I HAVE TO post this comment, because I really think that we are being led astray by decades of subversive propaganda, to the point that we need to review and check our same words.

What’s my point?
My point is:
if we are talking about “republicanism” we are already lost, because we are talking in terms of political ideologies.
Political ideologies are the POISON of the Republic.
The Republic doesn’t stand on ideologies: it stands on the Truth.
Today the problem of the Republic is not that the MSM have selected a Democrat, i.e. someone who pursues the Truth from a different perspective, the problem is that the MSM have selected a SUBVERSIVE, a marxist, a commie.
And for decades the policies carried on by the former Democrats- now socialists have not been “liberal”, they have been subversive !

So, the first step to defend Freedom today is RUNNING ONE MILLION MILES AWAY FROM ALL POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES.
There is no “republicanism”…and there must not be.
There are VALUES and TRUTHS.
Or there is no Republic at all and the fall into the pit of subversion will never find a rock bottom.

It has been the hard work of the subversives that has MUTATED the debate in the Republic INTO a debate about ideologies. The subversives knew that a discussion about VALUES and TRUTH would have made them disappear, so they have changed the debate into a debate about pre-packaged “ideologies”, a dimension where all and the contrary of all is true and not true at the same time. (Remember Bubba ? “It depends from what the meaning of is is” !!!!!!!!!!!!!)

As a free-lancer I can even afford to say that (hold the tomatoes for a second, thank you) even talking about conservat-ISM hurts my understanding of what politics must be in this Free Republic.

Down with all “-isms” !!!
Let’s talk about one point at the time, using our wisdom at best and in the hope of receiving Wisdom from the God Who Is Infinite Love. And without forgetting for a second VALUES and TRUTH.

One point at the time, no “-isms”, and searching for the Truth instead.

Yes, I will make one example, to make my opinion clear:
there would have never been any discussion if the debate had been called “debate on murdering children” instead of being called with the ideological name “debate about freedom of choice”.
The discussion would have ended the same moment it had started. Language is decisive.

Let’s reject any form of ideological language.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

May 10, 2009 - 12:49 pm 56. steveg:

I am a conservative, but after Obama, a centrist POTUS will be a welcome change. This remaking of America garbage makes me want to barf. Someone needs to tell TeleBama, that you cannot remake this country, without changing the constitution.

If you will recall, after the 2008 election, Pelosi and Reid stated that they acknowledge the will of the people, and will govern as centrist. Soon afterwards, they give us the largest spending bill in American history (filled with liberal payoffs), and before the bill is signed, she jumps on a jet for Rome, with all her best liberal buds. Not surprising, I never heard anything from the media, about the cost on taxpayers for this useless trip? And when she returns from her overseas adventure, as good centrist, they start work on a gay/lesbian hate crimes bill which is nowhere to be found on a list of concerns of the american public. Same goes for climate change legislation, which is dead last as a concern to Americans, but raising everyones energy bill is apparently a top priority for the centrist Democrat. You know, whatever Al wants, Al gets.

Thanks to the MSM, we are being conned, just like Bernie Madoff’s investors.

May 10, 2009 - 1:23 pm 57. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Metz
RE: Try NOT….

It is this type of thinking why I am no longer a Republican. The only two things I could see that the Republicans were concerned about were abortion and gay marriage. No different than the Democrats with their socialist agendas in trying to shove their beliefs down everyones throats. — Metz

…to be such a total nincompoop.

As a conservative, I’m opposed to both abortion and homosexual ‘marriage’.

However, as a Republican, I recognize the necessity of addressing the issues in the public and political venues.

In the public, as witnessed here, I’m outspoken on the matters. And others. [Note: You left out the 'national security' issue.]

In the political venue, I recognize the necessity of the rule of law. And, in accordance with (IAW) that rule, I ask you to SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IT READS TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. Go on….I’ll wait…..

Times Up……

….those issues are not address in that document.

Therefore, IAW Amendment #10 of the Bill of Rights, such decisions are relegated to the various states to resolve.

But with Roe v. Wade, the federal government has overthrown that amendment. Don’t you think?

So….

….what’s my point?

My point is your comment is ideological idiocy. And in more ways than I care to point out at this time.

Bottom line is that the issues MUST be addressed. But not at the federal level by the fait accompli of Men In Black.

Let California and Massachusetts ‘experiment’, while the rest of US watch and learn of their efforts. Then, if they are successful, allow US to adopt them. But if they are utter failures, maybe it would be better for the Union, if not everyone went their way.

Don’t you think….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If everyone else were jumping off a cliff, would you do it too? -- Your mother.....if she had any sense.....]

May 10, 2009 - 1:26 pm 58. Jayson H:

Correction time! SPECTER NEVER WAS A MODERATE. HE IS AND ALWAYS WAS A LIBERAL.

May 10, 2009 - 1:33 pm 59. Metz:

To Chuck

I’ve read several of your posts here, and I tend to agree with the majority of them. However, here you are becoming what you say you despise. Simply because you and I do not agree on this issue, now I am a nincompoop full of ideological idiocy? Aren’t you the one that says the liberals are the ones to get frustrated and start calling names?

Trust me, I am not trying to stand in support of the liberals and their socialist agendas. However, neither am I willing to allow others as equally and firmly established on the other side of the coin gain my support either.

And the attack on my Mother, on Mother’s Day, a bit childish don’t ya think? If I hadn’t read so many of your other posts, I would wonder whether you’re a liberal in disguise here.

And you are correct, I am not a Constitutional scholar. I’ll hazard a guess that neither are you. But if you are, please point me in the direction where it specifically states the things you are for, and I’ll be more than happy to read them. The best I can do at this point is, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”

May 10, 2009 - 1:50 pm 60. Bilgeman:

#47 jvon:
“You yourself admit you are ambivalent on the legality of abortion”

Is that what you think Republicans want to do?

Admittedly there’s a component of the GOP that might like to see exactly that, but it’s not nearly as large nor as powerful as the Liberals and Leftists howling at you are leading you to believe.

