Pajamas Media

246 Comments

1. Lynn:

Since everything will be in the center, lukewarm so to speak, the misstake that the Republicans made is that they did not choose a more attractive, racially mixed, better spoken candidate. It will all be about the package and nothing about the contents which we can fill later by polling or putting our fingers to the wind. Excellent idea!

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:46 am 2. Chuck Pelto:

TO: John Avlon
RE: You…

…obviously have no real grasp of Christianity. Let alone any bedrock form of morality.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great. -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago]

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:46 am 3. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. Sooooo….

….out of curiosity, what is the basis of your moral code?

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:47 am 4. Ten:

Geez. Yet another foolish speculation on the pages of PJM. Who’d have thought?

Translation: Another Reagan would have carried a landslide.

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:54 am 5. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Lynn
RE: Excellent Point

Since everything will be in the center, lukewarm so to speak, — Lynn

As I recall reading somewhere….

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. — Some Wag, around 2000 years ago

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It's later than most people would care to think.]

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:57 am 6. Sara:

This is why McCain lost: He was too old to run for the Presidency. If voters wonder if you’ll survive your term, then that is pretty big baggage out of the starting gate.

McCain lacked charisma. McCain had no clearcut philosophy and a poorly run campaign. Go ahead and try to over-analyze it, but that’s the bottom line.

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:58 am 7. GDT:

This is probably the most factually incorrect opinion piece I have ever read on this site. It is simply, obviously, untrue. This was the most hyped election of the century yet turnout was only average. The people who needed to vote for McCain for him to win did not end up voting for Obama. The people who needed to vote for McCain stayed home! Conservatives did not have a candidate in this election. Those on the right who did vote for McCain – did so while holding their nose. They were not voting for McCain – they were exercising their only option to vote against Obama. True limited government constitutional conservatism wins absolutely every time it is on the ballot – even in California.

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:11 am 8. Tolbert:

John McCain lost because he lacked the vigor to contest the issues, he wanted to be liked by all instead of being reviled by some.

John McCain did not offer leadership he offered compromise where initiative was required.

In the end conservatives need to reassert their traditional values of individualism and fiscally prudent policies which had been abandoned by John McCain and the Republican Party for the last eight years.

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:20 am 9. Kevin:

John,
You may have some good points. However, your points assume a mainstream press which conducts itself professionally and offers the American public a carefully dissected view of both candidates. It also assumes there will not be a well-orchestrated government-induced market meltdown mere weeks before the election. All things being equal, the center-right candidate would ALWAYS prevail – and the empirically proven, irrefutably overt socialist candidate would lose everytime. Ah, but I dream…

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:29 am 10. cedarhill:

Bush ran as a centrist, served as a centrist, and was unmercifully savages. Another centrist “win” will be the complete end of the Republican Party. No one seems to be able to define this mythical center pundits talk infinitely about. They fail to realize the center is between opposites. If you move your base to the Left, then you’ve just moved the center to the Left. You become a difference without much distinction and, as McCain proved, had no real reason to persuade people to vote for him so it became mostly a referendum on personality.

It would be suicide to move to the center. There is absolutely no activist base there other than the pundits and they sure as the world will not carry and inspire a base.

If the Republicans think moving to the center is the way to go and return to running a socialist country, why not just jump completely left and run as the Republican Socialist Democrat Party?

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:39 am 11. Juke:

John McCain lost because he has a very recent history of stabbing his countrymen in the back & those who pay attention to these things couldnt vote for him.

Republicans need someone who will stand with Americans, not those who come here to mooch off them.

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:39 am 12. Why Republicans Failed : The Sudanese Thinker:

[...] is the best post-election analysis of Elephants I’ve come across so far. … John McCain lost because the country was [...]

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:41 am 13. Fred:

John McCain and Barack Obama (can we referring to him as ‘BO’ in the same way libs refer to President Bush as ‘W’?) won their respective primaries largely due to their positions on Iraq. McCain was seen as the most capable commander-in-chief in the republican primary. Obama promised to cut-and-run, pleasing the hard-left in the democratic party. Alas, we are winning the war – good news if no news these days. McCain doing well post-convention. Then comes the financial tsunami. Dems thrive during economic chaos by promising everyone something. McCain never had an answer. He had previously admitted that economics were not his strength. What does anyone remember of McCain’s economic approach and core principles? Cutting earmarks?!? How about Obama…95% tax cut. Simple, clear messages play well with the masses. McCain was unable to communicate.

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:42 am 14. Skiles:

The last thing we need is more “centrist” views. Do the last two elections demonstrate nothing? We do not need to become the party of me too democrats. Obama won because people thought he was more conservative than McCain. I might agree qith them. When the most liberal candidate has more people believing he will give them tax cuts what does that tell you. My favorite punch line used to be Dole, when people asked who my favorite liberal was. McCain wins now. No way I vote for McCain without Palin

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:43 am 15. jethro:

Jeez! You think people vote on issues/ideology? Voters are like crows. They go for the bright, shiny thing…charisma, good looks, personality, glibness.

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:46 am 16. rh1303:

From a purely pragmatic point of view, John Avlon is right — picking up more moderates is *a way* (but not THE only way) of winning. I don’t think there’s much dispute on that. If you lose 5% of the ‘base’ but pick up 5% of ‘moderates’ you still get more votes (-(0.05*0.3)+(0.05*0.5) = +1%), according to the stats given in the article. So…

I throw in the usual disclaimer here of the fact I’m not American. I try to follow your news, your blogs, but at the end of the day I’m not exposed to American culture day after day all around me.

There comes a point — probably very soon for the Republican party — where the choice has to be made whether to stick hard to the ideals and be willing to lose, or compromise and improve the chances of winning. The former relies on the long-term view of attracting (or bringing back) people to those set of ideals, so a good set of arguments are needed. Slightly depressingly, most people vote reactively rather than simply actively, that is to say, short term needs outweigh any long-term effects. I think the economy situation was a fairly good example of that. In an ideal world we’d all sit down and think carefully about our own philosophies and vote carefully and decisively without being swayed by media panic or otherwise. I don’t really know what more I can say about that. There’s not an easy solution, but a good start would be to more clearly lay out the Republican ideals — I felt McCain’s campaign was more of “what we’re NOT” (ie. compared to Obama) rather than “what we ARE”. Again, that’s only from what I’ve seen — and it’s been from abroad.

As I mentioned, the alternative was compromising on a few things to pick up moderates, or at least more of them. From the point of view of winning, it’s a good idea, it’s a *pragmatic* idea — whether it’s the *right* idea I am not one to say. Is this a good way to introduce more moderates to Republican ideology and gently lean back towards the right? That might be seen as a somewhat deceptive method, but I would tend to agree that a few more defeats of this nature would put the GOP in some serious trouble. Maybe pure pragmatism isn’t the best (or ideal) way to play it next time, but if victory isn’t coming, then it’s the age-old rule of adapt to survive (and not get bogged down with intra-party fighting!).

A last few comments from me —
Lynn talks abut everything center and lukewarm… you know, that reminds me of British politics here. The parties all so similar it’s very hard to tell them apart at times. It’s less of a vote for ideology here and more of a vote for the ‘least incompetent’. I actually do like American politics for the way there are clear, and separate choices. On the other hand, people here are very unlikely to lose friends/family over political choices, if it matters to them at all. Ups and downs.

As for the “Palin pick”… certainly it was intriguing. But after a while I think, speaking as a moderate/centrist, it totalled to a negative net sum for the campaign from my point of view. I’m just calling it how I’m seeing it. Did it work for the base? I’ve not seen anything excite the Republican base that much for quite some time. Did it work for the moderates? I think the statistics show no. In counter to the opening math, picking up base votes and losing moderate votes in equal percentiles is a net loss. That said, given McCain was ~6% down in the popular vote (I think?) he’d have to get 30% more of the moderates to win, but that is assuming that at the same time he gets 30% of the moderates, he loses 30% of the base (unlikely). For example, if he didn’t lose any base votes at all, a 12% gain from moderates would have made the popular vote equal. 12% is still not at all insignificant, however, but I think it is (was?) possible.

Pragmatism or idealism, a hard choice. But my experience from over here has led me to expect America will at least 80% of the time try and work by ideals.

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:49 am 17. Edmund Jenks (MAXINE):

In order for there to be a debate and have an issue fully understood by those who choose to listen … there must exist a Point and a Counterpoint!

The reason John McCain wasn’t able to do better is that he was busy being both.

Barack Obama only represented one point-of-view and half of the time … John McCain agreed with the point-of-view.

That left the score:

Conservative POV – .5 Versus Liberal POV – 1.5

John McCain (gang of fourteen leader) was a loser from the jump because as Barack Obama insisted, McCain is just another George W. Bush … and in the end, we can all see where this type of centerist leadership has taken our country.

Liberial, large government spending and policies left unchecked placing our economy (and freedoms) in peril – thanks!

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:49 am 18. elvis:

Hey John,
Maybe we should take up a collection to buy you a history book.
Leaders have strong convictions …. people that play in the middle of the road get run over.
Shame on you !
Elvis

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:52 am 19. Paul B.:

This is a spurious analysis. McCain lost because he failed to accurately access the nature of his opponent and challenge him face-on. His campaign hobbled Palin out of the gate, sending her into the ambush interviews to win the Miss Congeniality phase of a beauty contest.

McCain continually pulled his punches, promoting his ability to reach across the aisle, when he should have been distinguishing himself from those across the aisle. When the credit crisis broke he refused to implicate the Dems. Go to youtube and see the 2004 congressional Fannie Mae hearings and consider what he could have done with that. Instead, for two weeks Obama plastered the Pubs with the deregulation smear, when exactly the opposite was the truth. When his supporters voiced legitimate emotion about “the socialists”, he quenched them. He picked the them back up, but only when Joe the Plumber led the way, and by then it was too late.

To take a campaign’s failings and ascribe them to ideology is a mistake. Your prescription for centrism is a guaranteed losing strategy. It’s already been done, and never works. It’s called Democrat Lite, and given the choice the electorate has always preferred the real thing.

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:54 am 20. Huan:

you don’t have a political party just to win election. what would be the point.

you win election to enact political principles of leadership and governance you believe is best for America. if these are the same as the opposing party, there is no point at all as well.

it is important to offer the centrist voters options and ideas. once the center adopts an idea, it becomes mainstream and no longer an issue for debate/consideration.

it is foolish to offer centrist ideas. it is important to sell your ideas to the center so that they adopt it as mainstream.

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:57 am 21. Fred Beloit:

This statement of yours, John: “John McCain lost because the country was suffering from Bush backlash, a reaction against a deeply damaged Republican brand, which had become associated with low and divisive attacks, arrogance and ineptitude in office.”
Is logically unconnected and even contradictory, because Bush didn’t govern as a conservative, to this statement of yours: “But if socially conservative activists and cynical play to the base politicians continue to impose rigid social conservative ideological litmus tests, the Republicans will be in the wilderness for a very long time.”

I suppose one can make a case against political litmus tests: support of unions, trial lawyers, and pacifism anyone?

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:03 am 22. dan:

the problem with the conservatives in this country is – besides the entire media being against them – their self-evident lack of eloquence. how many times did obama say something in the debate that mccain bizarrely failed to answer? how easily could mccain have made an issue of obama’s associations – not to show he’s a manchurian candidate, but to show he could not possibly be “a uniter” or “postpartisan”?

these are only a few examples. rudy giuliani is the best, most forceful rhetorician in the party and for a worldview that i agree with, but for some reason he has this hard-to-resist need to be a partisan attack dog – “democrats did this! democrats did that!” this is ineffective. independents and centrists are independent and centrist because they do not want be locked into a party line or party identity. Period.

no one is better on the issues than rudy, partly because no one will speak as plainly about our enemies. the president’s primary job is not Economy Czar or HealthCare Czar, but chief foreign policy executive and commander in chief. we need someone who is eloquent on this issue – remember Reagan’s “Evil Empire” and “Tear Down This Wall”?

honestly, is that so hard to reproduce? we face cartoonish evil and a European political class who are nothing but prostitutes and professoriat languishing in the dreams of their own college rebellion years. it is absurd. these people should be skewered. instead, we get pandering and fear and these idiot preoccupations with abortion, an issue supposedly epitomizing the whole moral-historical drama since homo erectus from our conservatives.

snap out of it, fools. we can’t let these unconscious marxist libertine morons cannibalize the country.

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:06 am 23. goy:

My thought: this analysis is 100% backward.

Leaders should not be following the herd into the “middle”, they need to lead. This is precisely what McCain did NOT do, and it’s the reason he was overwhelmed.

McCain did not “come from behind”, at least not via a primary election that allowed the Republican base to voice its own opinion on the matter. He was selected by the RNC’s process of elimination as the other contenders simply (and in some cases mysteriously) dropped away. McCain did not play to the conservative base whatsoever. He selected Sarah Palin to do that for him, and that choice was the only thing that kept him from losing the popular vote by a double-digit margin.

At a higher level, though, here’s the thing. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of finding political synergy in the sameness of a dominant “moderate” or “centrist” view. And worse, human nature and history both demonstrate that the “middle” will move inexorably left as the state promises ever greater benefits and protections from the ever greater threats they tell us we face and ever greater crises they manufacture. The dominant force in politics today bases their agenda on an ideology which believes their ends justify any means. We saw this played out in spades with the Obama campaign’s fraudulent campaign donation scheme, and that behavior will continue, unanswered, if the current trend prevails.

If America has a ‘centrist’ majority, it’s because those who possess a comprehensive moral foundation have failed to lead. This failure is more characteristic of George W. Bush than any President in recent memory. He failed, utterly, to respond to the unrelenting demonization emanating from the entrenched media 24/7, for eight years running. In a faux effort to be ‘nice’ and ‘gracious’ he – and every other Republican in politics, it seems – totally underestimated the effect this would have on the electorate. If there was a ‘backlash’, if there was an association of divisiveness or ineptitude, it was created in the electorate’s mind by a stunning, pervasive, endless, unanswered stream of mendacity provided by APREUTERSNYTCBSABCNBCCNNBBCetal. The Bush Administration, for all its successes, did absolutely nothing to respond to this, and we’ll soon be paying the price.

The number of Independents is growing because people are leaving parties they no longer have any faith in, due to increasing corruption and lack of committed leadership on both sides. The Democrat Party has been co-opted by the same gang who co-opted the Civil Rights Movement in the 70s, and who now cry “racism” at every attempt to stand up to the slow, long march of a socialist state. The Republican Party has similarly abandoned the conservative base and it’s still a mystery to me as to why they suddenly became the tax-cut-and-spend party, other than perhaps a combination of PTSD from 9/11 followed by the obscene amounts of federal tax receipts they were handed as a result of the tax cuts’ positive effect on the economy. It is a puzzlement.

Much as academia needs to get back to the job of educating, rather than indoctrinating, those in our society who espouse the two basic ideologies that USED TO form America’s balanced political conscience need to take back the reins of leadership – not follow the herd into the centrist “middle” – which is nothing more than the place one goes when one can’t make a decision either way.

Americans know this, which is why our gut reaction to Sarah Palin – absent distortion and outright demonization of her persona by a corrupt, entrenched media – was so overwhelmingly positive.

More Sarah, less muddy, “middle” moderation please.

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:07 am 24. Snorri Godhi:

This is one of those cases where the words “conservative”, “liberal”, and “moderate” are an impediment to clear thinking. There are several distinct issues here:
* McCain was certainly not conservative enough for likely voters on the issue of immigration — but then, neither was GW Bush. On other issues, moving “to the right” would probably have cost him votes.
* Bush/Rove politics is behind the times, that is true; but let’s not call it “conservative”.
* The financial crisis was a problem for McCain in part because he did not have a positive economic message, nor a credible narrative to blame the crisis on the Democrats.
* Negative attacks: these are not a problem when based on facts and counterbalanced by a positive message. At the end of Obama’s first term, there might be enough facts for some substantial negative attacks, but a positive message will also be needed.
* Sarah Palin was a net benefit for McCain, and when she was not, that’s because she was handled badly.
* Culture war: the media started it by going after Palin. Make no mistake, they’ll do it again for any candidate the Republicans might choose: the Republicans must be ready to fight back.

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:15 am 25. David in Rochester:

What a great assessment! Completely on target.
This country cannot follow the extremes on either side of the political spectrum, and given its ever changing make-up, it will not continue to submit to being separated into the old political labels propagated by the extremists on either side.

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:17 am 26. click212:

McCain lost because he had no content. Obama won because he had the support of blacks, white privileged class and unsophisticated voters who really bought into his false promises. But most important Obama won because the media is corrupt and did the work of obliterating his opponents from Hillary to McCain.

This happened after an inept Bush, lied about WMD, then Katrina, Gonzalez, in the stew Delay, Harriet Meirs, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanmo, the loss of Habeus Corpus, geeze I can’t remember them all. The Republican sex scandals etc. What else do you need. The republicans rule with the idea that the Constitution doesn’t apply to them and their kings. They can’t be trusted so alone comes this three card monte player with his special brand of snake oil, changey/hopey with an extra feel good of white guilt and there you have it, a new shiny Black President to change the very face of this country. Lots of luck Republicans you really screwed it up.

Every election the choices get worst, that’s because we have an under educated electorate.

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:22 am 27. AnninCA:

I agree wholeheartedly with this analysis. I believe it’s clear that voters were not interested in the old agenda. Obama effectively reminded voters how many of the policies McCain was selling were just like the current administration policies.

They wanted a change.

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:34 am 28. kochevnik:

What folly. There is no ‘center’ in fascism. Executive, legislative and judicial branches work for and alongside corporations. Citizens are mere consumers and chattel.

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:36 am 29. Timothy L. Pennell:

Yeah. We should be more in the ‘MIDDLE’. Who’s more ‘in the middle’ than McCAIN-Feingold, and McCAIN-Kennedy? CONSERVATIVISM, people. You’ll see. The Democrats will do, what Democrats ALWAYS do. They will screw everything up. They will overreach, overtax, and try to CONTROL every aspect of everybodys’ lives. They will make every bad situation WORSE, and then it will take a CONSERVATIVE to clean it all up. Like always.

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:39 am 30. mac:

Mr Avlon’s analysis is full of cognitive dissonance. Turnout was the same as 2004, the difference was the ‘new voters’ took the place of the conservatives who stayed home. That was the 8 point difference. I don’t disagree with the main thrust of the article, ie the big middle must be understood and addressed. I believe the conservative message is a message for the middle.