If that were the case, don’t you think it already would have been re-criminalized in Reagan’s first term, when he had a GOP Congress?

How about Bush 43’s first and/or half of his second term…again, with a GOP majority in the Congress.

As vocal as the abortion-banners are, they just don’t swing as big a d!ck as they are given credit for.

Fact is, when you hear the term “Pro Choice” or “Abortion Rights”, what they are ACTUALLY promoting is “Subsidies to Abortionists”…and that would mean taxpayer-funded abortions for any female, from puberty, without parental consent or notification.

And that doesn’t sit well with a very great many of us.

“Hey, man! It’s a CIVIL LIBERTY!”
They would say.
…okay, and so is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, (and that one IS spelled out specifically in the Second Amendment)…does that then mean that we use taxpayer money to provide every citizen, if they want one, a firearm?

They use the caricature of the “Pro-Life” abortion banners as a bogeyman to scare the feeble-minded who think that given the chance, the “God Squad” is going to push the button and make abortion illegal through their flunkies in Government.

Well, as I’ve just pointed out, they’ve had at least two chances since 1980, and it hasn’t happened yet.

You need to free your mind, your @ss will follow.

May 10, 2009 - 2:17 pm 61. AThinkingPerson:

It’s very simple really. When a Conservative Republican runs, they win. When a moderate Republican runs, they lose.

May 10, 2009 - 2:57 pm 62. G Alston:

Melissa,

Idealogues like you are the problem. Not moderates.

As Jerry Pournelle wrote on his site this week, conservatism is a movement, and a movement is designed to teach and persuade. The GOP is a political party. A party’s purpose is to win elections. The strategies for each differ.

I have not seen idealogues (usually identifiable as those who spout the term RINO and /or “dem-lite” etc) on this site as having the ability to make this distinction.

Go ahead and yell about Pournelle if you like, but dismissing the smartest guy in the room out of hand isn’t really a clever thing to do.

May 10, 2009 - 3:11 pm 63. Dave:

Phil Byler,

re: 11:00 am response to me–

1) we agree. The Dems created crisis to use it, and nothing Repubs could have done would have worked. McCain didn’t have any answers, only rushing around like headless chicken. A firm declaration in favor of free market solutions and a natural devolution of the bubble would have made me feel better, but he was all over big govmt solutions just like everyone else. a no confidence moment in McCain for me, and a successful Dem engineering of a crisis.. that ‘mysterious day’ in the fall when all the withdrawals started happening worldwide and American bankers panicked was undoubtedly something Soros and his crew invented, and we still haven’t heard ANYTHING from govmt on that topic.

2) we agree again. Bush acted like a ‘moderate’ and nobody spoke loudly and clearly in favor of market solutions. McCain was WAY late with his Joe Plumber talk about spreading the wealth, only because he realized he was losing the base and had to appeal to them, but we’re not dunces and we know his history. If you want to argue he wanted a freeze on spending, how about GLOBAL WARMING TAXES which he was ready and willing to impose on all of us? That was going to dwarf anything he might do of a fiscally conservative nature.

2) My point about MSM was that nobody fought them, nobody tried to speak loudly and clearly on conservative values. The McCain people LITERALLY silenced their ace in the hole, Palin, who was good at it but wasn’t allowed to do it. Again, conservative values were not welcome and were hushed up. Palin is still mad about that, as she should be.

4) I do not argue money was a factor, only that McCain’s people did NOTHING to blunt it, did NOTHING to publicize or complain about the suspicious nature of the flood of money and the circumstances of its collection. McCain could have, but didn’t. Weak, ‘moderate’, in love with the MSM and unwilling to ‘look crazy’ in their eyes. That’s always been a problem of his, and was a good reason he should NOT have been our candidate.

5) YOu are just saying what I said in a different way. My point was not that it happened; everyone knows that. The point is, MCCain wouldn’t DO anything, and wouldn’t allow anyone ELSE to do anything. Moderate. Afraid to speak clearly on principle, afraid to be criticized, afraid he’d make some people dislike him. He could have galvanized the base by talking about this incessantly, but instead all he could say was “my friends, stand with me, america first”… first to WHAT? Stand for WHAT? Moderate talk. bland. uninspiring.

6) My point about the numbers was that McCain got X million fewer votes than Bush, but not all those were transfers to Democrat votes. Many were disillusioned conservatives like me who had nothing to vote for. Bush didn’t go fully ‘moderate’ (liberal) until he lost congress in ‘06. His numbers in ‘04 reflected full conservative support. McCain’s numbers reflected a malaise among the conservative base, with many (like you) voting against Obama and others (like me) finding nothing to vote FOR, and lacking the inspiration. I also live in Texas, which was not going to go for Obama and did not NEED my vote. I probably would have voted had I lived in a tighter state. But I was disillusioned.

McCain WOULD have spent a bloody fortune and TAXED us horribly, because he was so committed to the global warming fiasco. Nothing else he said about fiscal conservatism mattered if he was going that route, and he WAS.

Finally, the whiny baby pic is a pic of a moderate if Melissa is to be taken at her word. I am a conservative. I will always be a principled, strong, determined conservative in search of candidates and policies to vote FOR, not just playing perpetual defense against an inevitable breakdown of our national greatness.

and it IS inevitable if we do not return to Reagan conservatism, love of this country for what it is and has been. It doesn’t matter if it’s Obama the socialist “workers shall own means of production” guy, or anyone else with less vigor but the same goals… it’s inevitable unless we go conservative again. Battleground Poll question D3 reports month after month that this nation is 60% conservative, but our political class is sadly much lower on the scale. We need new candidates, but not new ideas. Conservatism is eternal, is RIGHT and good and decent.

May 10, 2009 - 3:24 pm 64. SteveB/Colorado:

#28 Blackwater…. I agree with most of what you say, but, some points.

1. I’m pro-military 2. I’m fiscally conservative. Issue here is the GAO report earlier this year showing 66 of 94 arms procurement programs running a cumulative $296 billion over budget. That isn’t conservative.

8. supportive of exploiting our natural resources like oil & gas. As of June, 2008, over 67 million acres of oil & gas leases were sitting undeveloped by energy companies. Biggest block to energy self-sufficiency, to the extent we can obtain it, seems to be the energy companies themselves.

9. ambivalent to gay marriage 10. pro-choice right on on both counts. I always marvel at self-proclaimed conservatives who continually attempt to regulate elements of citizens’ private lives.

18. a believer in evolutionary biology, but I don’t feel the need the need to make a fuss about it. A few visits to the web site of Americans United for Separation of Church & State (headed by an ordained minister) may make you change your mind.

#39 Don lots of good points except “I’ve been listening to Rush lately.” Instead of listening to a low brow entertainer like Rush, try Bill O’Reilly at Fox if you want to listen to an articulate & informed conservative commentator.

#57 Chuck Pelto “as a conservative, I am opposed to both abortion and homosexual marriage.” You’re not a real conservative if you advocate government interference in the private lives of citizens. How do you feel about the “morning after” pill that appears to be advocated by the author of this thread?

“Where in the Constitution of the US it reads to address those issues?” Supreme Court case in 1965 (Griswold v. Connecticut) addressed a right of privacy based in part on Amendments IX & XIV in overturning a Connecticut law banning use of contraceptives in marital relationships. There also is the 4th Amendment: “Protection from Unreasonable Search & Seizure…..” I’ve noted some religious right leaders talking about trying to overturn Griswold if they can get rid of Roe v. Wade.

May 10, 2009 - 4:05 pm 65. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Is It Just Me? Or….

….are others here experiencing a reduction in ‘moderation’ speed?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Three things are certain: Death, taxes, and lost data. Guess which has occurred. - Haiku Error Msg]

May 10, 2009 - 4:12 pm 66. Chuck Pelto:

TO: SteveB/Colorado
RE: Really?

You’re not a real conservative — SteveB/Colorado

You probably wouldn’t know a ‘conservative’, let alone a REAL ‘christian’, if the bit you in the ass.

What’s my point? You’re either ‘ignorant’ or ‘overly’ sensitive.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

May 10, 2009 - 4:59 pm 67. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. About the ‘Supremes’….

“Where in the Constitution of the US it reads to address those issues?” Supreme Court case in 1965 (Griswold v. Connecticut) addressed a right of privacy based in part on Amendments IX & XIV in overturning a Connecticut law banning use of contraceptives in marital relationships. — SteveB/Colorado

Ever hear of the Dredd Scott Decision? Where the Supremes ruled that Blacks were not REALLY ‘human beings’?

May 10, 2009 - 5:01 pm 68. goy:

Dr. Melissa Clouthier is dead on target here, and I’m happy to see we’re in agreement regarding yet another in the growing list of Rick Moran’s flaccid, white-hanky-waving sermons.

It may at first seem inappropriate (or at least premature) to defer to Sun Tzu in this context, but what Moran, Metz, Byler and the rest of the crybaby moderates don’t seem to grasp is that the marxist-socialist far left in the U.S. has been openly pursuing ideological and political warfare here for at least 15 years now, and covertly for much longer. It’s time we stopped kidding ourselves and recognized this.

IMHO, we’d better begin responding in kind to the political warfare being waged by those whose aim it is to dismantle our Republic – that is, if we hope to preserve it. If we go on pretending that we’re playing some sort of friendly, victimless parlor game, and that political “moderation” – aka appeasement – is the key to a sustainable society, we will take our turn at proving Santayana’s admonition, and we will be left with a nation that has no chance of survival, much less one that even remotely resembles the United States of America at the turn of the Millennium.

Yes, I used the S-word. Appropriately. We’ll get to that in a bit. But first Sun.

Foremost, IMHO, among Sun’s admonitions in the context of war is this:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Over the past twenty-five years, conservatives – specifically, the GOP membership – have wandered slowly but directly into the third condition described by Sun, above. As a group – at least as expressed by our popular right-leaning punditry and, certainly, as observed in the numerous comment threads by ostensibly thoughtful individuals on these topics – we are now baffled by the success of the enemy and scrambling to understand our own way forward. Ignoring Sun, we know neither the enemy, nor ourselves, and this has to change. If it doesn’t, the hair-pulling, gnashing of teeth and finger-pointing we’ve seen exhibited by defenders of the Constitution since last October will be the best we can ever offer in response to the liberal fascism that is unfolding, Borg-like, from Washington D.C. as we watch.

Most critically – at least in terms of knowing our ’self’, collectively – classical liberals have moved to a state of mind where we no longer recognize that a “moderate conservative” is, to put it as plainly and bluntly as possible, an oxymoron. A “moderate” classical liberal is one who betrays only some of the intuitive ethics s/he professes to value. This condition is epitomized by RINOs who consistently support unrestricted growth of government. And before moving on, let me note that I include GWB in that crowd. His election, twice, demonstrates that we conservatives – as a political group represented by the GOP – no longer know our own core beliefs. Either that or we’ve lost the will to demand leaders – or the will to be leaders – who will stand up for them.

Happily, we can remedy this condition by renewed articulation of and dedication to those beliefs we’ve grown to take so for granted, perhaps because their pervasiveness was the very fuel that powered the United States since its founding. I believe Dr. Clouthier has accurately identified these beliefs, although I would personally add Respect for Property to her list, as it’s an integral, functional aspect of Liberty. These beliefs are not difficult to present in a clear and simple way as an ideological or political platform. They are, in fact, the core beliefs of the vast majority of U.S. citizens, if only someone had the clarity of rhetoric to point it out to them – as Reagan did. That’s Job Two.

But back to Sun, the rest of the third condition he warns against, and Job One.