The problem the republican party has is one of language. Learn to use the words ‘community’ and ‘neighbor’ and ‘full American family’. The dems teach hate along race, class, sex, and myriad of other lines. Start including everyone. Conservatism believes all individuals make up the community. Conservatism believes that the individual, warts and all, has something important to offer. Conservatism seeks to preserve the freedom of people to have ideas and apply them to the benefit of the community. Conservatism believes that service to the community includes starting small businesses and encouraging innovation. If the repubs can make the ‘big middle’ feel like they are part of greater community, they will win.

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:42 am 31. Sarah:

I speak in agreement with most of the others posted here: John Avalon, you are an idiot!
Middle ground, “centrist” philosophy, is all about compromise. Compromise, in and of itself, is not always a bad thing but when it calls upon you to leave behind moral absolutes, that is when it becomes dangerous!
“Political correctness” has made an absolute mess of this country. Our freedom of speech is being suffocated under the squeezing hands of “we can’t say that, we might offend someone.”
If more Republicans/Conservatives were like Sarah Palin and spoke the truth, in spite of who it may offend, that would be the kind of person that Conservatives especially could get behind.
Choose a side John Avalon, it’s the idiots in the middle of the battlefield that get shot first. Trying to pander to your friends and your enemies just makes you a traitor to both.

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:54 am 32. A. N. Pierson:

Chuck Pelto, 2, 3, 5… You are the kind of religious extremist who gives religion a bad name. You have no idea of Mr. Avlon’s personal faith, yet you go on and attack him for lack of morality, of all things. With due respect, sir, you sound like an imbecile and a fanatic. Needless to say, you don’t address his arguments at all. No surprise there.

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:56 am 33. narciso:

Let’s face facts John. The media lied with uncommon abandon, John McCain wouldn’t have recognized the portrait made of him. Every
ad that Obama ran in the last two weeks was
an out and out lie. He begged, borrowed,
embezzled at least the last 150 million dollars from foreign sources, phony credit cards. The
slanders against Sarah were something else entirely. It was in character, with the way he won his last three races; not by a fair fight
but by challenging the legitimacy of his opponents. There is nothing moderate about him, on the fiscal, military, judicial; and we’re going to find that out the hard way.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:04 am 34. Sara James:

I am calling for a conference where we discuss these issues. We find out whether we can come to terms. Bloggers, new media, writers, creative thinkers of all kinds.

We cannot continue our stageplay of Waiting for Godot.

We must act. Let’s craft our own playbook. Don’t let the party apparatus make the decisions for you.

http://www.saraforamerica.com

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:05 am 35. A. N. Pierson:

Further… Sarah, 31, you misspell Mr. Avlon’s name twice, yet you call him an “idiot,” which quite clearly he is not. Why not deal with his arguments?

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:05 am 36. SAF:

McCain lost because he could not mobilize his base. The statistics from the election are clear, many new voters on the left minus those on the right who sat out resulted in Obama winning. Had McCain appealed to conservatives they might have shown up and voted. The number of voters was pretty close in 2008 as it was in 2004. The shift was that the republicans had a lousy ticket.

I voted for McCain but I have several friends who usually vote republican sit it out.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:06 am 37. Sarah:

A.N. Pierson
Why not have an opinion about something instead of commenting on what everyone else has to say?
I gave my opinion about his arguments, I think his philosophy is what has helped the republican party into the mess it’s in now – trying to make everyone happy is not the way to win elections or supporters, it’s just not possible or reasonable. It’s my opinion and I am free to it, you don’t have to agree/disagree/comment on it.
Instead of wasting everyone’s time nitpicking other posters comments why don’t you tell us why you think he is right? That would contribute to the discussion in some form rather than the “troll and tripe” method you are utilizing now.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:21 am 38. Teri:

Avalon hit the nail on the head. When the economy is in the tiolet no one cares about abortion or gay marriage. We need to once again be the party of small government, hawkish on denfense and stay out of everyone’s personal life.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:26 am 39. Sarah:

P.S. A.N. Pierson,
PJM has also apparently spelled his name wrong on their short blurb about the author, located at the bottom of the article – as the self appointed spell-check police I thought you would probably want to let them know…

“John Avalon is the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics. He was the chief speechwriter for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He is a frequent commentator on televsion news shows.”

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:28 am 40. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Religious Extremism R US?

Chuck Pelto, 2, 3, 5… You are the kind of religious extremist who gives religion a bad name. — A. N. Pierson

Get this everyone?

Anyone who cites from that Old Book is a “religious extremist”.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. The REAL ‘religious extremist’ is the one who thinks that no one should speak of their religious beliefs in course of public discussion.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:43 am 41. gawaine:

I’d argue that platform is second to leadership. (Agreeing with goy in large part). We keep hearing that independents vote for the person, not the platform – and they voted in large part for Obama this time around. If you want to appeal to people, you need someone who they can look at as a leader.

I’d say that rather than trying to first pick the winning platform and then narrow down to likely prospects, we should first try to groom some conservative leadership. Give Palin, Romney, Pawlenty, etc. a chance to either shine or fade out. Don’t tear them down yet, or tell them that to succeed, they must conform to the platform. Give them time on radio shows, help them build an internet presence, invite them to speak at schools, etc., and see what sticks. If Palin takes off and looks like a winner, then comments about her abortion policy being too extreme probably won’t turn off more voters than Obama’s many extreme policy statements did. On the other hand, if she can’t get people inspired, then moderating the policy isn’t going to help.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:45 am 42. BMoon:

Avlon gets it wrong. Dead wrong.

Before Conservatives decide to self-immolate along with the rest of the nation, and abandon its principles, values and truth itself, think about it. Leftism disguised as conservative centrism facilitated the criminal scam that brought about the economic crisis that was the decisive factor in the loss of ‘08. Then we chose a good guy, a principled guy, but one who apparently did not understand the battle and could not take it to the enemy. On top of that, we have to face the fact that our national press has openly, unashamedly become Pravda, and our high schools and universities are now, in large part, nothing more than blatant propaganda centers for the Left. Look at the video of the 5th grade teacher bullying and berating a student whose father is in the military and voted McCain. That specter is what we face. Mushiness will not counter that kind of banality.

Then, as if that were not bad enough, a huge portion of the electorate, as Jeff succinctly notes, vote like “crows…for the shiny object.” One recent article showed that even Harvard grads cannot barely pass a basic history-economics-civics exam. Basically a huge part of the mushy middle of America, define themselves as such because they no longer know what this country is about, what are the basics of government or economics, do not know history, do not have any clear worldview, are easily manipulated by a jaded Leftist Press. And joining them will solve it?

Obama won because he inspired people, albeit with meaningless, ambiguous, empty cliches. That’s how easy it was. People went for the shiny object, without discerning it was fool’s gold. His Party hacks correctly discerned that America wanted something, anything different and they took a gamble of a radical. America went, tragically wrong, because it no longer knows what it believes. Learn the lesson – a centrist, simply does not inspire.

The only thing we can do is reach down and rediscover we have some balls. Rediscover what Conservatism is really about. Teach it. Educate people. We must inspire, but we must first be inspired. America is waiting for this.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:49 am 43. JFP:

We are in an era of Republican presidents. From 1968 up to today, the Republicans have won 7 out of 11 presidential elections. Every now and then a Democrat has won, but that has not changed matters. Likewise, during the era of Democratic presidents, from 1932 to 1964, the Republicans nevertheless managed to win a couple. But that still didn’t change things.

And that is the way this election should be viewed. The Democrats managed to win one for a change. And they very nearly lost. If gas prices had stayed high, and if the financial mess had been delayed by two months, McCain would have won. That’s because the Democrats had no plan to deal with the gas prices, except “keep your tires inflated.”

There are nevertheless two potential problems.

1. Have we now entered another era of Democratic presidents? No. The Democrats lose elections because they keep shooting themselves in the foot, and there is no evidence that they have figured this out. They will do something dumb like push for a gas tax that will raise prices to $9/gallon, which will be so unpopular that the Republicans will take control of Congress again in two years.

2. The media is the biggest problem for the Republicans. This was really their win more than Obama’s. If the media continues to treat Democratic candidates with kid gloves, then expect more Democratic victories. On the other hand, if Obama screws up, then even liberals will demand that the media stop protecting Democratic candidates, because they will want to ensure that the Democrats put up someone who can be a strong and effective president.

So, my advice is to avoid making some drastic change. Just wait till the Democrats screw up again and swoop in.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:53 am 44. rminms:

If you sacrifice your values and principles to win an election, have you really won anything?

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:54 am 45. Doc99:

Two things spelled doom for McCain – the first was his inability to articulate a winning answer to the financial meltdown of Fannie/Freddie and the AIG collapse. The second was his performance in the debates and that last appearance on MTP. My sister called me afterwards to echo Hitchens – “The man’s gone senile. McCain’s lost it.” IMHO the only thing that kept it close was Sarah Palin. After Obama, Gov. Palin will prove the biggest winner of a campaign noted for it’s many losers. To quote Rush Limbaugh, “We are so screwed.”

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:56 am 46. aaron:

The author seems, to me, to have bought into every MSM myth about conservatism, and concluded that it is lacking.

This lowers my estimation of the editorial judgment of PJM considerably.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:12 am 47. Fred T.:

Is the purpose of a political party to win elections or to espouse a philosophy and attract citizens who agree with that philosophy?

I believe it is the latter – and the Republicans ( or conservatives) serve no useful purpose if they become Democrats “lite” as they were in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s.

Give the voters a clear choice ( unlike a Dole, either Bush or McCain) and let the chips fall where they may.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:16 am 48. Patrick:

Couldn’t disagree more. No matter how “centrist” the Republican party tries to be (and you really can’t get much more centerline, on average, than President Bush has been), the media will still frame the debate. And Democrats will run toward the center at election time, just like O! did, and then govern to the left. The only way for the Republican party to gain it’s old power is to strictly adhere to small government, pro-liberty, lower taxes.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:22 am 49. Robert B:

Over the last few days, almost every news source tells me how proud we should be. How great it is to be American. Its very possible that Mccain lost because it felt too good to vote for Obama. My stepmother a rabid Republican proudly stated “I voted for Obama to prove to world we are not racist.

Personally I believe that Tuesdays vote actually proves we have a long way to go on race relations. Too many white people voted for Obama because of his race. Worse yet blacks voted for Obama roughly 95%-5%.

How could Mccain win, if it feels so good to vote for a black man?

The Republican party cannot win running Moderates like Mccain. As Obama said during the debate “I agree with John Mccain”. When need strong conservitives
who offer a real alternative to the other party’s. That being said we may be wise to take a page from the Democrats and dump the caustic issues of gays and abortion from our National platform. Since they are a really a state issue.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:32 am 50. Leigh Thelmadatter:

One minor problem with this analysis… Obama did not play to the center. He’s the most leftist president we have had in quite a while. What he does have is personality. My liberal friends kept telling me that the media is everything… it certainly was this time around at least. Maybe that’s why Palin was/is so villified by the left and by some on the right, she has the ability to take the spotlight and make ppl sit up to take notice.

McCain never had it. Reagan did. Granted this has zero to do with the ability to lead, as I think we are about to find out with Obama very soon.

I think the answer lies in supporting and cultivating the next generation that are in Congress and the governorships, like Jindal and Palin. Show the American people movers-and-shakers and I think we will have a better chance. Obama only talked about moving and shaking and it got him into the White House. When he fails, people will be ready for a change but a change with some umpf behind it.

We can take back Congress in 2010 with protest votes but we will need more for the White House and Congress in 2012.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:42 am 51. The Historian:

OBAMA STARTS LIKE A ROOKIE

Team Obama has a long way to go in just over 70 days. Time to fasten our seat belts as noted here:

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-starts-like-rookie.html

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:43 am 52. Tex Taylor:

Articles like this are exactly the reason I’m not buying these blogs we all read will be an effective opposing force to the MSM. Most of these “experts” are apparently just as clueless, providing the same old worn out line we heard in 1992 from other moderates. And in 1996, we picked a ‘centrist’ and got hammered.

Take this author’s advice and you will have a Republican party that goes the way of the “Progressive Party” of the early 20th century. And it would take exactly one election to do so – the next one.

I’m not buying that a candidate that really would practice the rules of a smaller government, fiscal conservatism, wholehearted support to our military, a strict constitutionalist, and conservative on the social issues can’t win. Give us a real candidate who can string more than two lines together and put the above into practice, and I think we would not only win, but win big.

McCain was strong on defense, silent on social issues, and a flaming lib with respect to about everything else. He certainly wasn’t a small government candidate. Worse, McCain was a completely ineffective communicator and horrid debator.

And with all that, I’m not entirely sure that if the economy hadn’t tanked at exactly the wrong time, McCain wouldn’t have pulled it out by the skin of his teeth. People were angry about the economy, the American public incredibly fickle, and they went looking for somebody to blame for the Wall Street woes.

The public was tired of Bush and with the help of the MSM and Obama’s lame rhetoric, tied McCain to Bush. Why don’t we simply admit McCain a weak candidate about everything but the war, and Obama the best snake oil salesman this side of Bill Clinton?

Soon enough Obama and the worthless Democrats will be exposed as rotten and hollow, unable to fulfill even the most basic of their campaign promises. One domestic terror attack where the public again believes they are threatened, and you would see a immediate change of attitude about our feckless majority.

If you want to do something useful John, why don’t you keep a running tab of Obama’s promises vs. performance, and then do your best to advertise as such? Otherwise, I think you are part of the problem.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:44 am 53. Alex:

“McCain pulled briefly ahead with independents for a week in early September — and then three things happened: the financial crisis, the negative attacks and Sarah Palin.”

Sarah Palin “happened” in late August and was a significant factor- if not the primary factor- behind McCain’s poll bounce. She was unveiled as the very type of pragmatic reformer that appeals to independents and moderates
(her initial stump speech made notably little mention of social issues). Indeed- based on actual record- she’s a far more credible “centrist” than Obama. She evolved into a base pick because the media relentlessly caricatured her as a right-wing demagogue (book banning, creationism in schools, Iraq war a task from God) and because the McCain campaign denied her the opportunity to push back before it was too late.

In any case, McCain was struggling among independents/moderates long before he picked Palin or invoked William Ayers. He spent most of the spring and summer running as a “different kind of Republican” and gained no benefit in the polls as a result. Palin may have cost him a few moderate voters but this group were already pre-disposed to Obama because of Bush and the general state of the Republican brand. Moreover, a more explicit play for moderates (i.e Lieberman) would have been devastating to his core support levels (+5% among moderates doesn’t compensate for -20% among conservatives). Palin was the one pick that offered at least the potential of appealing to both groups.

I also disagree with your central argument. McCain failed to win the centre not because he ran too far to the right but because his appeals to indies/moderates were ad-hoc in nature. He frequently cited individual issues (climate change, immigration, torture) on which he’s crossed party lines but never integrated these into a coherent political philosophy (focusing instead on the moral/personal philosophy of “country first”). Consequently, his candidacy was placed in the electoral wilderness: conservatives distrusted him while moderates were unsure how much change he actually represented.

The last Republican to decisively control the centre was Reagan. He did so not by explicitly targeting moderates/indies but by advancing a clear centre-right philosophy that resonated across the political spectrum.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:45 am 54. GDT:

I am going through Amazon looking for the book “Great Centrists in American History”. No luck so far…

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:50 am 55. BMoon:

” He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative.” -GK Chesterton.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:58 am 56. stalin:

avalon’s assesment is quite right. winning elections will take votes, period.
but, by all means tack right and continue to consistently alienate the young, hispanics, women,
gays, labor, and even your own moderates.
hitler stuck to his principles to the last minute also, but don’t forget that he had to shoot himself in the head.
after he sacrificed his wife to those principles.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:58 am 57. Yaakov Watkins:

Neither Bush, Palin nor McCain are fiscal conservatives. McCain looks like a liberal to me.

I don’t care whether Republicans or Democrats win. I care whether conservatives win.

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:00 am 58. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Still Waiting….

….to hear Avalon’s religious belief structure.

The reason I asked about it in the first place was because after reading even just a little of his article, I was ‘impressed’ by the lack of substance to his political stance.

Here’s the point, it’s all about going with the ‘flow’. After all more than half of the country (70% by his figures) is to the Left of myself. Therefore, I should give up all that I hold to be the Truth and join the rest of the country drinking the Obamanation Kook-aid.

I’ll always be to the Right of center. And therefore, in his stupid opinion, I must join the crowd and shift to the Left. This, in itself, shifts the so-called ‘center’ further to the Left. And each time I change my stance to and ‘go along to get along’, the Center moves even further to the Left.

That’s why I was suddenly reminded of that comment by the REAL One, about people who build houses on sand, as opposed to bedrock.

I’m certain that there are people who don’t ‘get it’. We’ve heard from one such already in this thread. But that’s not MY problem. Rather, it’s theirs….in the long run.

So, back to my original comment….

…what is Avalon’s religious belief?

Dollars to donuts, it’s not REALLY chriatian. Otherwise, he’d recognize the fallacy of his argument that we should move more to the ‘Left’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. TO: A. N. Pierson….

….you sound like an imbecile and a fanatic. — A. N. Pierson

Click on my name and then let’s talk about who betwixt us is the REAL ‘imbecile’.

As for the ‘fanatic’ part….well….

…..I guess it depends upon what you define as a fanatic.

My working definition of such is from Ambrose Beirce’s The Devil’s Dictionary….

Fanatic, n., One who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.

What do you want to talk about next? If it’s OT, please drop by my blog and tell me about it.

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:07 am 59. Eric:

Stalin – just which conservative principles won’t attract the voting blocks you list? Self-sufficiency? Small government and adherence to the principles of the Founders? Strong defense? Low tax rates? What?

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:08 am 60. VidCrayzee:

Bill Clinton comments on this in his humorous post-election analysis of the 2008 election. See the video here, http://beema.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/beemanews_10nov08/

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:18 am 61. Mongol:

So Avalon, if left keeps moving to the left, as they have, center keeps moving the same direction. I hope I don’t have to explain it further.

Moderates, as someone else has said, are the people who haven’t done their research or don’t know what they believe. They are like a wave driven by the wind, now there, now here… Putting one’s stock into something that continually shifting is self delusion at best.

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:20 am 62. goy:

- I am going through Amazon looking for the book “Great Centrists in American History”. No luck so far…

Awesome! Best one I’ve seen since last Tuesday!

…other than an email I received that read, “I feel like I woke up Wednesday morning in an ice-filled bathtub with a note telling me to call 1-800-Ivotd 6x”.

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:21 am 63. Mharilou:

Why do I have to read this sort of article? People like you should just go and align with the democrats. You are not conservative so don’t align with us. McCain lost because he is not conservative period. Why can’t people like you accept that and stop whining.

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:23 am 64. Ms Attitude:

The message of Freedom brings us together and is all inclusive, whether it be:

Freedom of religion
The separation of church and state
The right to bear arms
Free trade
Market competition
Capitalism
No Big Brother
The right to Life
The liberty to choose
Equality of opportunity
Protection of property rights
Strong national defense
No entangling alliances
Checks and Balances
Constitutionalism
Judicial restraint
…and on and on…

We have drifted to the point of thinking we can impose our “beliefs” onto others through government. By allowing our government to impose our “beliefs” we have given it the ability to impose other’s “beliefs” onto us.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”-Gerald Ford

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:29 am 65. Boris:

Well, this is the best I’ve seen on PJM in a long time. I’m pretty sure the people here won’t listen–nor will talk radio. I would disagree that this is a center right country–apart from gay marriage and the death penalty, I can’t think of an issue that the right wins with. Even taxes–though people want lower taxes for themselves, they don’t seem to mind taxing the rich.

Another bit of advice (but Republicans won’t take it) is to stop making huge deals out of stupid things. Obama is a “socialist” because he wants to adjust the top tax bracket by 3%? Would 2% still be capitalism? And saying that he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry was another genius claim. Did you think people would not actually listen to what Obama said?

Stick with the real issues and you might have a chance. Or nominate Palin. That’s fine by me, actually

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:31 am 66. seven:

Here is the bottom line. No one mentions it but some infer to it indirectly.

Chemistry. People get married on chemistry in attraction. People fell in love with Obama. Many fell in love with Gov Palin. She is sweet and had an emotional appeal. Clintion had it and Obama did. The number of people that admit they like McCain, his personality and just plain felt compatible with him were few. McCain was missing in the charismatic attraction department and you all want to make these technical or platform issues and they are not. certain Obama followers luv obama and would vote for him even in he had to do a couple of months in jail before he could take office. I suspect to some old vets, they are the only ones that could claim emotional pull and ties toward John.

Kennedy had it. Not enough charisma McCain. It can’t be learned. It will be Obama’s downfall. First deeds he does that are detrimental, they will be angry at him for being no substance.

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:32 am 67. DD:

McCain would have made a great president – in 2000.

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:36 am 68. Robert Hurley:

Chuck Pelto Do you see God in every person or only in those who agree with you?

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:50 am 69. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: [OT] Seeing God

Do you see God in every person or only in those who agree with you? — Robert Hurley

I see God’s creation in every man, woman and child and every thing. Even the REAL Jews, during the Passover celebration, recognize that all the members of Pharoh’s army that were drowned in the Red Sea were part of God’s creation. And they admonish themselves not to glory over their death.

I see brothers and sisters in those who recognize Christ.

See the subtle difference there?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Are we learning yet?]

Nov 11, 2008 - 10:05 am 70. Peg C.:

PJMedia is rapidly becoming useless.

Nov 11, 2008 - 10:09 am 71. Sonny:

I haven’t read all the posts this morning, but the ones I read here gave me hope for the Conservatives of America.

It is a good knowing the Constitution and Bill of Rights still reign in our country. The Far Left has been able to impose its beliefs upon students in the liberal educational institutions to such an extent for the past 40 years, I was beginning to think with the election of BO that most people forgot the principles upon which our country was founded,

This being the day it is – Veteran’s Day – it couldn’t be a better day for remember what our legacy is and the men who gave their lives, fortunes and honor to give us the nation so many of us cherish.

I say, “Keep up the fight and keep America as a light shining uponn the hill”. Thanks to you who know the truth.

Nov 11, 2008 - 10:11 am 72. John the Libertarian:

What, are you smoking crack?

This is sophomoric advice. Conservatives DON’T NEED to compromise at all. They just need someone to ARTICULATE their principles better. Someone who can deliver these ideas with clarity and conviction, as Reagan did. It has been the dissolution of conservatism that has diluted and destroyed the Republican brand.

Nov 11, 2008 - 10:11 am 73. Don:

John,

Ask yourself why I am going to work for the libertarian candidate running against the state rep. in Texas in the next election. I’m doing this when the state house is evenly split between reps. and dems.

Ans: The republican party does not support conservative principles or principles of personal liberty.

You will call me “independent” but what I really am is a disaffected republican. That is what most of the “New” independents are. When the republican party returns to values I live by, I’ll become a republican again. But not before.

Think about it.

Nov 11, 2008 - 10:25 am 74. Tom Cox:

John, if this essay had been a book report, I’d be convinced you’d never opened the book.

“The Myth That McCain Wasn’t Conservative Enough’ is not a myth. It’s a simple truth. Perhaps you have mistaken Bush’s fraudulent, “Compassionate Conservatism” for the real thing. (Hint: “compassionate conservatism” is neither compassionate, nor conservative.)

To this grassroots, Constitutional conservative, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy and the Gang of 14 (this could be a much longer list) could not be mistaken for either Constitutional or conservative actions by McCain. If you see them as such, perhaps you need to be a bit more honest with yourself about your political orientation.

Bush’s eight years of grossly expanding government, borderline incompetence and profligate spending, followed by the nomination of McCain, did all that was needed to insure an Obama victory.

McCain has shown nothing but contempt for (as he refers to us) “quote, conservatives,” and the feeling is largely mutual.

Before you provide any more analysis that requires an understanding of conservatism, perhaps you should find out what it is.

Happy Veterans’ Day,
Tom Cox
Charlotte, Tennessee

Nov 11, 2008 - 10:34 am 75. wavynavy:

# 69 Peg C.:
PJMedia is rapidly becoming useless.

I second that emotion. What a pile of crap.

Nov 11, 2008 - 10:44 am 76. Dennis:

Safe to say, then, that the republican party needs conservatives about as much as conservatives need the party. Why not an amicable divorce and proceed to the formation of a viable third, conservative party? Sound good to you, John? Sounds like a plan to me.

Nov 11, 2008 - 10:51 am 77. stalin:

eric
As for self sufficiency, that’s a done deal. We’re all on our own now after eight years of conservative rule, and the typical results;
economic thievery (remember theS&L crisis, and the great depression that began under Hoover). there is no safety net. And if gays try to take care of each other, it’s called sin. When people lose jobs or homes, or get sick these immediatly become family values of the most pressing kind.
small government. this is not what we get from conservatives. We get growth of government of the most incompetent kind.
National defence. I know the myth is that republicans are better for this, but Wilson guided us through the first world war with a much stronger position in the world, and FDR guided us through the second world war to become a super power. Truman dropped the bomb. Kennedy handled the cuban missile crisis with a “spine of steel” The doctrine of containment was originated under democratic leadership, and so to say Reagan won the cold war is one of the greatest over-statements of all time. As for Iraq, all I’ll say here is that it’s counterproductive to start a war for reasons that aren’t true, proceed to damn near lose it by imposing a completely unnecessary occupation, detaining prisoners without due process at Guantanimo, and all the while dropping the ball in Afghanistan. The gay sex parties at Abu Ghraib where particularly colorful.
Taxes. I work hourly, so, the republican party has done nothing for me on taxes; they still take out my withholding, even after eight years of republican rule, complete with house and senate for six years, and if I do the paperwork right in march they’ll consider whether or not they took to much and give some back in april. And it gets worse- I smoke and drink beer. Im being taxed to within an inch of my life, and the republicans insult me by cutting corporate rates and capital gains taxes and the vaunted “death” tax.
the last issue you asked about was the principles of the founding fathers, about which i cant say to much, being weak on that history. Dry reading but I will get to it soon. But I think it’s safe to say that much of what I’ve mentioned would not be consistent with those principles. those principles would not include destroying the economy, wanton corruption, and certainly not Abu Ghraib.

Nov 11, 2008 - 10:59 am 78. MrEdd:

The real myth is that McCain(/Fiengold) is conservative AT ALL.

Nov 11, 2008 - 11:08 am 79. myth buster:

And how is Palin not a Conservative? She’s pro-life, fights corruption, slashes spending, and presides over a surplus. What’s not to love about that? Is she experienced enough to be President, probably not yet, but she’ll be there someday. We don’t need more compromises or CFR shills, we need Huckabee-Palin-Jindal.

Nov 11, 2008 - 11:08 am 80. Bobolinski:

Did you read what you wrote John Avalon?

“John McCain lost because the country was suffering from Bush backlash, a reaction against a deeply damaged Republican brand, which had become associated with low and divisive attacks, arrogance, and ineptitude in office.”

Do you know that the conservative criticism of Bush is that he ABANDONED conservative principles. Namely smaller government and less spending. Bush presided as a centrist, now we have federal control of education with “No Child Left Behind”, federal meddling in prescription drugs, a potential police state, and spiraling debt. Yah sounds like a conservative was in office the past eight years. HAH!!!

Centrism is liberalism light. liberalism is socialism light, and socialism is communism light. Creeping socialism is what got us where we are. And you want more of it.

Nov 11, 2008 - 11:19 am 81. Ken:

I can’t believe this drivel. Democrats thrive on coalition politics: Young people, gays, soccer moms, feminists, abortion advocates, union members, white men, people with religious beliefs, hispanics, blacks, and you name it. They try to woo and hold these groups with pledges and promises that can’t even begin to be fulfilled (remember the ‘pay as you go’ democrat congress?) and litter the battle field with dashed hopes. They have no real ideology other than to spend money on each group and promise “more” later (to get reelected). Liberal democrats buy votes from coalitions.

Republicans, who should be conservatives, are ideology driven: Small government, low taxes, strong defense, and reliance on freedom and individualism. This is the kind of thing that ought to appeal to all groups except for maybe hard core Marxists and socialists.

If the GOP would grow some conservatives who would do three things: (1) protect the nation and its people from terror and attack, (2) make sure no individual who works is without a safety net of healthcare and opportunity to make their way in the economy, and (3) make sure this country has the biggest economic penis on the planet and ensure that nothing gums up the economic engine, then the GOP will win elections every time.

Appealing to special interest voting blocks is not sustainable. It is a fools game.

As for more republicans striving to be like McCain used to be? God help us all if they do. Remember this is the guy who talked with Kerry about being his VP choice in 2004. He is Mr. Blanket Amnesty for illegals. Mr. Stiffle Political Free Speech, and the one that ironically bit him in the butt: McCain-Feingold and public financing of his campaign that made him look like a country rube with a chip in each hand at a Vegas craps table next to Obama who played all day with chip stacks as high as Iowa corn.

Nov 11, 2008 - 11:21 am 82. Mandy:

Avalon is correct, of course. But the wingnuts who have captured the GOP care not one bit about winning elections, or even in engaging in the political process. These fanatics are solely concerned with domination of the United States. The only hope of the Republic Party is to expel its lunatic fringe. Given the current infatuation with Srah Palin, the very embodiment of the brainless toxin, such expulsion seems unlikely.

Nov 11, 2008 - 11:22 am 83. Dave:

His total inability to articulate an economic strategy is what cost him the election.

And listing Bush, Rove, and DeLay as “conservative” misses the point. They forgot who they were in terms of basic principles. THAT’S what cost the Republican party as a whole.

Nov 11, 2008 - 11:30 am 84. Robert Hurley:

Chuck Pelto:

In other words those who don’t recognize Christ are not your brother and sisters? What about the “Good Samaritan/”

Nov 11, 2008 - 11:34 am 85. G Alston:

Mr. Avalon seems to echo D. Frum’s contention that social conservatives are the overall problem, that the party needs to go to the middle since that’s where the electorate is. This is about as accurate as you can get, although presumably many in the GOP will counsel veering towards more fundamentalist types like Jindal or Huckabee or play up Palin’s religion. This will be a mistake. It won’t work.

Some commentors in various blogs have tried to make the case that social conservatism drives the right. This is incorrect, and you can easily see this in South Dakota where the electorate voted McCain — but then also soundly defeated a bill to ban many/most abortions. This is the republican voice. In truth social conservatism is NOT the right’s base and never was.

In my opinion, if the republican party were to rid itself of the bible thumpers and stick to basics (smaller government, etc.) the democratic party would cease to exist.

Nov 11, 2008 - 11:34 am 86. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: [OT] Lessons in that Old Book

In other words those who don’t recognize Christ are not your brother and sisters? —

That’s correct. Or please show me in that Old Book where I’m mistaken.

What about the “Good Samaritan/” — Robert Hurley

You truly are ‘ignorant’, aren’t you. Maybe you should read that Book for yourself. Then you’ll not be so ‘ignorant’.

As Sun Tzu put it, so long ago….

Know your enemy and know yourself and you shall never be defeated. — The Art of War

Hope that helps….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Stupid, adj., Ignorant and proud of it.]

Nov 11, 2008 - 11:39 am 87. Tom in Hi:

What we have here my friends in Mr. Avalon is a great example of the LOSER Rockefeller checked pants wing of the GOP. This guy telling us how to win politically is akin to the GM of the Arizona Cardinals (the other big losers from that state) telling us how to win the Super Bowl.

Mr. Avalon, the only great thing that happened on Nov 4th was that you and your ilk were smoked out and exposed as the useful idiots (for the left) that you truly are. No one with half a brain is going to buy the ridiculous points you and other “moderates” (actually liberals who don’t have the guts to identify themselves accurately) like you make. We tried it your way this year, and you lost–and dragged us down with you.

I eagerly look forward to the true (not phoney “Compassionate Conservative”) Reagan wing reestablishing its dominance of the party and relegating fools like Mr. Avalon to the back benches where they belong.

Nov 11, 2008 - 11:40 am 88. tim maguire:

I suppose that if you define “conservative” as George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Tom Delay, then you might have some valid points. It would be a curious definition of conservatism, though.

Nov 11, 2008 - 11:46 am 89. stalin:

Tim:
Bush, Cheney, and Delay all define themselves as conservatives, just as most of the above bloggers do. Yet among conservatives there’s this constant bickering about who’s conservative enough. You hold yourselves up to this Ideology like a religion, and it decays into the same kind of zealous insanity.

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:01 pm 90. Robert Hurley:

Chuck Pelto:

I find it interesting that although Jesus considerd someone who did not believe in him, “The Good Samaritan,” as saved and obviously a brother, you don’t

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:09 pm 91. cedarford:

Poster Sara made a good comment on a partial cause:

He was too old to run for the Presidency. If voters wonder if you’ll survive your term, then that is pretty big baggage out of the starting gate.

McCain lacked charisma. McCain had no clearcut philosophy and a poorly run campaign. Go ahead and try to over-analyze it, but that’s the bottom line.

Yep, a bad candidate. And I don’t share John Avalon’s high opinion of the guy. He was always a dimbulb, running on slogans even in his younger years, backstabbing Republicans to do senate cloakroom deals. He never had a coherent vision, not even in 2000 when he was the “Maverick fighter jock” who would use his “gut” to decide what to do about anything, case-by-case, tactically. He lost to the other “fighter jock, go with my gut instinct” guy and that didn’t go well. McCain always made up for his shortcomings with pushing his “brand” – of being the Leader of highest character because the enemy hurt him 35 years before.
In the end, he was Bob Dole II. The wrong candidate, and without Dole’s brains and class.

*************
But leaving McCain aside, protests that the “real cause” was not enough people in the “Old South Base” turned out and only the Goddess Palin kept it close…ingores the downticket slaughter. And the emptying of whole Regions and whole demographic groups of significant Republican presence.

Which makes the idea that no one needs to want Republican change, and just sit back and get more conservative and drive off all those heathen hispanics, young voters, RINOs, Mormon heretics, hoity-toity college educated people that middle-aged Joe the plumber could beat handily at bowling – suicidal.

From 8 years ago, when Republicans were still competitive in the North, poaching seats in Blues states, getting governorships right and left – its been an electoral disaster.

The Goddess Palin and her divisive politics and Fundie desires to drive out the impure and say good-bye and good riddance to traitorous New South States, “pink” RINO Rocky Mountain States, too black and too college degreed and too liberal Northern Midwest states…after succeding in “properly” expelling all those wishy-washy Republicans in New England and on the West Coast leaves Republicans saying they only wish to have 185 seats in Congress, 30 Senate seats, and about 150 Electoral votes.

That is what “good religious litmus tests” and maximizing the Base turnout of older conservative non-college whites will net them. And so goes with it the argument that only Goddess Palin can “excite” tem enough to ensure they keep the 185 House, 30 Senate seats, and lose each Presidential contest but keep those proud, pure conservative 150 Electoral votes.

To return to competiveness, there has to be a lot less talk about “bad states” they wish to lose, less about motivating personalities like the Goddess of the Right – and more about Republicans having ideas that appeal to the 3/4ths of the country and all the rising demographic groups they are now on the outs with. That California is different than rural Alabama, New Hampshire different than hillbilly-populated Central Alaska. That Republicans must become tolerant again, Big tent again, and stop demonizing pro-choice young women and non-evangelical hispanics, and college-educated profesionals living in Florida.

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:10 pm 92. toritto:

If the hard right wants the GOP to remain the party of the angry white man, well so be it. Liberals want you to do that as well!

This election the GOP became the party of the old, the undereducated, the rural white voter. This group is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the electorate. It became the party of the Southern core of the Confederacy and states like Wyoming where nobody lives. It lost in every major metropolitan area. It lost affluent diverse suburbs in Philadelphia, Charlotte, Raleigh, Fairfax and Northern Virginia, Alberquerque and Las Vegas, Miami and Tampa, Seattle and Minneapolis, Los Angeles and San Francisco, New York and Boston. It even lost Dallas and Houston.

It lost hispanic voters by 2 to l. It lost virtually 100% of the black vote. It lost the “youth” vote 2 to 1. The Democrats won every growing demographic.