Far more important than temporarily losing our own relatively easily reconstituted minds, IMHO we have never truly assessed or understood what motivates those who have attacked the Republican Form of Government guaranteed by our Constitution – those who have thereby made themselves the enemy of Liberty and the enemy of those who would preserve it. For over a century and in numerous venues, we’ve seen these individuals pursuing the Statism prescribed by Marx. They seek an unreachable Utopia based on “fairness” and “social justice” at the expense of Liberty. During that time we’ve seen over 150,000,000 victims of such States – citizens murdered by their own governments – repeatedly demonstrating that the unreal perfection inherent in Marx’ naive fantasy is unattainable by any living organism possessed of an intellectual capacity above that of a termite, an ant or a honeybee.

For decades now, because we do not truly know the enemy in the sense that Sun recommends, we have pursued compromise, leading to the 2 + 2 = 5 World in which we now live: a world where there are no longer any perceived limits to entitlement; where contracts are no longer binding; where property is forfeit; where sloth is rewarded and productivity punished; where incomprehensible levels of debt destroy any hope of future prosperity; where accountability for hypocrisy, lies and broken promises is nonexistent. In short, looking at this list, we now live in a world ostensibly designed by narcissistic adolescents.

Looking back objectively, this shouldn’t come as any surprise whatsoever.

We came to this very grim point because, rather than dealing with the left as the moral adolescents they are, we treated them as fully realized adults capable of fielding ideas that warrant sensible “compromise”.

This has been an enormous and socially suicidal mistake.

When it comes to matters of survival, self-determination and human excellence, adults do not compromise with children. Yet that is precisely what we’ve been doing, and is quite possibly what every fallen civilization has done before us: abandoning the core beliefs that raised our culture to an historic pinnacle because too many hysterical, moral adolescents threw endless, well-financed tantrums, shrieking that the pinnacle was not – in their essentially childish estimation – “perfect”.

At the low ebb of the recent unpleasantness, Bill Whittle wrote the following:

The great lesson from Ronald Reagan was simply that we can and must gently educate as well as campaign, and explain our ideas with smiles on our faces and real joy in our hearts. [emph. added]

Mature adults don’t compromise with adolescents, nor do we argue with them. We educate them in an effort to help them grow into mature, self-sufficient adults. And we do this, as Bill describes, with joy in our hearts because we know, some day, we won’t be there to make their decisions for them. Many of us who read PJM, once moral adolescents ourselves – reformed “liberals” like Bill, Neo-Neocon, ex-Democrat and others – have gone through this process of education in one form or another, and graduated into the world of moral maturity. For whatever reason, we abandoned the leftist beliefs held in place primarily by emotion and embarked on a path of classical liberalism – conservatism – that sees value in the Constitution and the social ideal made manifest from it in the form of the United States, and sees value in property and free enterprise economics that have made the U.S. the dominant global force culturally, economically, technologically, militarily and geopolitically.

Leftist ideologues have proved over and over again that Marx simply never understood human beings, and that his naive, collectivist ideology is simply not compatible with the human animal. Apologists for socialism and communism are happy to “enlighten” us that true Marxism has never been achieved. There’s a good reason for this. That reason is that true Marxism is not achievable: all attempts to pursue it invariably degenerate to a liberal fascist State that requires violence and democide to exist at all, and which is thus inherently unstable and unsustainable in the long term.

From the standpoint of moral psychology, the reason for this lack of sustainability is the clinically demonstrated fact that leftist ideology ignores the majority of the intuitive ethics required for a sustainable culture. Marx’ collectivist ideas have appeal only to moral adolescents who have not yet learned to value the full spectrum of intuitive ethics necessary for the foundation of a sustainable society. This is the aspect of the enemy we need to understand first and foremost, IMHO. Perhaps even before getting our own political house in order, we need to thoroughly explore and understand the mindset that seeks to derail any effort we may undertake. That done, we can then develop the plan needed to educate those who would otherwise fall into the trap of easy entitlement and nanny statism.

In the process, I have every confidence that the core beliefs of conservatives will find their place, and voice, among those who would embark on this path to preserve the Republic. To paraphrase an infinitely smarter Republican than myself, by giving knowledge to the ignorant, and nurturing maturity in the immature, we assure freedom to the free. And honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve, I firmly believe that we will either nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.

May 10, 2009 - 5:12 pm 69. The Shoshone Consercative:

Here is what happens when a conservative party tries to run a moderate, following an unpopular incumbent: http://shoshoneconservative.blogspot.com/2009/05/story-of-party.html

McCain proved the same thing here. The solution is to recruit true conservatives, not RINOS. Compare the performance of the GOP under Gerald Ford and Bob Michel to the GOP under Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. For every “Arlen Spector” you bring in, you drive 100,000 conservatives out.

May 10, 2009 - 5:19 pm 70. steveg:

I can only name four senators in the Democrat party that I would consider moderate. The remainder, I consider liberal. The four I have in mind are Evan Bayh, Jim Webb, Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd (Byrd is a weird bird, and I’m not really sure what he is actually). So, with the addition of Al Franken, Joe Lieberman (I) and Bernie Sanders (Socialist Democrat), you have over 90% of the Democrat senate represented by liberals, with a few being hard-core liberals. Whereas, only 22% of the American public call themselves liberal. I consider this to be an over representation of an ideology, but not as much as you find in academia, or the media.

Some of you may want to add to my list of four, but this is the way I see it on May 10th, 2009.

May 10, 2009 - 5:47 pm 71. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. Talking about ‘overthrowing’ state-level laws….

…tell US what YOU think about Reynolds v. Simms, SCOTUS (1964), where the Supremes overthrew the state constitution of every state in the Union, less Nebraska….

….turning the state senates into over-paid state house of representatives. And, thusly, destroying the balance of legislative power between metro and rural areas in every state?

May 10, 2009 - 5:47 pm 72. Angry White Dude:

It’s very simple…and these are the same words I said to Michael Steele when he visited Dallas…If Republicans ever want to regain control in Washington, remember the 3 R’s….rid Republicans of RINOs! It’s very simple and it works!