There is no longer a GOP House member from all of New England, including those bastions of Republicanism New Hampshire and Maine. New York has only three GOP House members and only one of them can be considered as urban. The rise of the hispanic vote will make Texas a battleground state in future elections. A party that starts with New York, California and Texas in its electoral column has a pretty good start.

TV cameras had a hard time finding a minority face at the GOP convention. McCain/Pallin rally were virtually 100% white.

Continue down this road and you risk irrelevancy.

Make Pallin the leader of your party! Please!!

The GOP needs to decide what it is FOR……calling the opposition names ain’t gonna cut it as “policy”. Continuing to emphasize the culture wars will lead to a smaller, waiting for the rapture, lily-white regional Southern party.

Look at the faces of the new America……..the demographics are against you.

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:13 pm 93. Pliny:

McCain lost because he was a centrist and, also, in part due to a backlash against Bush, the most leftist republican in name only President we’ve ever had. This election was a resounding defeat for “compassionate” conservatism (a pointless self-insult, conservatism is compassionate by nature) that sits down with democrats (gang of 14, Kennedy writing the education bill, McCain-Feingold, amnesty for illegals, etc). Time to go back to Reagan ideology of small limited government that reaped landslide after landslide.

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:17 pm 94. toritto:

If the hard right wants the GOP to remain the party of the angry white man, well so be it. Liberals want you to do that as well!

This election the GOP became the party of the old, the undereducated, the rural white voter. This group is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the electorate. It became the party of the Southern core of the Confederacy and states like Wyoming where nobody lives. It lost in every major metropolitan area. It lost affluent diverse suburbs in Philadelphia, Charlotte, Raleigh, Fairfax and Northern Virginia, Alberquerque and Las Vegas, Miami and Tampa, Seattle and Minneapolis, Los Angeles and San Francisco, New York and Boston. It even lost Dallas and Houston.

It lost hispanic voters by 2 to l. It lost virtually 100% of the black vote. It lost the “youth” vote 2 to 1. The Democrats won every growing demographic.

There is no longer a GOP House member from all of New England, including those bastions of Republicanism New Hampshire and Maine. New York has only three GOP House members and only one of them can be considered as urban. The rise of the hispanic vote will make Texas a battleground state in future elections. A party that starts with New York, California and Texas in its electoral column has a pretty good start.

TV cameras had a hard time finding a minority face at the GOP convention. McCain/Pallin rally were virtually 100% white.

Continue down this road and you risk irrelevancy.

Make Pallin the leader of your party! Please!!

The GOP needs to decide what it is FOR……calling the opposition names ain’t gonna cut it as “policy”. Continuing to emphasize the culture wars will lead to a smaller, waiting for the rapture, lily-white regional Southern party.

Look at the faces of the new America……..the demographics are against you.

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:17 pm 95. Luke:

I fail to see, and you fail to discuss, how the GOP could get any more “moderate” than it already is. Also, by what standard do you call George W. a conservative? The traditional definition means less taxes, less government and personal freedoms. W only met one of the three criteria and is most definitally not a conservative.

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:22 pm 96. Luke:

If the Republican party continues it’s “moderate/centerist” drift” it will no longer enjoy my votes.

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:25 pm 97. Ed Wallis:

Mr. Avalon,

While your grammar and style is polite, your clear racism and bigotry does not pass the “stink test.”

But your humor – whether intended or not – is most appreciated…to write: “…centrist and independent voters tend to be fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and strong on national security” left me ROTFLMAO. How you could so beautifully describe utterly perfectly the under-40, sarcastic, nihilistic Left is beyond my abilities.

…Requires a degree of degeneration, perhaps….

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:26 pm 98. Chuck Pelto:

TO: stalin
RE: Heh

You hold yourselves up to this Ideology like a religion, and it decays into the same kind of zealous insanity. — stalin

If you think the situation is bad amongst ‘conservatives’, wait til the so-called ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ try to define themselves after the Obamanation.

I recall an event for some liberal-progressive activity where PETA and Feminazis got ‘into it’ over some perceived trifling slight. I think it was a PETA sponsored event where some young women trotted out onto the stage in bikinis.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Liberals aren't. Progressives won't.]

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:35 pm 99. rocketeer:

I find it very interesting that every election cycle someone writes an article like this one about the death of conservatism. McCain lost because McCain ran an incompetent campaign. Everyone knows that McCain was not considered a conservative by any stretch, and the only reason that he did as well as he did is because he convinced Palin, a known conservative to run with him. Obama’s message was one of conservatism (even though we know it’s a pack of lies) with his “95% of working American’s are going to get a tax break”. American’s are center right, but they won’t put up with insincerity. Obama just came off as sincere, while McCain came off as insincere, due to his changes of position.

You can write this article when a real conservative runs as a real conservative and loses. Until then, we’re only talking theoretical.

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:43 pm 100. Charles:

John,

I am an active democrat and fairly active in politics having help run several local and statewide campaigns. Your points about bringing the republican party back are right on. The numbers and demographics of the country clearly bear out that you speak the truth (whether we want to accept the prominance of the middle or not).

Now having read the majority of comments to your article, I am sitting here smiling. We democrats have nothing to fear. The majority of the responders here ignore every point you have made, and cling to the notion that if we could only be more conservative, or find a real conservative, then all will be right with the world.

You keep speaking the truth my friend. I find it refreshing. As the other side is not listening anyway, I will sleep as well tonight as I did after our resounding victory on Nov. 4th.

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:46 pm 101. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: More Ignorance?

I find it interesting that although Jesus considerd someone who did not believe in him, “The Good Samaritan,” as saved and obviously a brother, you don’t — Robert Hurley

Please show me where a character from a parable is an actual human being.

Also, please tell me the significance of the ‘good Samaritan’ thrown in the face of the self-righteous Pharisees. The Hebrews of Christ’s time then looked down on the Samaritan’s as lower than the pigs they tended for food. They were out-casts from the Jewish faith.

Christ’s parable pointed out that even the people that they Jews thought of so poorly could do better in terms of works than the Jews themselves. Or have you forgotten the parts of the parable where the ‘good’ Jews passed by the victim of the assault?

And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, — Luke 10:31-33

But show me where Christ describes the good Samaritan as His ‘brother’? Indeed, the good Samaritan in the parable is MUCH better than the Priest and the Levite that Christ was holding up as examples of people who allegedly believe in God but do not do His will of showing mercy and compassion.

Will YOU show as much mercy and compassion in your discussions here?

RE: The Brothers and Sisters

HERE is where Christ describes His brothers and sisters….

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. — Matthew 12:50

Are you one I should acknowledge as a ‘brother’? Based on this criteria?

Maybe you should take me up on my suggestion that you read more about your enemy….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Brother, can you s'paradigm?]

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:46 pm 102. Robert Hurley:

Chuck Pelto:

do you hate the people who disagree with you?

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:52 pm 103. freelyb:

Please do hitch your wagon to Palin. The constitution does not support her, nor do more than 35% of the population (at best). Someone in your party needs to learn about math. But, you guys are not good at learning. So by all means, promote Palin. The legacy of your last eight years will not be forgotten in the next eight. Bring it!

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:53 pm 104. Robert Hurley:

Chcuk Pelto:

How do you knopw what the “will of my Father” is? Is it some private communication to you?

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:54 pm 105. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: [OT] Knowing the Will

How do you knopw what the “will of my Father” is? Is it some private communication to you? — Robert Hurley

Something to do with (1) good study practices, (2) acceptance that there is Someone more important than myself, (3) prayer and (4) experience.

For the last item…

…I recommend you go airborne-ranger and then experience a malfunctioning parachute in a black-night sky only to be told “Prepare to land” five seconds before impact and getting up and walking away from the crash-and-burn scenario.

Or….

….try getting into a snit with a 18-wheeler at interstate speeds, being told “Don’t do that” as you’re about to apply the brakes after losing all control, pulling back your foot, crashing into the divider and the car is still street legal.

That’s only TWO incidents of those I recollect where He’s saved my fourth-point-of-contact. There are others of a more ‘unique’ nature.

I’m sorry you can’t seem to grasp the significance of all of this. But I will admit that I find your interest VERY interesting.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God has put it into the hearts of men to seek after Him.]

Nov 11, 2008 - 1:03 pm 106. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: [OT] Hate People? Moi?

do you hate the people who disagree with you? — Robert Hurley

Why should I?

However, I’m intrigued by your question. How much do you hate ME? Are you projecting?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Lend credibility to a liar and he will hate you.]

Nov 11, 2008 - 1:06 pm 107. Fred Pennsylvania:

More “Centrist,” eh?

To quote from one of my favorite movies, “I do not think this word means what you think it means.”

I didn’t want Dem Lite (”33% less pork than our high-pork brand!”) this time around, but I pinched my nose and pulled the lever. If that’s what’s offered again next time, I sure won’t vote at all!

Nov 11, 2008 - 1:23 pm 108. Robert Hurley:

Chuck Pelto:

How do you treat people who do not accept Jesus and who believe that the government should work for a more just society?

Nov 11, 2008 - 1:28 pm 109. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: Treating People (Part 1)

How do you treat people who do not accept Jesus…. —

Pretty much the way I’ve treated you here.

Have I ‘offended’ you?

Also….

….why is it I answer your questions, but you never answer mine?

Do you consider that an ‘honest’ and ‘forthcoming’ way to ‘treat people’? Am I ‘people’ in your eyes?

Or am I something less?

RE: Treating People (Part 2)

….and who believe that the government should work for a more just society? — Robert Hurley

Government SHOULD work for a ‘just society’. It’s written that way in that Old Book. The one you don’t quite understand, let alone ‘accept’.

The question becomes, WHO decides what is ‘just’.

Is it ‘just’ to murder babies?

Is it ‘just’ to hate other people? Like the Left hated Bush? And now the Left hates Christians?

Is it ‘just’ to tell lies about people?

Is it ‘just’ to withhold information from people?

Please answer my questions….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You can observe a lot just by watching. -- Yogi Berra]

Nov 11, 2008 - 1:48 pm 110. Xdpaul:

Here’s the math, and what, perhaps Avlon was trying to say:

Obama is a Leftist who mobilized the Leftists, and then pandered to the middle by saying little to nothing.

So, the next Republican candidate should be a conservative who mobilizes the conservatives, then panders to the middle by saying little to nothing.

I think.

Nov 11, 2008 - 1:51 pm 111. bear:

Our party system as it stands doesn’t offer much of a choice for most Americans. Save for the adversarial checks and balances that tend to keep the country from oversteering in one direction or the other. Most right leaning (fiscally conservative) independents are watching now with jaundiced eye. We’ll see what happens. that is not to say we love conservatives, since they are equally capable of inanity. A few of the above posts validate that point.

Nov 11, 2008 - 1:59 pm 112. Larry Sheldon:

“I think”.

No evidence seen.

The GOP did remarkably well only because it selected a conservative spokesman in Sarah Palin.

If it had had a platform–a statement of principles and a plan for the future for her to work with, the Republicans that stayed home might have voted.

But we will never know, because everybody says “We need to be just like them, only worse–it is the only way to win.”

Nov 11, 2008 - 2:18 pm 113. Dave:

If I might grab just one example of typical conservative thinking that proved itself even during the Obama-immaculate-election, I offer the California proposition 8 passage.

Even in LEFTYLAND, the land of redwoods and blue celebrities, the home of San Francisco bright and gay, of Music and Movies and ENtertainment and angry stars threatening but never moving to those foreign countries, the public voted TO FORBID GAYS FROM MARRYING LEGALLY.

Blacks voted for this at a rate of 70%. It’s hard to find a demographic that substantially voted against it, and many surprising demos were in favor by close margins.

So even when California goes for Obama, the public there responded to a typical social conservative issue with a solid YES.

When conservatism is tried, it works! When we pull back from it, water it down, say we need a different direction, IT DOES NOT WORK. Because conservatism is just another way of saying PRINCIPLED BEHAVIOR, and you can’t water down principles without offending voters who care about them.

ANd that number is far larger than we think. We just hardly ever get a chance to evaluate, because we haven’t HAD actual conservatives running for office in decades. They claim to be, sure, but when it’s time to make policy and law, they start acting like liberals.

NO WONDER they can’t win anymore! Why vote for a republican liberal when you can have the real thing?

Never forget, people, actual real principled conservatism works every time it’s tried.

Nov 11, 2008 - 2:22 pm 114. Boris:

The problem with the conservative movement is that they find it hard to recognize facts. Remember all the people who claimed the polls were wrong and we’d see on election day?

Well, they know who they are.

Nov 11, 2008 - 2:22 pm 115. Dave:

Chuck Pelto asks if it’s just to hate other people, like the left now hates Christians–

Chuck, I would add after this week, “like the left hates n***rs”.

They sure let the local black folks have it after that prop 8 thing, didn’t they? I’m still snorting with ironic amusement that the first large scale demonstration in America in DECADES featuring white folks calling black folks the N word and threatening them “you won’t come to my town if you know what’s good for you”, etc., featured LEFTIST GAYs as the racist shouters. No Klansmen there, no red state rednecks, no country boys with gunracks and Deere caps, just mincing gay men and swaggering gay women threatening black folks for voting their choice, using their rights.

It was actually shocking to hear that stuff. The left is so, you know, morally SUPERIOR. But do not forget that glimpse into the hell of the leftist mind.

Nov 11, 2008 - 2:27 pm 116. shelby:

the only difference between the republicans and the democrats is: “Republicans Marry thier Mistresses”. We need a third party with conservatives, libetarians, christians & constitutionalist.

Nov 11, 2008 - 2:29 pm 117. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Dave
RE: Hating Others

Chuck, I would add after this week, “like the left hates n***rs” — Dave

Good example. Takes me back to my coming of age in the late 60s in Louisiana.

I didn’t hate Blacks the way others in my junior high and high school did, as I was raised in the US Air Force. So I was referred to by my contemporaries as a n****r-lover. Which I thought rather odd, as I was still a virgin at the time.

In truth, you’ve hit the proverbial nail on the head. The people who REALLY hate are more likely to be on the Left side of the political spectrum. We’ve seen that as a fact these last 14 years, i.e., dating back to June of 1994, when Clinton et al., came out swinging against anyone who held Christian ethics should leave their ethics at the door on their way into work.

[Note: Oddly enough, Pat Robertson predicted such behavior in May of 1994. Something about "the mask will be ripped off of the face of evil", as I recall.]

But do not forget that glimpse into the hell of the leftist mind. — Dave

I’m reminded of that saying about staring into the ‘abyss’…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Where you sit determines what you see.]

Nov 11, 2008 - 2:35 pm 118. axenolith:

Dude, just give it up and register democrat already…

Nov 11, 2008 - 2:58 pm 119. Matt:

This

I speak in agreement with most of the others posted here: John Avalon, you are an idiot!
Middle ground, “centrist” philosophy, is all about compromise. Compromise, in and of itself, is not always a bad thing but when it calls upon you to leave behind moral absolutes, that is when it becomes dangerous!
“Political correctness” has made an absolute mess of this country. Our freedom of speech is being suffocated under the squeezing hands of “we can’t say that, we might offend someone.”
If more Republicans/Conservatives were like Sarah Palin and spoke the truth, in spite of who it may offend, that would be the kind of person that Conservatives especially could get behind.
Choose a side John Avalon, it’s the idiots in the middle of the battlefield that get shot first. Trying to pander to your friends and your enemies just makes you a traitor to both.

is amazing.

Anyone here that thinks McCain would’ve fared better if he’d moved further to Right is so deeply buried in their own ideologies that they can no longer see anything clearly.

McCain looked irrational and ridiculous every time he yelled “Socialist!” while supporting a socialist bailout. Had he said, “You know what, there is a bit of socialism going on here, but it’s what’s needed right now, in my opinion, to get the economy back on track.” Even if you don’t agree with that, it’s at least an honest, reasonable position to take. Instead he went for the wingnut approach, and it utterly devastated his campaign.

I’m a Liberal and I voted for Obama. I would like him to take all kinds of heavily progressive steps to shore up this country. I’m sure very few of you reading this will agree. But what I can’t help but admire about Obama is that he most likely will not do that. He most likely will to represent as many Americans as can in his decision-making. It will almost certainly be more centrist than what I think is called for, but I can’t fault him for trying to bridge divides.

The above post, on the other hand, represents the exact attitude that has brought down conservatism in America, and will continue to do so if someone sane doesn’t grab the reigns of the dying GOP.

Also, if Sarah Palin is your answer to America’s problems, then a bullet to the head is an answer to a paper cut.

Nov 11, 2008 - 3:05 pm 120. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Matt
RE: Quick Answers

Also, if Sarah Palin is your answer to America’s problems, then a bullet to the head is an answer to a paper cut. — Matt

Do you need some help with that paper cut?

Or are you projecting towards conservatives?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Personally….

….I think you’re projecting.

Nov 11, 2008 - 3:11 pm 121. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. Anyone else here recognizing a “pattern of behavior”, as the judicial system would call it?

Nov 11, 2008 - 3:12 pm 122. G Alston:

#113 Dave

Your notion is absolutely false as proved by what happened in South Dakota (as per my earlier post #85.) If the theory is sound — that “conservative” stuff will always win out — this is the exception that proves otherwise. You have to account for it. Wishful thinking and misinterpretations of prop 8 simply won’t cut it. You can’t hand wave and call this a fluke or try to explain it away with claims of improperly presented materials… and/or blah blah and blah. It was REJECTED, flat out, and that’s it.

The truth, which most of you don’t want to hear, is that the US electorate does _not_ want social conservatism as the primary basis for a political party. Most Americans seem content to put up with it depending on what the opposition offers. I think you guys don’t get this. People deal with social conservatism because you make them do it by leaving them no choice (the only alternative is the left, of course.) They do not seek it out.

As such, you and others here seem to have things exactly backwards. Putting up with stuff is not equivalent to endorsement. Learn this.

Nov 11, 2008 - 3:18 pm 123. Matt:

f I might grab just one example of typical conservative thinking that proved itself even during the Obama-immaculate-election, I offer the California proposition 8 passage.

Even in LEFTYLAND, the land of redwoods and blue celebrities, the home of San Francisco bright and gay, of Music and Movies and ENtertainment and angry stars threatening but never moving to those foreign countries, the public voted TO FORBID GAYS FROM MARRYING LEGALLY…

Never forget, people, actual real principled conservatism works every time it’s tried.

So you’re saying naked bigotry is your great example of conservative principles?

Here’s some news: we Liberals think it’s awful that minorities voted for it, and we recognize that people needed to be educated on the issue. We see the irony in one group of historically oppressed people voting to take away the rights of another.

YOU, on the other hand, think it’s a terrific vindication of your “moral values,” and that’s incredibly sad and, heck, let’s just say it, sick.

Just as I was willing to make a wager with people that Obama would win the election handily, I will now make a wager with you that soon enough, marriage will be legal for any and every consenting adult that desires it. Because fight it though you will, liberty marches on in America. Guess which party is carrying the torch?

Nov 11, 2008 - 3:22 pm 124. Matt:

Yeah, yeah, everyone’s projecting, Chuck.

Listen, I want Sarah Palin to be held up as the GOP’s savior. I desire that, because it will be great for my party. Five seconds after she was announced, I knew the election was over. I knew John McCain had just blown it. No, not because she’s a woman. Not because she lacked experience. Not because she doesn’t know her ass from a hole in the ground. But because she was a far Right, social conservative loony tune, and America is over that. We’ve been there. It’s an awful place to be.

By all means, don’t listen to the pundits and the critics, nominate her as your candidate for the next election cycle. It’s okay with me if the Republican party wants to keep flogging that dead moose.

Nov 11, 2008 - 3:27 pm 125. Hugh:

Allowing the democrats to blame the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac meltdown on
“greedy bankers” was inexcusable. It has been a corrupt Democrat-run
operation all along, and Barney Frank and friends repeatedly stonewalled
any attempt to rein it in.

Instead of defending a free economy, McCain acquiescence to the Democrat’s
narrative doomed his campaign to defeat and
his country to a lurch towards greater (and corrupt) federal intervention in
the banking system.

The public doesn’t even think Frank and friends had much to do with this mess!
Rahm Emmanuel (sp?) was on the board of F. Mac.!

Just as the rest of the world starts to figure out that central planning is
the path to corruption and stagnation…

Nov 11, 2008 - 3:31 pm 126. Someone75:

Chuck Pelto:

I solute your superior grasp of Christianity. I remember reading often from the Bible about how we are called to judge one another, and especially one another’s faith and understand of Christianity. People like you are the reason I have to qualify my faith when professing to be a Christian. Hey look – I’m doing it too! The point is, I’m doing it intentionally, whereas you cannot seem to help yourself.

Regards

Nov 11, 2008 - 3:42 pm 127. Virgil:

You are wrong on all counts! The reason Republicans lost is because the betrayed the Republican ideals of less government, less taxes, accountability to name a few. What we got under Bush is more and more government, larger deficits, a $700 billion bailout for the rich and well connected CEOs. The last one being the straw that broke the camels back. I voted for Obama despite being a Republican as John McCain and Barack Obama both voted for the bailout! In doing so, John McCain showed he is no maverick and was for the rich and well connected like Bush! To add icing to the cake, the CEOs voted themselves big fat bonuses out of the bailout funds—-not a whimper or protest from John McCain and Bush! That sealed his fate! My friends all voted for Obama for the same reason—-these were incensed by this bailout! A bailout for the rich and well connected and nothing else! No accountability, no transparency but, business as usual to rip the taxpayers off!

Nov 11, 2008 - 3:44 pm 128. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Matt
RE: Projection

Yeah, yeah, everyone’s projecting, Chuck. — Matt

Not ‘everyone’. But, with discernment and knowledge, you can tell who is ‘projecting’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Projecting, v., Accusing, without evidence, someone thinking the way you do. -- CBPelto]

Nov 11, 2008 - 3:47 pm 129. Matt:

Pithy, Chuck. Says absolutely nothing, but pithy.

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:07 pm 130. Roy N:

The article mixes two separate issues. In order to win the last election more centrism was needed, but in order to win the next election….who knows?

The author is a centrist. Another headline could be “Candidates should be more like me.” Now surely we all agree with that.

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:08 pm 131. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Matt
RE: Problems?

Pithy, Chuck. Says absolutely nothing, but pithy. — Matt

With English?

Who knew? I mean besides from you?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Prevaricator, n., Liar in the larval state of development.]

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:16 pm 132. Mary:

Sarah Palin was the best thing that happened to McCain. She did everything the campaign told her to do. If she seemed too far right, well that’s what the campaign told her to say. She even said everything was scripted for her. This was all from the campaign, they wanted her to appeal to the base. So you should get mad at the campaign for mis-handling her, not blame Sarah. If McCain was ahead in the beginning of Sept. it’s because of Sarah. Stop blaming Sarah for McCain’s mistakes.

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:23 pm 133. Matt:

I’m not mad at Sarah. And I agree with you, actually. I think she was used.

BUT: she has been doing all kinds of press in recent days, and it is not proving to be very useful. She doesn’t come off any better unscripted than she did scripted.

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:30 pm 134. Heckler:

I fell I’m one of the moderate, centrists discussed in this article. I don’t vote entirely for one party, don’t totally believe in one party’s beliefs, or support one party’s candidates. I think it is entirely possible to lead from the middle. I think if you’re a good leader, you’re a good leader no matter what your views. Even if you subscribe to some liberal views and some conservative views, rather than feeling you can only be one side or the other. You are not going to make everyone happy, but I don’t believe there has to be a you’re either for or your against us mentality either. I probably would have voted for John McCain in 2000 had he been selected as the Republican Nominee. I liked him much better than. For some reason he felt he had to change for this election from the candidate he was in 2000, I suspect to appeal to what he or his people thought would appeal to a more conservative base. That’s also why I feel they selected Sarah Palin. They wanted someone who appealed to the conservatives that they thought may also get some votes from the disgruntled Hilary supporters. If he had stuck to their beliefs the results may have been different.

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:44 pm 135. goy:

#116. shelby: We need a third party with conservatives, libetarians, christians & constitutionalist.

Hey shelby, I have a better idea. How about the conservatives, libetarians, christians & constitutionalists just take back control of the Republican Party? Think that’d work?

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:45 pm 136. Lily:

I used to be Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility and smaller government. The GOP lost me because they started spending and regulating like democrats. They will not get me back unless they re-affirm their fiscal conservatism. However, an open borders stance, combined with the welfare state we currently have in this nation, will also drive me further away.

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:46 pm 137. Lily:

Like Ronald Reagan, conservatives need to learn to sell the idea of conservatism. Instead, the current conservative leaders seem embarrassed by it.

It was easy for Obama to win promising to take care of everybody and make the world “like us again”. Its harder to inspire the better nature of people – like self-sufficiency, hard work, financial restraint. But this is the better way to live, and we can sell it. But the candidate has to believe it first before (s)he can sell it.

Socialism is ruination. That is another reality that needs to be explained to the people.

First, though, we need to get back into the schools and teach people the ideas upon which this country was founded. This was the approached used by the left (go into the schools), and we need to adopt it for ourselves.

Nov 11, 2008 - 4:53 pm 138. Lily:

Dear Someone 75: When the Bible warns us about being ‘judgemental’, it is asking us not to be hypocritical. God gave us laws, and he never expects us not to know right from wrong. The Bible also includes passages that ask you to use judgement and discernment regarding ourselves and the world around us. The Bible also tells you to go to your ‘brethern’ when they are wrong to try to help them. (The correct attitute when appoaching this person is needed – and often hard to achieve.)

This is very misunderstood concept in the Bible. This is not mean as a defense against any critisim.

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:00 pm 139. Someone75:

A lot of these responses just supports what I already understood. PJMedia reads are absolutely incapable of seeing anything outside their narrow field of ultra-conservative vision. There’s no place for an independent centrist here. No place for someone who listens to both sides, uses critical thinking, and arrives at a reasonable, rational conclusion.

And Chuck, please spare us your “word of the day” nonsense. Congratulations – you own a word of the day calendar. A large vocabulary is a great why to hide weak ideas.

Regards,

Someone(75)
[Poser, n., A person who habitually pretends to be something he is not.]

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:23 pm 140. Barrett:

To those who say the author has it all wrong, I agree. If the liberals are off the charts to the left, does that mean conservatives need to become the liberals of 10 years ago to win an election? The farther to the left the left goes, that more left the middle becomes. That is sheer stupidity.

An unapolgetic conservative who can articulate a vision and why America is better off by pursuing conservative principles is what is needed. The development of ideas, offensive and defensive marketing and not letting Obama get a single free pass by explaining why his policies are wrong is what is needed.

Every conservative needs to get started with this beginning at the kitchen table.

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:49 pm 141. Jason Sieckmann:

I bet you do think that they should be more centrist; as leftist pushes your right-wing line of crap out. You’re just fighting over power like a spoiled school child that hates the opposite gang of boys across the way. If you believed in real government change, you’d be here talking about how you want the gold standard brought back into power and the constitution enforced. NOT how the aisle swings in favor of your particular ‘interests.’ More on interests a http://mediacondom.com

Nov 11, 2008 - 5:54 pm 142. Robert Hurley:

Chuck Peleto:

You have to get away from lumping everyone who disagrees with you as the left and setting up straw men to knock down. Do the people on the left hate Bush or his policies. There is a degree of hate here that matches or exceeds that on the left. You seem intent on making judgments of people you don’t know

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:14 pm 143. Tex Taylor:

G Alston,

If you’re sure all us ‘bible thumpers’ are holding you and your neo-pagan ilk back, why don’t you leave the party? Join up with the rest of heathens pulling the lever for Obama?

I’ll tell the religious bigots like you the same thing Ronald Reagan told all the Rockefeller Republicans in 1975 when they kept whining for just the pocket book – don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

We don’t need you…

Nov 11, 2008 - 6:32 pm 144. Virgil:

McCain lost this election big time that is why there is a huge landslide for Obama. Republicans voted for Obama which seems unthinkable until you consider the fact that Bush essentially destroyed McCain’s chances when he pushed for the bailout! The CEOs were busy divying up those bailout funds to give themselves bonuses. Now, just out after the elections—-Paulson had the tax code re-written just to benefit the banks and brokers so that, they pay even less taxes! If that is not enough reason to vote for Obama—-I don’t know what is! McCain’s advisers are now also scapegoating Sarah Palin when they should have advised McCain to oppose the bailout if they had any brains! It totally exposed McCain’s lack of knowledge of the economy—-another reason not to vote for him! On other note, McCain should have taken the bank and brokers CEOs for giving themselves bonuses out of the bailout funds instead of just keeping quiet. Silence means yes to the CEOs doing as they please! The taxpayers get screwed and McCain doesn’t say anything!

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:11 pm 145. Matt:

Conservatives simply need to realize that America is no longer with them, and that they are a minority group that exists on the margins of American politics. We are a center-left nation that does not want religion mixed with government, that wants and expects quality government services in return for the taxes that we pay, that is vigilant to protect our civil rights even if it means less security, and which has a distaste for the military costing us billions to meddle in matters that have nothing to do with our borders being invaded. Republicans are only 37% of the electorate and this number will be even smaller during the next presidential election in four years, as more of the Republicans’ key demographic (old people) die off.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:20 pm 146. lee:

So you appeal to the center and win. And then what? That’s the tactic Arnold used to win overwhelmingly in the blue state California. The guy’s no conservative, much less a good governor.

This was a democrat year, period. If Mccain never ran negative ads and played himself as a stright up centrist, he still would have lost. And he was essentially a centrist in this campaign. In all three of the debates he touted his ability to reach across the aisle to win moderates. He tried to appear as green as possible too.

Plus, most Americans didn’t care about Obama’s inexperience or his questionable associations. They wanted change for the sake of change, and the media gave him a FREE ride. We’ve seen people who just about believe Obama will pay for their gases and mortgages.

Take the simmering conflict between gays and christians (blacks, mormons) over the passage of prop 8 as a sign – moral / social values can be the issue again in 4 years. The GOP should compromise a bit on immigration and reach out to Latinos and blacks who are solid conservatives on most issues but still vote for dems due to that party’s support of illegal immigration and sham minority empowerment measures like affirmative action. There are a number of Asian businesses and markets in LA who will be run out of business if Obama mandates healthcare for all or prevent outsourcing. It’s not unusual for Asian businesses to have business ties to China.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:21 pm 147. stalin:

Looks like you lost one Pelko! Get back on your medication.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:23 pm 148. ConservativeLiberal:

The article hits the nail on the head. The commenters on here are mostly idiots. John McCain lost because he forgot to speak to real Americans and started pandering to you right wing fanatics. GW Bush a centrist? What planet have you been on for the last 8 years? You clearly haven’t learned your lesson, and I doubt you ever will, which is good. The longer you creeps stay irrelevant the better.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:28 pm 149. Get out the shovel:

Conservative ideas sell themselves because they actually make sense. When a conservative leader which enough conviction and ability to communicate those ideas effectively emerges, that’s when Republicans win elections. Centrists are just people who are just confused or have no conviction. Most of them are attracted to conservative views effectively presented.

If there’s one inviolable rule of U.S. presidential politics it’s that Republicans win when they run as conservatives and Democrats win when they run as centrists. Nothing about this election changes that rule – in fact it only reinforces it.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:30 pm 150. timmy2toes:

I like this article. People forget that one of Bush’s main political moves was taking up quiet pro immigration stances. He in turn won a good deal of the Latino vote. Bush was also trying to sell the compassionate conservatism, which I dont think anyone actually figured out what that was, but apparantly it worked . Clinton also was pretty much straight down the middle. Bush Sr. (though this gets beyond my years) was also a centrist I believe — wasnt he pretty liberal socially, just more of a military conservative. Reagon is before my time, and may have been a Right wing candidate, but at the same time Carter was largely unsuccessful in his first term and Mondale I think was pretty liberal as well. Eisenhower is another big centrist — no one even knew what political party he was in for a while and both sides wanted them to run for president!

Centrism is definately important, but I think it is more about framing your issues properly. Saying here is my tax plan, it will get us enough revenue to fund various essential programs and but will be limited in how much people pay taxes is a lot more appealing than I am going to cut taxes for everybody or I am not going to cut any taxes. Maybe taxes is a bad example, but I think the point is made. The spin of an issue is essential — Patriot Act, Help Americans Vote Act instead of Wiretap Regular Citizens Phones Act, Require Lots of Paperwork when Voting Act.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:32 pm 151. gippergal:

You know, I don’t actually think a centrist message is the way to go: I think a thoughtful, nuanced conservative one is.

It’s true that John McCain made an impossible race close; let’s acknowledge, though, that it’s part of that centrism that led to his choice of running mate Sarah Palin, putting a woman on the ticket.

If it’s McCain centrism that the party needs, wouldn’t it make sense to see Palin as a possible figure to take down the liberal illuminati in 2012? And if it’s not his centrism, might someone slightly more conservative be a good choice – Sarah Palin?

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:51 pm 152. stalin:

Lee:
If your party doesn’t win, you’re done.
McCain is a centrist: it was wrong for him to veer right, because it’s not true. And I think he had a chance in the center, but this is how it played out.
About Obama’s associations, this writer has resonance with Ayre’s point of view, but not the (violent murderous) terrorism.
As for “sham minority empowerment” civil rights is a legal reality, voting rights are A reality, and this went a long way towards the defeat of the republican party. As for asian businesses which don’t offer health care, crush them like the exploiters that they are.

Nov 11, 2008 - 7:59 pm 153. zeppenwolf:

> In order to truly revive itself, the GOP should be more like the real John McCain…

Yes, that sounds perfect. Let’s despise all conservatives with whom we disagree, love every Democrat we can find, and talk about “bi-partisanship” as if it were the worthiest of causes in and of itself.

INTRODUCING THE *NEW* GOP: THE ONE CHRIS MATTHEWS LOVES!!

> it certainly should not look to the likes of Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin to lead a restoration

No, we should only elect people the elite media approves of. The long-forgotten excitement that the base felt at Sarah Palin’s nomination is… um… it’s “divisive”. And we can’t have that.

> Republicans need to appeal to the center and find common cause with independents in order to win.

Did McCain spend his time doing anything else? I hadn’t noticed. Maybe if he had talked about the “Reverend” Wright?

> And that’s something they have increasingly failed to do over the past decade.

The way we “failed” in 2000 and 2004 is something I think we could use more of, not less.

> McCain’s come-from-behind win in the primaries was not only proof of the strength of the center but a repudiation of Karl Rove’s play-to-the-base approach…

Or it just proved that McCain & Huckabee worked very well together at executing a pincer on Romney. And you all should know how much those two enjoyed it. It may turn out to be McCain’s most delicious memory of the campaign– destroying another Republican that deserves it… just because McCain feels that way.

That’s the end of page one. I don’t care what’s on page two. Sorry.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:11 pm 154. Dan:

That may work for republicans but not traditionalists; we are not a republican we just tend to vote that way. Keep putting up lefties and we will keep avoiding them.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:40 pm 155. Dan:

Seriously, why should I vote for a Republican if he will just implement policies I loathe? The DNC is capable of doing that without GOP assistance. If you want to move left then you are just Democrat light, better for you to take your lumps.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:45 pm 156. Jason S:

If a conservative candidate can only succeed by running on a centrist ticket, it’s because far too many Americans are philosophically confused and have an inconsistent sense of ideology.

One of the things which really annoys me is the senseless assumption that success lies in an exact compromise between the left and the right. The word “compromise” is highly overrated, as is the idea that “extremism” is automatically a bad thing.

Is “perfect health” too extreme? Is “perfect happiness” too extreme? Should doctors look to compromise between health and sickness? Should we compromise between good and evil?

The standard of value is human life and the most important right is the freedom of the individual to pursue his own happiness without physical coercion from others. I see no reason whatsoever to compromise these values. Free capitalism, consisting of economic freedom in a society in which the rights of individuals are protected by the state, is the only system which embodies them. Centrists like McCain – who pay lip service to the free market but who also feel that success should be punished with taxes and failure rewarded with tax-funded bailouts – should not be pandered to. They should be educated, not humored.

Pandering to the centrist majority means entrusting the future of this country to the uninformed whims of group-think. Political progress is not just about doing what it takes to win elections. It’s not just about drifting aimlessly in a current of popular thought. It’s about changing people’s minds so that they’ll vote for your real values, not some bastardized hybrid garbage that appeals to the minds of people who are too lazy to think.

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:06 pm 157. House of Eratosthenes:

[...] say extremism is the problem. Republicans have to get more moderate. Yes, that’s it… You do the math: America has a [...]