Angry White Dude

May 10, 2009 - 6:05 pm 73. Bilgeman:

#64 SteveB/Colorado:
“Supreme Court case in 1965 (Griswold v. Connecticut) addressed a right of privacy based in part on Amendments IX & XIV in overturning a Connecticut law banning use of contraceptives in marital relationships.”

Really?

Y’know, sometimes you just have to wonder how some of these cases got into the court system in the first place.

Which spouse called the Fuzz, and for what? Using or NOT using? Or did mid 1960’s Connecticut have a Sheet Snooper Squad?

May 10, 2009 - 6:21 pm 74. Steve:

The whole notion that Republicans are unfriendly to moderates seems to be mostly an absurd concoction by liberal democrats. For years Democrats have been dishonestly trying to redefine what a “moderate” is.

In what possible way is the Democratic party a party friendly to moderates or open to diverse opinions?? Try making a pro-life speech at a democrat rally, you would be booed off the stage. Or say anything the least bit sympathetic to the advanced interrogation tecniques used by the Bush administration. Or anything opposed to racial preferences. There is no moderation in the democrat party.

May 10, 2009 - 6:51 pm 75. ernie:

I’m sick and tired of hearing about your original discovery of traditional values. They can’t be legislated. So keep harping on about abortion and gays so the liberal fascists can completely emasculate rights endowed by our Creator.
Why the hell do you want to legislate your religion? Isn’t that what totalitarian Islamists do? Oh, and John McCain still stinks.

May 10, 2009 - 7:23 pm 76. Jonathan:

Hey, all I want are Republicans who stand up for conservative values. I don’t care if they get elected or not. Just stand up boldly for what we believe in. No point in getting elected if we can’t fight for our beliefs.

But I promise you this… republicans who do stand up boldly and proudly for conservative values WILL GET elected!

John McCain is Exhibit #1. He IS what they’re now saying we need and he LOST! Geesh… does **evidence** matter to anybody?

May 10, 2009 - 8:32 pm 77. chuck:

…you do realize the last president to balance the budget was a Democrat?

Clinton didn’t balance the budget, it was still in deficit when the money taken from the social security suplus is taken into account. Nor was there anything unusual about Clinton’s dishonesty in that regard, our politicians have been BS’ing us about finances ever since Johnson.

May 10, 2009 - 9:32 pm 78. davidt:

It ain’t rocket surgery. Democrats win when conservatives stay home on election day. When real conservatives run, they win.

May 10, 2009 - 10:29 pm 79. Blackwater:

I don’t have a problem with people that are social conservatives. I support a lot of their agenda. But what can I say? You simply aren’t going to win a lot of converts to the Republican party by advocating a socially conservative agenda. Kids these days and people in general are becoming extremely loose when it comes to morals in all forms. And it’s happening disturbingly fast. And there’s nothing we can do about it unless we take conrol of the entertainment industry, the media and academia. None of which is ever going to happen most likely since liberals are so entrenched in those fields and they’re digging in deeper every day. You aren’t going to win independent voters by saying you want to ban gay marriage, ban federal embroyonic stemcell research and ban all abortions. You just won’t. Morality isn’t “cool” and it never will be. The young people will see you as Bible thumping Nazi dinosaurs who want to strip their freedoms away and will vote democrat unil the day they die. In other words if you’re going to push a conservative social agenda you need to do it extremely carefully and with much finnesse so you don’t alienate average Americans.

If you want to win more elections emphasize growing the economy, cutting taxes, being strong on national security (without looking like Nazis), pride in country and not intervening in peoples personal lives too much. Do that and you’ll always win elections since the country is center-right. The social conservatives are already in the tank and so are fiscal conservatives (to a lesser degree though) for the Republican party. They’ll always vote Republican because what’s the alternative? There’s no viable 3rd party and there’s no way in hell they’ll vote for a Democrat unless the Republicans really go down the crapper (like we have the last couple years). That doesn’t mean we should alienate social conservatives because they make up a very strong base of the Republican party. But try to keep your public advocacy for social conservative policies sounding very moderate and not sounding too extreme and bigoted. That way you won’t scare away the independents, moderate Democrats and fiscal conservatives that are socially liberal.

Besides, what usually ends up happening is a loud mouthed Republican will go on and on about how much he supports social conservative values but then when he actually gets in office he does nothing to back up all that talking they did. Republicans haven’t loaded the supreme court with social conservatives, gay marriage wasn’t banned, abortion is still going on like usual, and our society has become even more immoral. What Republicans should do is keep their social agendas somewhat underwraps and then actually implement them once they’re in office for once. I might not agree with their decisions but atleast they’d be effective at implementing them for once. I know a lot of people who won’t vote for the Republican party ever because they think we’re a bunch of redneck Jesus freaks. That perception has to change if you want to win the younger and increasingly liberal voters.

We also need to be looked at as being more sane frankly. Being stong on national security and being percieved as a warmonger who will bomb some country at the drop of a hat is a fine line. We need to convince the American people that we’ll protect them from terrorists and any other global threat that exists now or will in the future but without freaking the American public out like we have in the last 5 years. We need to bring the country to the Republican party if we want to win elections. The best way to do that is to nominate charismatic fiscal conservatives who are socially moderate frankly.

May 11, 2009 - 3:25 am 80. Blackwater:

Let me elaborate on my statement that I made about saying we should abandon our pro-life and anti-gay marriage agenda. I don’t think we should abandon it completely. Just moderate it to say banning all abortion beyond the first 3 months of pregnancy or something similar to that. And allowing the individual states to decide what to do about gay marriage rather than intervening federally. Do that and you won’t alienate the majority of Americans by looking like extremists while still ending a lot of abortions and not letting the gay power movement get too far out of control.

May 11, 2009 - 3:38 am 81. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Blackwell
RE: And….

….despite your efforts, the feminazis and homosexuals will STILL call you an all kinds of ‘dirty’ names.