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:13 pm 158. angry white dude:

Maybe McCain can run with Bob Dole in 2012!! That would be swell!!

We need a kick a** Ronbo Reagan who isn’t afraid of being called names by the left!

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:41 pm 159. Ken Hahn:

A move to the center will simply create a conservative party that will replace the Republicans. Centrists tend to be incoherent in their thinking, liberal on some issues conservative on others. The surest way to lose “moderate” votes is to campaign as a moderate who is reversed from the “center” as perceived by a particular centrist. As a conservative you will agree with part of what a centrist thinks, as a moderate you may offend him in almost all policies.

Obama is a far leftist who appeal to the center by being predictable. McCain confused the center and irritated the right. He lost because his center was not the same as the voters’ and because the right stayed home because they did not trust him. A move to the center is a recipe for more of the same.

Nov 11, 2008 - 10:03 pm 160. Jack R:

You sir, are an idiot! Look at the momentum that was gained at the time of Gov Sarah Palin’s announcement as McCain’s VP pick. She excited the core Conservative base and was the lone bright spot of an otherwise lackluster campaign. The fundamental principals of Conservatives has been lost trying to cater to a group of people that wouldn’t vote Republican even if ACORN supplied them with a lifetime supply of cigarettes. We lost this election because we lost our way, we compromised our morals to gain acceptance from people that hate our very being. It’s time to stand proud as Conservatives and promote our believes of what has made this country great. My integrity is not for sale, my principals are a reflection of my soul, and I for one will not waver in my believes.

Nov 11, 2008 - 10:41 pm 161. G Alston:

#153 Ted
and
#157 Erasthosthenes
and
(others)

A “Christian” position is NOT equivalent to conservatism. In fact it’s the very opposite. Take abortion, for example; air travel negates any possible law that can be enacted. You want an abortion? Buy a ticket to pretty much anywhere you want for $300 to $600, take a pill or get a procedure done. Cheap, too. That’s it. Enacting a law solves _nothing_. You can’t stop women from getting abortions. They can easily go somewhere else. Maybe it’s more expensive than they’d like, but… so? What’s your plan for dealing with practicality? You want to have goons at the airports giving women pregnancy tests? Good luck with that.

In other words, trying for any reason other than academic to define life’s beginning is a pointless and stupid waste of time. Your side lost that debate the day jet air travel was introduced. Technology trumps; it always does. It doesn’t care what your vision of the start of life is. What you think is utterly beside the point. If your thinking can be bypassed cheaply, who gives a flying wallenda what you think?

***

What is the conservative position? Socrates defined democracy many years ago as “when the middle class owns the goods and fortune of society in moderation.” This is in fact what the republican movement is and has been about. It has never been the private playground of christian dogmatists, and claiming otherwise is pure chutzpah. Arrogance *and* cluelessness. What a bargain.

The left is going to be doing some serious damage to the economy, and more than it already has, which stuck Bush in the unfortunate position of using government bailouts. They will continue the socialist push. They will use environmental regulation to make energy so expensive you’ll wish you lived in a third world country. These are the problems we faced, and it’s going to get worse. These are _real_ problems. And they’re not going to be fixed any time soon. You guys have been too busy worrying about whether people like me ought to be defined as “moderate” and whether or not we could pass your ideological purity test.

Nice going.

Nov 12, 2008 - 12:06 am 162. Tom in Hi:

My friends, especially my misguided moderate friends, I understand you have been deluded or confused by the Bush/Rove phony conservatism they mislabeled as “compassionate.” To help you regain your bearings, here’s something about real conservatives and conservatism you should know.

Real conservatives base their positions on the issues of the day based on CORE BELIEFS, not on popular opinion or push polls generated by the lib media. True conservatives know these core beliefs are what makes the country as a whole and its individual citizens the best it/they can be.

These principles include:

1. Limited government of the people, by the people and for the people that accomplishes the following:

a. Ensures domestic tranquility through the enactment and fair enforcement or sensible laws,

b. Provides for the common defense though the fielding of the best military on the planet,

c. Promotes the general welfare by fostering an entrepreneurial spirit and allowing the most number of citizens to benefit from their own hard work, and

d. Defends our God-given rights to (1) life from conception to natural death, (2) liberty by not curtailing freedoms beyond the framework of sensible laws, and (3) the pursuit of happiness by respecting our personal freedom and the desire to improve our lives.

2. Each person should be regarded as an individual and not as a member of a group… “Hyphenated Americans” must understand that, while we respect ethnicity and religious diversity, real conservatives care more about what comes after the hyphen–we still believe in the melting pot. We are ALL Americans.

3. All people should be given equal opportunity in order to rise as far as their personal efforts and god-given abilities take them. Since all people do not have the same abilities or potential, equal outcome is impossible to attain, and trying to do so is self-defeating and drags down society to a lowest common denominator.

4. Real conservatives are always eager to help those who ‘can’t’ do for themselves, but we think those who ‘can but won’t’ need to stand on their own feet. Helping people be self-sufficient–and sometimes forcing them to–is the very epitome of ‘compassion.’ Making them dependent is not compassionate.

5. People make decisions, and it is their responsibility to accept the consequences of those decisions. Conversely, it isn’t the place of society at large to shield them from the responsibility of their (in)actions.

6. The right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is essential to preventing tyranny. Those who abuse this right should be severely punished.

7. The right of free political speech–with reasonable exemptions (such as incitement to violence)–is also essential to preventing tyranny.

8. Freedom is granted us by God; freedom can’t be granted by government, it can only be taken away by government.

So there you have it. The GOP has lost its way because it has been following moderates who by definition have no core values. No wonder they think we can win elections by just changing positions on certain topics such as abortion– they don’t understand WHY we take those positions in the first place and why they aren’t changeable.

Finally, for those of you worried about attracting members of certain ‘groups’ to our cause, understand this: we want what’s best for EVERYONE in this country. We’ll attract them by sticking to these core principles and making sure they apply to everyone. Trust me, that’s when the GOP will truly become a ‘big tent’ party!

Tom S. in Hawaii

Nov 12, 2008 - 12:08 am 163. kochevnik:

Tom,

Your snipe about abortion hilights one thing wrong with repubs: Christofascism. Your stance on an invasive law contradicts all your other ‘core values.’ That makes you not conservative, but incoherent.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:11 am 164. TDelaney:

The republican party can do whatever it wants. However if it expects to be the party of conservatives, then I would suggest that it adopt a conservative agenda and quit trying to please all these so called idiot moderates out there. Conservative principles are winning principles. They represent the “right and moral” course for most people most of the time. A party should not be run by pollsters and turned into a popularity contest. If we are doing the right thing and lose so be it. I would rather lose being right than win and support the radical left agenda which is not only wrong but doesn’t work.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:15 am 165. Rashputin:

Don’t forget that we need to stick with public funding of our next campaign, too. That’s a very popular centerist stance.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:17 am 166. Chris:

How many more elections do you want to see the Democrats win?

Keep listening to advice like that from Avalon and we must might get the Dems to vote the last remaining Republican Senator onto the endangered Species List.

And at this rate that Senator will be Joe Lieberman.

Nov 12, 2008 - 4:18 am 167. Brian Richard Allen:

What a bunch of crap!

Lifetime RINO, Mr McRainman, who never met a “Democrat” he didn’t embrace nor a conservative he didn’t hate, wasn’t running to be the “republican” mayor of Noo York and lost because he lacked the guts to go after his simply bloody awful opponent, because of several million criminal alien and other fraudulent “votes” — and because when Americans are given a choice between a “Democrat” and a “democrat,” I’ll be darned if they won’t “elect” the damned “Democrat” every darned time!

Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles – CalifUBAMAcated 90028

Nov 12, 2008 - 5:14 am 168. tom:

You don’t attract someone by being more like them
you attract them by standing for something you believe in and swaying others to your well articulated position

Mccain’s reach across the aisle crap did him no favors

He won the primaries because the media (the enemy) wanted a centrist canidate. Mccain believed they were in his corner

Mccain fumbled and never was on the offense with the financial crisis. had he stood up against it and named names, and talked outrage, he’s be having an office of president elect right now

Nov 12, 2008 - 5:34 am 169. Skip:

More centrist, like “global warming caps”, more government programs, more subsidies, more regulation, etc., etc.? Please.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:07 am 170. Alenda Lux:

Strongly disagree with this take. The only play to the base McCain took was the Palin pick – and that was the only thing that came close to saving him.

Other than that, when did abortion, gay marriage and the other wedge issues come up? Answer: barely at all. There was one 527 ad and Palin gave one abortion speech. That was it. The campaign in no way aligned itself with the gay marriage proposals in CA, FL or AZ. The one time abortion did come up in a debate, Obama completely lied about his record to make himself seem more moderate.

As for McCain’s policies, some of them were indeed conservative – like his health care proposal. Only problem was, he couldn’t defend it, and he needed a plumber from Holland, OH to defend his tax proposals. We don’t need to tack more to the center or to the right. We need to offer solutions and actually be able to back them up.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:17 am 171. Mark:

Funny how Lynn can be right in under a paragraph, while Avlon can publish a column and be wrong at every conclusion.

As the numbers show, there was no big swing in ideology, but towards the candidate. McCain was in trouble from the start because Obama staked out McCain’s territory. When the press didn’t cede that point for McCain, a tactic he’s always relied on, he was a candidate scorned and ran for the base. McCain assumed Palin would get the media treatment she’s getting now, relatable human interest pieces, not the vivisection she received. When that didn’t happen he knew he was going to half to rely on external forces. The problem was the external was economic and they were not prepared for it.

In other words, as a former Giuliani supporter, Romney would have won this thing. McCain got caught in an ugly karmic cycle where he was willing to do whatever he had to win the nomination, to avenge how he was wronged. The general election was an afterthought.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:19 am 172. Seth Halpern:

This article is simple-minded to a fault. McCain lost because he had virtually no campaign theme at a time of frightening financial crisis and widespread revulsion against incumbent Republicans who suffered from the same absence of clear vision. Palin helped stave off a rout by rallying the base despite relentless if not unprecedented trashing by a frivolous and biased media. The Dems had superior organization and a superficially charismatic if ludicrously overrated candidate atop the ticket. The way to win elections
is to convince people you’re right and to turn out the vote, not to pander to pre-existing prejudices. Btw, I was originally for Giuliani. He was a lazy, lazy man this year and so, apparently, is the author.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:19 am 173. Jaime:

McCain, was CENTRIST ENOUGH to lose. That is why he did not get the conservative vote. Conservatives McCain needed to win voted for Obama or stayed home. The “centrists” went for the new kid, and the leftists… well, they voted for socialism. I attended a RNC dinner some three years ago and the lead speaker (McCain) sounded conservative that night. He did not sound like that night at all during the campaign. Republicans need one kind of centrist: Ronald Reagan.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:27 am 174. MBS:

If Republicans want to win, they need to be fiscally conservative, and socially moderate, instead of socially conservative and fiscally moderate (or fiscally liberal, it’s a close call), the way they have been.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:38 am 175. Odysseus:

Seven million fewer people voted for McCain than voted for Bush in 2004. See if you can guess what happened:

A) They died
B) They voted for Obama
C) McCain wasn’t conservative enough, so they stayed home.

If you said C, go to the head of the class.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:54 am 176. Troy Riser:

I’m a big tent Republican, believing the GOP can accommodate a number of differing viewpoints on a wide array of social and economic issues and still remain a viable and electable political force on the national scene. As long as we’re united in core principles such as peace through strength, individual self-determination and accountability, and a less-is-better approach to government, voters will, by and large, have no trouble telling the difference between ourselves and our opponents. The course you advocate, however–like Brooks, like Parker, like any number of other supposed centrists–would make of us nothing more than Dem Lite, and when a voter is in the booth and given the choice between the two, I suspect he’ll go with the Real Thing. Another thing: your disdain for Sarah Palin gives you away. She’s no narrow, hard-right extremist, another Pat Buchanan. Her appeal is far broader than you evidently realize. In my view, she’s the last, best hope the GOP has to defeat Obama in 2012. And I’m sorry, did you bring up Libertarians as a group to whom we should appeal? LOL.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:03 am 177. Matt:

“Strongly disagree with this take. The only play to the base McCain took was the Palin pick – and that was the only thing that came close to saving him.”

Palin was a national embarrassment who every poll stated lost the election for McCain. Keep putting people like Palin on presidential tickets and keep losing elections. Conservatism isn’t a winner because it’s a proven failure of a political ideology.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:09 am 178. Matt:

“Seven million fewer people voted for McCain than voted for Bush in 2004. See if you can guess what happened:”

Actually it was only 4.2 million fewer people — look at the numbers. And, yes, most of them either voted for Obama or died. You fail.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:15 am 179. Andrew Ian Dodge:

I am quite astonished how wrong this piece is…as was your rant last night on PJTV we were unable to counter with well facts.

The only myth going on here is that moving to the centre is good for a party of the right. Name one instance anywhere that this has happened?

Hint: Not in the US, UK or NZ to start.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:23 am 180. Andrew Ian Dodge:

I am quite astonished how wrong this piece is…as was your rant last night on PJTV we were unable to counter with well facts.

The only myth going on here is that moving to the centre is good for a party of the right. Name one instance anywhere that this has happened?

Hint: Not in the US, UK or NZ to start.

PS; Calling mainstream conservatives “the far right” is neither helpful, accurate nor clever.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:27 am 181. Brett Rogers:

John,

What exactly is the centrist platform?
What do centrists believe?
What are their principles?

-–crickets chirping–-

A leader that has no stake in the ground at all might be electable, but is not a leader.

There’s no such thing as a centrist. That’s just a euphemism for people who choose style over substance and don’t want to enunciate a position that would define them.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:31 am 182. ewem:

“McCain’s come-from-behind win in the primaries was not only proof of the strength of the center but a repudiation of Karl Rove’s play-to-the-base approach because he won the Republican nomination without the support of right-wing talk radio and evangelicals”

That is a crock. McCain won with a calculated trangulation of the base. Giuliani and Thonpson pulled in conservatives who could not stomach McCain’s progressive stance and his identification with the Democrats in the Senate. Many who voted Giuliani did so despite his anti-gun stance, because his was less liberal than McCain. Huckabee was allowed to thrive, built up by the press without the attacks later thrown against Palin, so he lived to collect the evangelical votes. Before the votes were dry, long before the phoney convention, Giuliani and Fred handed their collection of non-McCain votes to McCain. No bargaining, no convention speeches for their supposedly competing viewpoints. McCain walked into the convention already nominated, and Huckabee threw his votes to McCain too in a triumph over the greater evil of Mormonism. McCain won the nomination without a majority of Republicans backing him, because the majority of the the other candidates supported him over themselves.

A candidate nominated without the majority consent of the party members has to campaign outside his party to win. There was already a liberal party candidate who did not pretend to be a Republican so McCain lost. Bringing in Palin brought in enthusiasm but did not restore trust in McCain with the base (why should it?) and the low Republican turnout was the reason voter count did not exceed 2004

“The Republican Party can re‑emerge as a force by reconnecting with independents, centrists, and libertarians in the future. Great parties have to be willing to grow, and in the GOP’s case, become more diverse”

This election was run by the RNC, not the Republican party base, and the RNC is hardly libertarian, barely conservative. The RNC (and the RNCC) is the Rockefeller wing, liberals who want to protect their personal financial assets from government control. This is a small but wealthy group,and explain McCains poor fund raising since he could only cull money from this small crowd while the base of voters withheld funds in mass protest.

In general the US is 20 percent liberal, 30 percent conservative, with demographic growth favoring conservatism. Illegal immigration growth favors liberalism. McCain promotes the illegal immigration agenda as a prime requirement, even using leading spokesmen for open borders on his campaign

Libertarians have a libertarian party. Independents do not want a party. Centrists do not exist as a definition. A centrist is someone who does not identify with liberal or conservative for any reason, too many to predict. That is why the only two successful parties have taken the identity of left or right, which are reasonably defined.

The problem with McCain is his greater identity with the values of the left.

The problem with the RNC/RNCC is their definition of conservatism ends with protection of their personal corporate assets, and not the protection of personal wage and salaried assets or personal moral standards of the base, which is the only wealth of the base

The morality clauses required by the base are the real anathema to the McCain elitists, who dream of a new party devoid of Lincolnesque beliefs. Sorting this chaff from a conservative base leaves few votes

The McCain wing of the party has nowhere to grow, but could leave and form a new party. The base will not follow them. The new party could attempt to lure libertarians, although the libertarians will throw down the protections the corporate McCain backers have relied upon for years, for instance, government bailouts. The libertarian crowd will also work to dismantle the military which produces a lot of wealth for the McCain supporters, while protecting their overseas investments. The new party could attempt to lure ‘centrists’ who are social liberals, favorable to open borders, favorable to social safety nets, job security laws as well as corporate obligation to community in the form of taxation. Independents do not tilt to libertarianism, and are a mixed bag for the Nanny state.

The RNC bigheads are the real dreamers, dreaming of a constituency who share their values. They tried to pretend it existed in this election and lost. Now they are rushing to expand the party with the only groups left, high tax moderates, no tax anti corporate libertarians, and the distrustful of corporate independent.

“Great parties have to be willing to grow”

This is the biggest crock of the article. Parties do not grow to collect votes, they are formed to express the politics of their members. They are an assembly of intent, not a scheme to trick votes to their side. That was McCain’s mistake this election

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:33 am 183. Troy Riser:

Matt, you wrote, ‘Conservatism isn’t a winner because it’s a proven failure of a political ideology.’ Wow. How erudite, succinct, and insightful. And the logic? Downright rebus-like in its snake-eating-tail self-referentiality. It’s all so clear to me now. Guess I’ll just cast aside those pesky conservative political beliefs of mine, declare my possessions community property, buy that groovy cool Che teeshirt, and learn how to love Big Brother.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:37 am 184. Dodgeblogium » Centrist case for McCain…:

[...] one had a close® call than normal. John Avalon is trying to make the case that McCain was not centrist enough and that is why he [...]

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:45 am 185. Beamer:

“Guess I’ll just cast aside those pesky conservative political beliefs of mine.” Good; I’m glad you’re seeing the light. How is conservatism a failure? Well, first of all, it engages in the ideological contradiction of proposing limited government intervention in the economy, but a virtual police state when it comes to civil rights and national security. It is the global expansion of the US military industrial complex that has created third-class citizens throughought the world (like Al Qaida) who have every justification for wanting to destroy us. 9/11 was a wake-up call to stop the foreign policy of entitlement and arrogance.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:56 am 186. kochevnik:

Beamer,

The people in the Al Qaida database are CIA assets. They are scarecrows to frighten starlings as yourself to support the English aristocrats and their Bank of England, where your tax dollars go. The fact that you buy wholeheartedly into their facade shows you are working for them, or “the waste of a brain where a spine would suffice” to paraphrase Einstein.

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:11 am 187. don L:

What foolishness – trying to win by selling your soul and your principles and becoming like the other guy -the one you view as destroying AMERICA, or in the view of pro-lifers, destroying 48 million (voters – many female, lots of blacks, and most all future contributers to soc security) through abortion.
Why seek “moderates,” (the liberal’s definition of Republican liberals).

If winning is all elections are about then just do what liberals do -promise the moon – steal it from the rich and successful – promise peace -surrender is fine – and a government that cares for you till the grave (which may be quite soon under their agenda)

Did it ever occur to you big tent people that God didn’t invite Satan and his minions up to the sermon on the mount for a reason? Nor did he invite them to help spread the Gospel? You got it yet? You fight and win to instill your principles – not to be bipartisan – half way to the truth and goodness is still wrong and unacceptable. You’re not going to win every war -but don’t put on the uniform of the enemy because their winners folks. Duh!

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:14 am 188. G Alston:

#181 Brett

Centrists are republicans/independents who aren’t invested in the far right christian social conservatism aspect. e.g. Strong on defense. Drill baby drill. Build nuke plants. Realize that the military budget is trickledown technology which provides jobs (like microelectronics, developed originally to guide ICBM’s.) Keep government as small as possible. Regulate if/where needed; stay out otherwise. Keep taxes as low as possible. Support the 2nd amendment if for no other reason than others can go hunting. And so on.

As a rule, where centrists aren’t “conservative” is almost exclusively the social nonsense: we don’t care if gays marry. We don’t want school boards trying to enforce teaching intelligent design. Abortion is a private matter. Keep christian icons in churches where they belong (if we want to see them, we’ll show up.) And so on.

In short centrists are 100% republicans where it concerns the important issues pertaining to governing and running the country and setting a direction. (Paragraph 1.) We are somewhere between ambivalent and outright hostile to that which boils down to intrusion at the personal level. (Paragraph 2.)

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:22 am 189. Narniaman:

Thanks to Mr. Avlon, I think I know how to guarentee that the Republican candidate wins in 2012.

It Mr. Obama runs again, let’s just make him our candidate too!

Then all will be happiness and joy!!

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:29 am 190. EMD:

The reason McCain lost is that he didn’t stand for anything. He decried earmarks and threatened to use the veto pen as President, but then uncritically accepted and signed (lemming-like) the $700 billion bailout. Philosophically acrobatic, yes; conservative, no.

On so many issues, McCain showed himself to be too unfocused and unclear. Even on the surge, he couldn’t dent Obama. All he had to say was that he would be willing to concede that the original intent for the war was mistaken if Obama were willing to admit that his objections to the surge were equally mistaken.

Also, McCain showed he lacked political toughness by not going after Obama on character issues till too late. By the time Ayers was brought up, it was in the context of the economic meltdown, where such an issue could be rightly described as a distraction.

And now we learn that McCain’s campaign was chaotic and undisciplined, reflecting what the Dems accurately described as Mac’s erratic nature. This character flaw of McCain’s can’t be attributed to his being a Moderate, but a principled Conservative wouldn’t have made a tenth of the mistakes that McCain made and would have had ten times the weapons.

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:48 am 191. Andrew Ian Dodge:

I urge everyone to watch his rant on PJTV “Whip” last night. Besides being complete and utter rubbish content wise. He called conservatives “far-right” and then tried to claim that libertarians did not support McCain because he was not centrist enough.

In fact libertarians, the ones who did vote McCain to keep out the socialist, didn’t like McCain because of his anti-democratic McCain-Feingold legislation and because of big government stances on lots of issues. The man supported the bail-out for instance.

Of course anyone who thinks that Bush was “conservative” is any way is just toeing the MSM line. This whole/piece and the bit on PJTV leads me to believe that Mr Avalon really has no clue what he is talking about either from a historical or political perspective.

Were any of this centuries greatest political leaders on the right centrist…Lady Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, PM Howard in Oz or Winston Churchill?

There are a lot of problems with the right, of all ilks, and this piece doesn’t examine any of them.

Nov 12, 2008 - 9:00 am 192. TWP:

Avlon is wrong. Avlon has the numbers wrong. The analysis is wrong. McCain absolutely is not conservative enough. What planet has Avlon been living on the past 8 years?

Nov 12, 2008 - 9:05 am 193. cedarford:

Ken Hahn:
A move to the center will simply create a conservative party that will replace the Republicans. Centrists tend to be incoherent in their thinking, liberal on some issues conservative on others. The surest way to lose “moderate” votes is to campaign as a moderate.

McCain was a bad candidate, but theories on how he was a hopeless candidate who was only rescued by the true-believing Goddess Palin who then “energized” the Base from one end of the Bible Belt to the other, excluding the emergent, traitorous New South States ignores
the reality of a growingly intolerant, exclusionary conservative movement wedded to failed ideas.
Guess what happens when you have an energized Base now competitive in only areas with 30 Senate seats, 185 House Seats, and 165 Electoral votes? You lose.

1. McCain was enabled by the Base playing favorites, allowing conservative votes to be divided between Romney, Huckabee, Thompson – as well as many in the Base voting strong for McCain in SC and elsewhere on their love of militarism, the Cult of the POW/MIA, and Christian Zionists of the Base belief that he would have a foreign policy that “never 2nd-guessed what Israel or the Neocons wanted.”

2. The Base has, since Reagan’s Big Tent and 11th Commandment, enacted a growing list of religious and ideological Litmus Tests they apply.

A. Any conservative or centrist Republican with even a moderate pro-choice position is suspect, a RINO…especially non-Southerners and women. They don’t belong..
B. Mormons are heretics. So are most Catholics, who must earn our trust..and we have no intent of reaching out to almost Godless Hispanics who have that Latin-flavored pentacostalism or Papistry.
C. Points for people that don’t believe in evolution.
D. Demerits for atheists, gays, people from big cities or California.
E. All 35-year old theories of Reagan are Holy and above challenge by any but a RINO. Those apparant failures of Holy Reagan Dogma on deregulation of Wall Street, free trade gutting US jobs, tax cuts for the rich demonstrating supply side failed to raise revenue to match borrowing – only exist because of Democrats or those lazy bastard union workers in small towns (the Reagan Democrats) let hard-working, noble Chinese beat them.
F. If the heroic John Galts of Corporate America say they need Open Borders and H1-B visas for cheap labor and American wage suppression – who was the Southern Base to ever deny that as long as the Corporatists kept those K-Street dollars coming to Base leaders?
G. We have a mantra that American Health care is the Envy of The World. That it is 50% more expensive per capita than any advanced nation, fails to cover 1/6th of America – mostly Joe the Plumber types, and leaves America with one of the lowest life expectancies of advanced nations – is besides the point. Free Market! Socialism! Envy of the World! – are great slogans.
H. Youth are stupid. The Base doesn’t want them, has no interest in those issues of young Americans because they will grow up eventually. College people are stupid, the Base rejects egghead intellectuals, fools with advanced degrees, any science we disagree with.
I. More theocracy is good. Nothing makes good men and women wish to side with Republicans like religious warriors sallying forth from small towns in Georgia to “save Terri Schiavo” or attempt to pass laws to ban IUDs as “baby-killing devices”.

3. Republicans have allowed people like McCain and Huckabee to come in and be emotional, run on character, and be incoherent on strategy or vision matters. Republicanism as soap opera – with attributes of noble suffering, hating abortion from age 6 vs. their rival only hating it for the last 20 years, how they are a “natural fighter”, why their spouse or spouses are purer than the others.
When challenged on vision or strategy, they go to “Reagan himself said…” as readily as the old civil rights fossils reject changing times and circumstances with “as the great MLK himself said in the 50s” or “Selma! Selma!”

4. Projecting a bizarre foreign policy that war is good, we need more. We should welcome each new country that rejects us, as long as we have Our Special Friend Israel, as a badge of pride.

***Over the years since Reagan left, a generation ago, conservatives of the Base have themselves lost their way and come to reject 3/4ths of the country. They have ended Reagan and Nixon’s “Big Tent” and “Silent Majority” for ever more exclusionary dogma – made even more ironic because it is mainly coming from Southern whites 1 generation removed from being Yellow Dog, inflexible Democrats and 3 generations from wearing KKK suits.
Their war with the traditional conservatives who were moderate Republicans in todays language who were for fiscal responsibility, small government, and strong defense and protecting America’s good jobs has been largely won, to their ruin. Because traditional Republican conservatives were moderate and fairly tolerant on social issues, as the original abolitionists, and social reformers battling Trusts and Robber Barons. The Party that had all the black Senators until 2000. The Party that embraced Mormons and which was strong with gays and Hispanics. It was the Party of the college-educated and upwardly mobile.***

I voted for the 1st time in my life, going back to Reagan, for a Democrat President this time. Everyone in my family did, too, except my old Dad, who is still an Eisenhower Republican, moderate, set in his ways. My brother in law, a Jack Mormon, said his relations in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming and California were disgusted by the Base’s transparent anti-Mormon bigotry towards Romney, and many sided with Obama…

Nov 12, 2008 - 9:06 am 194. Alan Poole:

Thanks to Mr. Avlon, I think I know how to guarentee that the Republican candidate wins in 2012.

It Mr. Obama runs again, let’s just make him our candidate too!
Then all will be happiness and joy!!

Amen!!!!!!

If you can’t whip’um join’um? I sure would not want this guy in a fox hole with me. To paraphrase,if you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything.

Nov 12, 2008 - 9:17 am 195. Troy Riser:

Beamer, I’m trying to follow the logic of your statement, especially where you described our country as ‘…a virtual police state when it comes to civil rights and national security.’ What in the blue blazing heck are you talking about? ‘A virtual police state’? Seriously? Tell you what: read ‘The Gulag Archepelago’. Now that was a police state. And do you genuinely believe 9-11 was the result of ‘the military industrial complex’? Yikes. You make these sweeping claims, btw, without one scintilla of supporting evidence or basis in fact. No worries, though: now that His Most Eminent Gloriousness is President-elect, all will be well: a place of sunshine and rainbows, where the pretty flowers pick themselves.

Nov 12, 2008 - 10:21 am 196. Micha Elyi:

Avlon claims “the old play-to-the-base tactics backfired badly this time.” Does anyone besides Avlon seriously believe that John McCain’s main appeal was to the GOP’s base?

The McCain campaign was based on snubbing the base and proved once again that RINO squish can’t win.

Nov 12, 2008 - 12:05 pm 197. Grover:

John: CAN YOU SAY,”RONALD REAGAN”?
CENTRISM IS LUNACY. If Mc Cain had roughed up Obama half as much as he did his primary opponents the election results would have been different. Even at the eleventh hour Palin added enough Conservativism to the race that the gap closed dramatically in the last few weeks. “It’s the conservatism, stupid”

Nov 12, 2008 - 12:09 pm 198. hoosiertoo:

Bwahahahahahaha! This was a parody piece, right?

I don’t who’s funnier, Avlon or cedarford.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:39 pm 199. goy:

@162. Tom in Hi: Bravo!

The myth of the middle is simple. It’s based on a fallacy. That would be, specifically, argumentum ad temperantiam, golden mean… whatever one likes to call it.

The middle, as a compromise between complex and not-at-all homogeneous extremes – loosely identified as “left” and “right” – is nothing more than the position between a morally incomplete, adolescent view and a morally comprehensive, mature view. As such, the “middle” erroneously accepts a 2+2=5 compromise derived from the argument for “6″ on the left and “4″ on the right.

Tom in HI – I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that the values and principles you’ve outlined are the worldview of the conservative, morally comprehensive view.

And by the way, this isn’t just my own observation, it’s something which has been demonstrated in virtually every culture examined – by liberal academics, no less. Of the five fundamental moral foundations, or “intuitive ethics” valued by successful cultures, those individuals who self-identify as “liberal” (i.e., the left) value only two; conservatives value all five comprehensively.

So as I stressed above, the error in either Party’s leadership following the herd into the “middle” is nonsense.

At one time not that long ago, we had Democratic and Republican Parties which valued much of Tom in HI’s list equally – they simply differed on the best way to pursue those principles (this was before the Democratic Party was hijacked by socialists and the Republican Party got old, leaderless and stupid). The resulting synergy between those two parties propelled the quality of human life in America far beyond that of the rest of the world in record time – just as it did America’s international influence and hegemony. And that would be the hundreds-of-billions-in-foreign-aid, sending-our-sons-off-to-liberate-Europe-from-the-Nazis kind of hegemony, not the fantastical imperialistic kind of hegemony.

In about 4 years – or 8, depending on how long it takes the lying, entrenched media to either wake up or die off – most folks are going to realize all this, just like they did in the aftermath of Carter’s morally adolescent policies.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:05 pm 200. N C:

Sorry but this is a lame column. McCain and Bush are both RINO’s. Trust me, you get another Regan who is just as appealing as a person and the RNC has a winner. You lame “moderate” Republicans can be best described as wimps (no offense to wimps of course). Being a conservative requires courage … which is in such short supply these days – and guess what, it is what has propelled this country forward, made it safe, and prosperous. Cheers.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:05 pm 201. Rashputin:

The democraps have a “brand”, something they repackage and tweak based on every poll. The conservatives were different and until they got into that “brand” mindset rather than stating that politics were too important to handle like so much day old bread they were doing fine. Once they fell into the polling trap, they lost it all.

“Center-ists”, well, someone has to be the toilet tissue brand and they seem to always be at the head of the selection list for that role. So, let them keep that role and rebuild the Republican Party without their great “insight”.

The first step in rebuilding the Republican Party and the conservative base (as well as bringing in a LOT of others) is to halt absolutely everything in the house until there is an independent investigator appointed to see why Fannie and Freddie went down the tubes under democrap supervision. Do that and you’ll see a surprising number of those who voted for Obama agreeing with you. Lead on an issue everyone else is avoiding like the plague and get it done while Bush is still in office and before the new Senators take their seats. Fight to make loans to banks congingent on their boards resigning before they can have the loan. Same for anyone else who wants bailout cash. No new management, no new cash. I know the cash has been allocated, but now’s the time to start the next campaign by demanding accountability from those who get it and from those who are mostly responsible for the need to have it allocated. If the dumb jerks still holding onto their seats aren’t smart enough to get this kind of thing rolling they’ll all be gone before long.

The democrat gang of thugs kept a drumbeat of negative crap going for the entire eight years of the Bush administration and that negative background noise made it easy to shift people’s opinions whenever a new hotbutton came along. If the folks now wondering how to rebuild the republican party think that being nicer than the other guys will help them then they should all start learning how to make a consession speech like McCain did rather than worrying about what needs changed. The KoS crew and others have a working methodology and you can either adapt to that and match them, or you can complain about it while you’re waiting in line for bread and circus tickets.

JMHO

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:45 pm 202. myth buster:

Hate to break it to you Beamer, but Al Queda doesn’t hate us for anything we’ve done, but rather because they’re Muslims and we’re not. In their eyes, there is nothing holier than going to war to impose their religion on unbelievers, kill those who refuse to convert, or die trying.

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:11 pm 203. The Historian:

MCCAIN’S TARNISHED HONOR

John McCain has damaged his own reputation for no apparent reason:

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/11/mccains-tarnished-honor.html

Nov 12, 2008 - 9:30 pm 204. Rashputin:

Sorry ‘myth buster’, but Beamer and his ilk can’t think that deeply. If they could, they’d be worried about our now having elected a president who has repudiated his Islamic faith. According to the Koran, that’s far, far, worse than simply being an infidel. Of course, Obama may have just lied about it and may actually still be a Muslim. In that case, he’s just another Democrat with an Arabic name who lies about his religion in order to get more votes.

Nov 12, 2008 - 9:32 pm 205. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: Look Who’s Talking

You have to get away from lumping everyone who disagrees with you as the left and setting up straw men to knock down. — Robert Hurley

And here YOU go doing exactly what you describe me doing. Lumping me in with people who stereotype.

I guess you failed to read my comment to Libsaremorons over on that thread on “Reported Obama-Hamas Contacts Bode Ill”

Do the people on the left hate Bush or his policies. — Robert Hurley

Based on the last eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome, you must have been asleep.

There is a degree of hate here that matches or exceeds that on the left. — Robert Hurley

Hardly. I don’t recall seeing anyone calling for murder. Or have you seen any television items with a picture of Obama and the text “Snipers Wanted”?

You seem intent on making judgments of people you don’t know. — Robert Hurley

I know them by the way the present their arguments here. And, once again, you’re behaving as I described in my first item of this reply to you.

Again, I suggest you see my last reply to you in that other thread and then consider how you’ve just embarrassed yourself here.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Projection is when they accuse you of things they do themselves. -- CBPelto]

Nov 13, 2008 - 3:58 am 206. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. ERRATA….

….that last item should read “my last reply to Libsaremorons about you”….

Nov 13, 2008 - 4:02 am 207. FatWhiteMan:

That “middle-of-the-road” and “reaching-across-the-aisle” crap really paid off,didn’t it? I have a better solution, just run candidates that actually adhere to the party platform for most of their Republican life, not just when they decide to run for President or Senate. A real conservative will win most times. When you water them down, what is the appeal over the commie de jur that the Democrats offer?

Nov 13, 2008 - 4:47 am 208. Chuck Pelto:

TO: FatWhiteMan
RE: Indeed

….just run candidates that actually adhere to the party platform for most of their Republican life, not just when they decide to run for President or Senate. — FatWhiteMan

Excellent point, that.

I didn’t vote for McCain. He’s a typical political hypocrite of the first water, see McCain-Feingold.

I voted for Palin in the hope of an early promotion.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. There are other issues inside the Repub Party that had significant impacts on the vote. Amongst those are:

[1] Old leadership that doesn’t understand and WON’T allow for use of new media to carry the message.