The truth of the matter, Blackwell, is that THEY are the “extremists”. All they’re doing is projecting.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Projection, v., Seeing oneself in others, and hating them for it.]

May 11, 2009 - 5:26 am 82. SteveB/Colorado:

#71 Chuck Pelto…..tell us what you think of Reynolds v. Simms. Looks like a reasonable decision to me, regarding eliminating non-proportional representation in state legislative houses. 8 of the 9 justices agreed. “Destroying the balance of power between rural & metro areas in every state….” Funny, when one Utah house district had just 165 residents and another had 32,380 residents, I wouldn’t call that a reasonable balance of power. Yes, I’m very familiar with the bad Dred Scott decision. And further, regarding your comment in #66, I fully know what a real conservative is and what a real Christian is. I was raised as both.

#73 Bilgeman…..”you have to wonder how some of these cases got into the court system in the first place.” I agree. I studied Griswold in college ConLaw many years ago. Vaguely recall there may have been something about contraceptives not being available without a medical prescription, or something like that.

#75 Ernie…..why the hell do you want to legislate your religion?” Excellent point, considering the not so moral majority & associates have been trying to ramrod their religious views onto everyone else since the early 1980s. Americans United tracks these far right religious preachers; some of what they advocate for our society is thoroughly frightening if one loves freedom and liberty.

#76 Jonathan…..all I want are Republicans who stand up for conservative values.” If those are the “values” espoused by the likes of James & Ryan Dobson, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, the Falwells, etc., count me out. Don’t forget anti-gay preacher Ted Haggard, with his secret gay lover on the side. If you’re talking about fiscal conservatives who don’t want big government, powered by big religion, controlling citizens’ private lives, count me in.

#79, #80….Blackwater. You & I think the same in a lot of ways. I agree with a strong defense. I just don’t think that giving hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns to defense contractors is part of a strong defense.

Restrictions on abortions make some sense in the last trimester of pregnancy. Problem here is that many of the so-called pro-life advocates even oppose abortion to save the life of the mother. They also oppose any use of birth control other than abstinence (Catholic Church for example) & sex education in high schools. I don’t advocate free & open sex for teens. But then, they ARE biologically active. Depriving teens of important education based on religious grounds is immoral in my view.

How gay marriage means the end of Western civilization is beyond me. Letting states decide on who can marry who can create situations like California last November when out of state anti-gay advocates & religious groups poured millions into the state to influence the election. Those religious groups consider homosexuality a sin. OK if you want to believe that for yourselves. But don’t create a tyranny of the majority in imposing your views on all of society.

May 11, 2009 - 6:45 am 83. Chuck Pelto:

TO: SteveB/Colorado
RE: Reasonable To You?

#71 Chuck Pelto…..tell us what you think of Reynolds v. Simms. Looks like a reasonable decision to me, regarding eliminating non-proportional representation in state legislative houses. 8 of the 9 justices agreed. “Destroying the balance of power between rural & metro areas in every state….” — SteveB/Colorado

You must live in Denver area.

Then again, if you think that’s reasonable at the state level. It should be reasonable at the federal level as well.

Let’s get rid of the Great Compromise. Eh?

I wonder what Glenn Reynolds would say about that. Or any state other than New York, California, Florida, etc.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

May 11, 2009 - 7:01 am 84. Chuck Pelto:

TO: SteveB/Colorado
RE: [OT] Really?

I fully know what a real conservative is and what a real Christian is. I was raised as both. — SteveB/Colorado

So….

….just for verification purposes. What do you think of Romans 1:21-27? And how does it apply to today’s situation?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth.....]

May 11, 2009 - 7:07 am 85. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. Just because someone is ‘raised’ as something, doesn’t mean they are one.

Look at Obama…..I’ll bet HE claims to be a Christian too…..

May 11, 2009 - 7:10 am 86. Tennwriter:

G. Alston,

Before you go claiming the smartest guy in the room, Jerry Pournelle (and he is ferociously smart) supports you, you might want to read him more.

Read the part where he explains that we’re in a three sided war between Islam, Atheism, and Christianity, and that Atheism is the most intolerant faction. You don’t like those nasty Christians, but Pournelle does like them.

Also, Pournelle blames the current Republican Party problems on Country Club Republicans. He blames Conservatives for letting them (the Country Clubbers) weasel their way back into power. This is basically what we Conservatives have been saying in this post.

I’m fairly sure he’d agree more with Dr. Melissa Clouthier than a Randbot like yourself. He also wrote about Ayn Rand, having met her, and he’s not a Randian.

Pournelle is a Paleocon.

I disagree with him some. He’d probably call me a Jacobin which is his derogation for those who pursue the Neocon strategy to deal with international terrorism. His strategy is to build a fence, and build a hundred nuclear power plants to replace oil imports, and disengage from the world’s land masses to reinstitute the Old Republic. Its not a wholly bad plan, but I’m reminded of what happened last time to those who crouched behind a fence…the Maginot Line.

He’s also willing to invest/use statist methods to build necessary infrastructure which I’m skeptical of, and you as a Randian should find abhorrent.

May 11, 2009 - 7:58 am 87. Scott:

I’m:

1. Pro-military.
2. Fiscally conservative
3. Opposed to discrimination (especially reverse), all people should be equal under the law with no special preference based upon race, sex, religion, age, or sexual orientation.
4. Supportive of deporting all illegal aliens and their children.
5. Supportive of protecting our borders vigorously. We’ve been too lax too long.
6. Supportive of environmental pragmatism instead of extremism. We as Conservatives should do what we can to reduce pollution, energy waste, and preserve nature while balancing it with the needs of society.
7. Opposed to any effort to regulate CO2. Nature provides its own CO2 scrubbers, plants.
8. Supportive of exploiting our natural resources like oil and gas. Cut the money to Petro-tyrants and the treacherous Saudi’s until we can develop economically viable renewable energy sources.
9. Opposed to gay “Marriage”, but supportive of civil unions that grant the same rights. Leave Marriage as it has traditionally been, between man and woman.
10. Technically Pro-Choice, but believe that it should be limited to certain instances and should not be used as a form of birth control.
11. A believer in God but am not religious.
12. An admirer of every religion except Islam, as it is diametrically opposed to the concepts of freedom, equality, and individuality that I hold dear.
13. Supportive of the war on Islamo-Fascists.
14. Supportive of the right for Americans to own any gun they want as long as they pass a background check and rudimentry gun safety course. The course includes proper storage of weapons for safety.
15. Opposed to the bank bailouts, the market would have corrected itself. The poorly run company dies and better run companies buy up its profitable parts and grow themselves to fill the void.
16. Opposed to the wasteful Obama “stimulus” bill.
17. Supportive of teaching basic respect for others, manners, personal responsibility, and “do to others as you would have done to you” more strenuously in our society.
18. Believe that Evolution and Creation are actually the same thing. Evolution is the tool of God and that when He explained things to Moses He put it in terms that Moses could comprehend, thus the Universe was created in six “days”. Think about it, the Universe is estimated at 10-15 Billion years old, couldn’t 2 Billion years be like a day to God?

The Republican party needs to emphasize smaller Government(which results in lower taxes), rule of law, personal responsibility, and personal liberty.

May 11, 2009 - 8:15 am 88. G Alston:

#86 — He’s also willing to invest/use statist methods to build necessary infrastructure which I’m skeptical of, and you as a Randian should find abhorrent.

I’m not a randian in any sense and I agree with Pournelle on this. Statism applied correctly is what gave us interstates and the modern Reagan legacy (the only superpower on the planet.) The GOP should embrace this.

Also, Pournelle blames the current Republican Party problems on Country Club Republicans.

You misread I think. Pournelle discusses “country club republicans” with the emphasis on fiscal conservatism, not bible thumping. And I agree with the building of the nuke plants. I agree with you though that this is part of a long term thinking process and ought not be the Maginot Line.

What we are talking about in this post is that Rick Moran is now joining the view that the fiscal sanity message of conservatism (and we’ll point out fiscal sanity is NOT necessarily the small government meme) is being poisoned by the social conservatives. Melissa’s screed here is pure social conservatism plus “smaller government” which as I have pointed out doesn’t even exist (and never did.)

It’s not a matter of “those nasty christians” at all; it’s a matter of having them dictate terms. Not going to happen. The schools are graduating a million kids a yer. Few are what you would call conservatives. Letting the far right social conservatives (who want to invoke their own form of statism) run things is mathematical suicide (among other things.)

May 11, 2009 - 8:41 am 89. Scott:

Also too many “Conservatives” are one issue voters, who vote based upon one issue.

Pro-Lifers come to mind, but also too many “moderates” do the same thing but do it to oppose the people they see as too socially conservative.

You’ve taken it hook, line, and sinker; the liberals/MSM have basically sown dissension in the “Big Tent” by using the more extreme Christian religious personalities (I call them whackados) and plastering those shown to be hypocrites all over the news. The Liberal Left has just as extreme personalities (Code Pink/Prop 8 protesters) and just as many hypocrites (probably more and think Al Gore) as the Conservative Right. However the MSM trumpets one and conceals the other. They’ve (MSM, Hollywood, and the Public Schools & Universities) programmed you to hate and fear anyone who professes to be even marginally Christian. Just like they’ve fostered “White Guilt”, and made it ok to bash, trash, and discriminate against the heterosexual Caucasian male but nearly a hate crime if the same treatment was applied to anyone else.

You’re so scared of “the Christians/Evangelicals” that you hesitate to work with them. This has weakened the Republican party to near dissolution. They’ve scared you into thinking that if the Christians get in power they’re going to use Government insert their religion in every aspect of your life. However, while you are focused on your fear of the social conservative the Left is growing government and inserting THEIR religion into every aspect of your life. Their religion is Man-made Global Warming, economic equality (except the ruling elite), collectivism, American mediocrity, and totalitarianism.

May 11, 2009 - 8:47 am 90. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Tennwriter, et al.
RE: Why Am I….

Read the part where he explains that we’re in a three sided war between Islam, Atheism, and Christianity, and that Atheism is the most intolerant faction. You don’t like those nasty Christians, but Pournelle does like them. — Tennwriter

….NOT ‘Surprised’?

Pournelle is highly intelligent. And, although I doubt if he is a REAL christian, he can at least recognize that Christians are the least of the three ‘evils’ you mention: Islam, Christianity and Atheism.

It’s not surprising that the ‘anecdotal’ evidence bears this understanding out as factual. Atheists have been the most ‘effective’ mass-murderers over the previous century. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot. Talley their numbers up and compare them against Islam and Christianity. AND THEN do a similar analysis for the last several centuries.

I do believe you’ll find that the atheists are the REAL mass-murderers on the face of the Earth.

Case in point…..

….for 27 years I served my country faithfully, and in ‘faith’. And yet….I was accused of being a “baby killer”.

On the other hand, the people who accused me of being such, countenanced ‘abortion’, which REALLY kills babies.

We’re talking about SERIOUS ‘projection’ here, people.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every experiment, by multitudes or by individuals, that has a sensual and selfish aim, will fail. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

May 11, 2009 - 8:51 am 91. G Alston:

#90 Pelto — AND THEN do a similar analysis for the last several centuries.

Technology and population levels didn’t exist in enough quantity to compare medieval religious wars with modern wars (although if you compare percentages it’s telling.) Claiming that efficient murdering is the exclusive domain of atheists is incorrect. If the muslims or the christians during the crusades had enough tech and enough bodies to churn through the result wouldn’t have been any different than what Stalin did.

Man has become more efficient at war and mass murder, and he’s found more interesting excuses.

May 11, 2009 - 9:47 am 92. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: Indeed

Man has become more efficient at war and mass murder, and he’s found more interesting excuses. — G Alston

All US need to do is just ask Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

Three guesses as to what their answers will be…., i.e., anything BUT the truth.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Did that help?]