[Note: Locally, the party chair is LITERALLY 'in-bed' with the newspaper. He's married to the daughter of the publisher.

We set up a new web-site that was much more interactive, i.e., a bloggish sort of thing, turned it over to him and he did NOTHING with it.

Personally, I suspect his allegiance is to the newspaper that will not allow competition of it's monopoly over public opinion molding.]

There are other issues as well, but not enough bandwidth to cover them here….unless Roger L. Simon turns over control of PJM to me….

Nov 13, 2008 - 5:30 am 209. Andrew Ian Dodge:

Sorry about the duplication above…this piece so incensed me I must have hit submit twice.

Nov 13, 2008 - 6:02 am 210. kochevnik:

myth buster,

Hate to break it to you, but Al Queda is a database and is incabable of what you claim. Name some names and answer some journalism 101 points like who, what, where, when.

Nov 13, 2008 - 8:02 am 211. Levi Rocks:

Meh. Doubt it

Nov 13, 2008 - 8:39 am 212. LouAnn:

Our federal government needs serious reform — downsizing. (Fat chance getting that for Christmas.) McCain and Palin both have that record of reform in government. Those who have miraculously managed careers with reform as a centerpiece are lucky and few — and are likely very much hated by those who wish to plunder taxpayers. Reform is no way to make friends in politics. Interesting to note, McCain was criticized by his own for being too conciliatory throughout his career. How would a president, with limited powers, reign in Congress without some form of negotiation to drive them to the right goal? Republicans themselves have strayed unforgivably far from the platform of frugal government — the firm call to come back to the fold should start with them. We need a small, lean national government and stronger state governments with higher accountability and voters more directly involved, as Madison envisioned it.

But it doesn’t much matter anymore. After this election, I’m convinced meaningful reform won’t ever take place. Self-serving career politicians would never have it, and lobbyists would fight against it with their last penny. State governments are too dependent on earmarks, and the voters reward the politicians for bringing home the pork. Most of the electorate have dug such deep pits of personal debt that a promise from a wily candidate to spread the wealth around was just the bait they needed — a pitch made solidly to the middle class. Financially strapped “conservatives” mumbled under their breath, “Yes, we want some of that, too!” And they appropriated the “needy poor” as poster child to cover for their selfish vote and borrowed the press’ hatred for Bush to cover for their crossing the lines to vote for a murky candidate that gives goodies (we don’t want 4 more years of Bush/McBush/McSame!).

And these foolish conservatives assembled their viewpoints using the shoddy reporting by the very media they claim to despise. I’ve seen conservative posts on blogs decrying how McCain wasn’t tough enough on Obama and other conservative posts decrying how he ran a mean-spirited campaign with nothing but attacks on Obama. Conservatives are a confused lot. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. We screwed ourselves.

Nov 13, 2008 - 8:44 am 213. LouAnn:

cedarford: “That Republicans must become tolerant again …”

Maybe I have a different set of Republican friends than you. I see plenty of flaws — see my earlier post — but not the racist intolerance you apparently do. Could you give us some real-life examples here?

In the interest of disclosure, not that it matters, I’m looking at alternative parties, as I don’t see any appreciable difference between either party — both spend like mad and reward themselves with too much power. You can pick apart the details to support one over the other, but you’d only be saying that the end justifies the means (expanding government). What’s critical is weighing ideas against reality and past outcomes. No wonder our leaders are so short-sighted … we never measure their outcomes.

Nov 13, 2008 - 9:06 am 214. Dave in Texas:

I can’t imagine a centrist solving a problem that’s a choice between right and wrong. There is no center on such issues.

That is why so many liberal lefty issues are framed deceptively.

Take abortion. I am certain that an unborn child is a human being. My faith and my common sense tell me this. If the lefties were so convinced that it’s not true, they would simply argue on this line. But NOBODY argues that an unborn child is definitely NOT a human being. Instead, they argue that it’s a question of WOMEN”S rights.

As if a woman has the right to murder someone.

Take tax and spend. Welfare, redistribution. I argue that I work for my money, to care for my family, and I do not owe a living to people I don’t know and am not related to. I argue that my labor goes to produce for my purposes, that I ‘own’ my ‘wealth’ by right.

The liberal argument? “poor people must be cared for, and those who refuse are greedy and evil.”

America is the most charitable nation on earth by a factor of ten. Imagine how much more we’d do for the poor if only we didn’t have our money stolen by government and used to buy votes for the party we oppose! And government skims a substantial part, sometimes seventy percent or more, for expenses. Not only is the taxation and redistribution part largely immoral and wrong, it’s also sinfully inefficient.

But you cannot find a center in this. If you come away from the ‘feed the poor, pay your taxes’ argument, you are increasing in cruelty by degrees, as they see it. And if you come away from the right and allow for SOME taxation and redistribution, you are stealing from the productive and denying them the fruits of their labor, more and more, by degree. Immorality and cruelty from both sides’ view, that’s CENTRISM.

No, we on the right should identify, publicize and define what principles we hold dear, and then boldly and bravely speak for them and stick to them. The problems we’re having are clearly because we’re NOT doing that.

Nov 13, 2008 - 9:23 am 215. LouAnn:

Dave: The liberal argument? “poor people must be cared for, and those who refuse are greedy and evil.”

Prof. Arthur Brooks at the Univ of Syracuse studied charitable giving in the conservative vs. liberal communities (”Who Really Cares”). Results: conservative-headed households donate 30% more than liberal-headed households.

We’re already doing it. We just aren’t waiting for government to make it happen.

Nov 13, 2008 - 9:36 am 216. Roy N:

Hi LouAnn.

30% of what?

Nov 13, 2008 - 10:16 am 217. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Cedarford
RE: Tolerant, Again

That Republicans must become tolerant again. — Cedarford

Always have been ‘tolerant’. But tell me, C’ford….

….where do YOU draw the line on ‘tolerance’?

Rapists?
Pedophiles?
Human sacrifice by Satanists?

Does ‘tolerance’ have a ‘limit’ with you? If so….where?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. -- G.K. Chesterton]

Nov 13, 2008 - 11:52 am 218. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Hmmmm

I see that my query to the author of this thread was not allowed to appear.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[What's in a name? Merde by any other name would still smell.... -- The Bard (paraphrased)]

Nov 13, 2008 - 12:05 pm 219. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. The query was about how to spell the surname of the author….

Avlon, which I first noticed when I first posted a comment here, item #2. Or Avalon, which some people were complaining was the proper spelling and the system changed to that.

But now I see it is back to Avlon again. And I’m curious over the ‘confusion’. I suspect something to do with ‘liberal-progressive’ malaise…..

Nov 13, 2008 - 12:08 pm 220. kochevnik:

Chuck,

Consenting adults and not harming third parties would be a good start.

Can I call you Khan?

“….where do YOU draw the line on ‘tolerance’?”

Nov 13, 2008 - 12:47 pm 221. LouAnn:

Roy N.: $

Chuck Pelto: Great Chesterton quote!

Nov 13, 2008 - 12:58 pm 222. Chuck Pelto:

TO: kochevnik
RE: Khan?

Can I call you Khan? — kochevnik

Although the native language of my Old World ancestry has roots in Korean, I’m of 100% Scandinavian blood-lines. So ‘Khan’ is not quite apropos.

You can call me ‘Berserker’ if you like.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. As for ‘consenting adults’. I don’t mind.

As for ‘harming third parties’…..

…..stop me if you’ve heard this one before….

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. — Some Wag, around 2000 years ago

I understand that passage to mean that one should not harm or teach a child to do what is ‘evil’.

The proverbial ‘devil in the details’ is who decides what is ‘evil’ and what standard are they using?

Nov 13, 2008 - 1:37 pm 223. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. I’ve seen reports from the vaunted APA, over the last ten years, that pedophilia is just okay with some of their people…..

…but is it? Really?

Nov 13, 2008 - 1:39 pm 224. FTracy3:

Since the article starts off by calling George Bush a conservative, the rest of its logic escapes me. A conservative? Bush has expanded government in ways LBJ could only dream of. He’s been a disaster on the border. The Democrats ran their most liberal ticket ever and won. Republicans won’t win by trying to be more like Democrats–voters need a clear choice. Being conservative does not mean we’ll win, but a shift to the middle does mean we’ll probably lose. I’ll be happy to change my mind if you can articulate exactly what the principles of middle of the road Republicanism are. I do think Republicans need to appeal to the center but that does not mean moving to the center. We have to better articulate conservatism strengths and address its weaknesses (unregulated free markets gone amok, a perceived lack of concern for the poor, etc). And we can support values that work for the Christian Right without being stuck as a Christian Right party which turns off the middle (you know, the party that won’t nominate Mitt Romney because he’s a..a..a..Mormon!).

Nov 13, 2008 - 1:50 pm 225. Thomas Jackson:

I guess the author’s dream for the GOP is to mirror the Dhimmierats. If the GOP is going to win it needs to recognize that people like the author really aren’t happy with the principles of conservativism nor do they recognize that the GOP can ever compete with the dhimmies in the great dependency game.

As far as moderates go, who can name a moderate party in the USA. Moderqates are people who follow the flavor of the moment. Having neither the interest nor focus to make up their minds about such ever changing issues as school vouchers, the death penalty, the second amnedment, illegal immigration, taxes, government intervention in private industry, they remain undecided. Yeah you can build a party on people who can’t make up their minds about the death peanlty for terrorists or child molesters.

If the GOP follows this twit’s advise we’ll see more Specters and McCains. Or we can follow the example Reagan gave us when he beat his opponents by double digits, somthing no dhimmierat has done in 60 years.

Nov 13, 2008 - 3:25 pm 226. Rashputin:

There will be a LOT more of these calls to turn away from true conservative roots. Much of it will come from the current “victors” of the election process because they’re looking at their own victory and see how weak it is. Obama has ran for the office longer than anyone I can remember, he had the entire traditional media in his pocket, he had more money than anyone in history, and he had eight years of negative BS about Bush to surf on. For all of that, he got 53%. That doesn’t bode well for he and his gang holding onto their new power unless they do manage to deliver on their impossible promises or they do manage to suspend democracy before the next election.

The more these weasels chant, “move to the center” the more I realize how afraid of true conservative candidates they really are.

Nov 14, 2008 - 12:11 am 227. DaveinPhoenix:

Every time we hear the words “move towards the center” we should replace them with “move towards the left “because that is exactly what we’re talking about here. The financial mess we are currently in was caused by weenie centrist Republicans who kept their mouths (mostly) shut while Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Bill drove lending practices into the ground. No thanks. I’ll stand by my core principles in life and hope we can someday find a Conservative politician who does the same.

Nov 14, 2008 - 4:51 am 228. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: John Avlon & Moral Basis

I notice that John has refused to divulge the basis for his moral understanding of the world. Therefore, I’ll accept that he is an atheist.

What’s my point?

This….

….that an atheist has NO moral code that can be relied upon. They make it up as they go along, always following the course that seems ‘best’ to them….for whatever or no reason.

The question becomes….

….can anyone actually trust anything such a person says? In my honest opinion, the logical answer is ‘no’. Why? Because to them, as with Communists, “Today’s truth is tomorrow’s lie.”

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I am the lord my god. Though shalt have no other god besides ME. -- atheist's first commandment]

Nov 14, 2008 - 8:35 am 229. kochevnik:

Obama 365 McCain 162

53%? Rashputin, at what point did you and maths go separate ways?

Nov 14, 2008 - 9:07 am 230. ginsocal:

What is it with all these pathetic “centrist” articles on PJM these days? Wretchard and insty are about all you have left worth reading. Oh, plus VDH, of course.

It’s pretty obvious by now that the much vaunted “center” is largely made up of people who don’t really care, or think about politics. They will vote on their perception of the “goodness” or “badness” of the candidate, or measure, or the overall status of the country, at the time of their vote. There’s no profit in moving to the center, because there’s really no one there.

koch, I think he was talking about the popular vote, not the electoral vote.

Nov 14, 2008 - 10:26 am 231. deguello:

Hey Avlon,get your head out of Obamas’ anus,breathe some fresh air, and stop writing the same kind of defeatist bilge that Bush implemented,as “compassionate conservatism”.That really worked didn’t it! BTW: there is not a single centrist republican congressman left in New England! Remember Chris Hayes? He listened to idiots like you,and he is now unemployed.Why don’t you just cut the crsap, and join the democratic party?

Nov 14, 2008 - 10:48 am 232. kevin c:

AVLON, I HEARD THIS SAME TENOR OUT OF CHRIS SHAYS UPCHUCK HAGEL AND OUR MISS DAVID BROOKS. TAKING ADVICE FROM OUT LOSERS? AVLON,TAKING ADVICE HOW TO WIN FROM “MODERATES” IS LIKE THE NY YANKEES TAKING ADVICE ON HOW TO WIN WORKD SERIES FROM THE CHICAGO CUBS. OR LIKE MICHAEL JORDAN TAKING ADVICE ON HOW TO STAR IN BASKETBALL BY PLAYING LIKE HENRY FINKEL INSTEAD OF JULIUS ERVING. WHATS THE OLD LINE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE WHO WALK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD-YOU GET RUN OVER. TELL ME AVLON-HOW MANY OF YOUR “MODERATE GOP” ARE NOW REPRESENTING THE GOP IN THE HOUSE? OOPS NONE RIGHT? SO MUCH FOR YOUR “ADVICE”. GO BACK TO GETTING RUN OVER. I PREFER TO BE THE ROADRUNNER, NOT THE COYOTE.

Nov 14, 2008 - 12:10 pm 233. kevin c:

FORCED BUSING,AFFIRMATIVE CONTAMINATION, “CARD CHECK”-I WONDER WHOS FORCING WHAT ON WHO? I HAVE TO PAY TAXES-THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED UNDER WILSON. WHOS BEHIND AFFIRMATIVE CONTAMINATION? DEMON RATS. AND YOU COMMIE SCUM TALK ABOUT JERRY FALWELL AND PAT ROBERTSON.

Nov 14, 2008 - 12:40 pm 234. hawaiianninja:

McCain not being conservative enough isn’t a myth, it’s a fact. Just check his voting record and some of the legislation he’s been part of. Keep in mind, your MSM downplayed or outright denied or covered-up Obama’s leftist ideologies. Obama himself started sounding more like Reagan and started shifting to the right in his speeches.

While McCain was busy trying to be centrist, which your article says he didn’t do enough of, his campaign got a boost when he chose someone who leaned more right. So why do you think that is? (You don’t have to answer. Just from reading this column, I’m sure your opinion is doesn’t match mine, anyway.)

Yes, the country as a whole tends to be centered, as it should be. Now that it has once again swung TOO FAR to the left, one can only hope that the “people in the middle” will be swayed to the right to bring it back to center again. But before that can happen, we will have to survive the damages this administration will cause, just as we are now suffering the damages created by a Democrat President in the 70’s before Reagan.

Quite frankly, to me, conservatism IS CENTERED. This is a massage that is never brought to the forefront because of socialistic media bias. Conservatism is not Republican or Democrat. Conservatives happen to find their home in the Republican party; who unfortunately, has been alienating conservatives. (I wonder why? Oh yeah, they’re trying to attract people in the middle! No wonder Republican’s control Congress! NOT!)

If the Republican party continues to be Democrat-lite and forgo principled values, true conservatives need to rally. We need to get our message that we represent freedom, liberty, and individualism–what all of us in the center want. Not regulation, welfare, and racial/social profiling. The struggle for Conservatives will be hard; after all, the Socialists in this country have a lot of capital and media-pull. But we’re Conservatives. We always pull our bootstraps up.

Nov 14, 2008 - 2:17 pm 235. Boris:

kevin, your CAPS LOCK KEY appears to be lodged in the part of your brain responsible for logical thought. Please get it looked at, or, in your language: YOUR KEYBOARD IN A LIBERAL WHO WANTS TO RAISE TAXES ON YOUR MIND1

Nov 14, 2008 - 2:26 pm 236. Dave D:

Mccain didn’t come from behind to win the primaries-what happened was huckabee splitting the vote and then endorsing mccain over romney. Out of all of them, Mccain was the weakest candidate, and it was grating to see candidates who would have thrashed Obama, like Giulani, not make any attempt to run the race.

Mccain also didn’t seem to have any idea how to run a campaign. When your VP pick gets more attention than you do, and after you feel the need to pin the loss on her, it’s symptomatic of a lack in you.

I’m not really agreeing with all the calls to centrism, mostly because everything you list already exist in some form as either the blue dog democrats or the libertarians. Neither of them are any real political force, and it wasn’t either of them that helped propel obama to a win.

Nov 14, 2008 - 3:32 pm 237. Dac:

John McCain lost because he had no “center of gravity”. He had no coherent vision for America. He threw out a sentence here and a sentence there about jobs, energy, the economy, the environment, etc. Had he ever thought it all out and formed an overarching vision, so that the relationship of one issue to another were clear, the outcome of the election would have been different. It had nothing to do with “too much conservatism.” If the GOP wants to change it’s platform and leave conservatives behind, good luck MAKING UP the votes elsewhere…to say nothing of finding the extra votes you need to win an election.

Nov 14, 2008 - 3:39 pm 238. Ipsa:

John McCain was an incompetent campaigner who was unable to explain that the genesis of our current economic problems pointed more at the Democrats than the GOP. He has also tied himself to global warming and was unable to speak convincingly about what an energy policy overhaul would look like.

Nov 14, 2008 - 4:01 pm 239. Dougal:

Do the milk drinking oreo dipping corner sitting please include me wanna be loved “moderates” still not get it. The Liberals love you because you are like their favorite pet in the zoo. They feed you and show enough attention to keep you alive, but you never ever get let out or have any free will of your own. Sorry for not sugar coating the way you “centrists” are really seen, however, like my children it’s time for reality to set in for the long haul. I mean, at least my kids have an excuse, well, their kids. Like children, those who are the recipients of your “understanding and caring” policies rather than some discipline and personal responsibility will throw a tantrum every time the umbilical cord is threatened. Reagan was not infallable and he made some mistakes, but he was running in the right direction. (excuse the cheesy unintended pun at the end)

Nov 14, 2008 - 5:51 pm 240. liberty4usa:

Conservative principles work and win, we have tried the centrist baloney!

Nov 14, 2008 - 11:19 pm 241. elinor stickney:

McCain could never be conservative enough for