May 11, 2009 - 10:00 am 93. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Heh

Is anyone else here getting the impression that G Alston is ANYTHING BUT a ‘christian’?

How much would anyone care to wager that G is an ‘atheist’?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

May 11, 2009 - 10:02 am 94. G Alston:

#93 Pelto — How much would anyone care to wager that G is an ‘atheist’?

You’re a hoot. While I realize that to you this is the worst possible insult one can hurl at a human being, in the modern world this is akin to accusing me of having a preference for red jellybeans.

There’s little doubt that if the Ayatollahs found themselves in possession of the keys to the US weapons arsenal, they’d gleefully wipe out half the planet in the name of their religion.

Of course, making this observation is risky; I may be accused of preferring green jellybeans next.

May 11, 2009 - 10:51 am 95. Sebastian Shaw:

G Alston, there is no way to apply Statism correctly; it always leads to disaster. Your Ronald Reagan example is flawed since he shrunk government, but increased the military to proportional needs against our enemies such as the Soviet Union & Iran at the time.

An increased military is not Statism. Statism is when the Federal Government gets too involved in the daily lives of the American citizens; for example, Barack Obama had a hand in firing private companies CEO’s.

May 11, 2009 - 12:09 pm 96. G Alston:

#95 — An increased military is not Statism.

Of course it is. Yeah, I know, all of you are a great deal smarter than Pournelle. Here he is again. Read and weep.

http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

May 11, 2009 - 12:28 pm 97. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: [OT] We’re Trying….

You’re a hoot. — G Alston

…VERY ‘trying’.

While I realize that to you this is the worst possible insult one can hurl at a human being, in the modern world this is akin to accusing me of having a preference for red jellybeans. — G Alson

That wasn’t an ‘insult’. It was an observation, as you later recognize. And you just proved it as being rather accurate.

Thanks for playing….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. It’s not my place to ‘judge’ you. It’s His…..

But it is my place to recognize you for what you are.

May 11, 2009 - 12:34 pm 98. G Alston:

#97 Pelto — And you just proved it as being rather accurate.

Rubbish. Rather, you ignore the observation about militant Ayatollahs, thus proving your intellectual cowardice.

Can’t face the observation? Call the observer silly names. Your MO, simplified. Pathetic, really.

May 11, 2009 - 1:01 pm 99. elvis:

We have an obligation to slam these people for their evil intent, their bloated arrogance, and their bigotry.Trying to remain above the fray has only kept us out of it!

May 11, 2009 - 1:30 pm 100. Doctor T:

Interesting article, but old hat. The attempted move to the center by the Republican party failed because the middle is fickle. They swung to the more charismatic Barack Obama, even though his policies and opinions were inconsistent with themselves and moved with the polls.

Well America got the popular choice, but not necessarily the competent part.

The Republicans should court the Constitutional party, the Libertarians and try to regain the Ron Paul groups.

The fuel being to tossed into the fire by the Democrats ought to rally every moderate, Conservative, and even the non-radical liberals. Between the current shenanigans by Pellosi, Reed, Obama, the liberal attacking media, and the One Party government, and their blatant attacks on individual and state rights there really should be a mass run away from the democrats:
1. Attacks on Miss California for her well voiced position on marriage by the liberal attack squads.
2. The Democrats desire to shut down free speech on radio and the internet( including conservative sites like these).
3. The Spending, spending, spending, etc…..
4. The proposal to give Washington DC representatives in Congress, which is a blatant violation of the constitution’s guarantees on state rights.
5. Stimulus package controls on states spending which is also a violation of state rights.
6. The blatant takeovers of the auto industry, banks, and soon to be healthcare.

etc…

May 11, 2009 - 2:04 pm 101. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: Well….

Can’t face the observation? Call the observer silly names. Your MO, simplified. Pathetic, really. — G Alston

….since you put it THAT way….

….you’ve only reinforced the observation.

In military parlance, we refer to your reaction as ’secondary detonations’. It’s the indication of what we call a ‘catastrophic kill’.

Thanks…..

Chuck(le)
[You know you've hit the target when you see all the 'fireworks' going off afterwards.]

May 11, 2009 - 2:17 pm 102. Tennwriter:

On Tolerance, Pournelle said that Christians will let you be whatever religion you want, but they will prosyletize. Islamists will also allow you to be what religion you want, but you’re a second class citizen, a dhimmi (and that has serious consequences). Only Atheists are so intolerant as to demand everyone be like them.

As to G. Alston’s point about technology, its true, to an extent. However the Hutus managed pretty well with Iron Age tech, machetes, and they did in more in a lot shorter time than the Spanish Inquisition.

Besides, Spanish…200,000-400,000….Communists….100-200 million. Thats not all tech and more targets. Atheism opens the doors to hell wider than even the Inquisition.

The Four Axes theory is a clever bit, a neat model designed to overexzaggerate the importance of Libertarians, and while it has its uses, its not gospel. The point is thus: If by your definition Statism includes increased military, then Statism should perhaps be tossed as a useless term. Statism is a derogatory term for inappropriate state power. Only an anarcho-capitalist or a pacifist or a left wing moonbat should use it to describe Reagan’s efforts, I think.

And good to talk to you, Colonel.

May 11, 2009 - 2:35 pm 103. steveg:

#89 Scott…I am hoping there are millions of Americans out there, with the same sentiments as you expressed. We are in a “Culture War” that is nearing a breaking-point.

I am not the least bit religious, but I would take the side of a mainstream christian any day over the degenerates on the left, and have no doubt, if the entire country were to choose sides, we would have a much larger team.

May 11, 2009 - 4:45 pm 104. deguello:

One of the nice things about being an Atheist anti lib.,is that when fighting them,one can dispense with the usual moral,christian-derived scruples.This permits a totally uninhibited,and therefore effective final response,to the sanitation problem that is liberalism.

May 18, 2009 - 8:54 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: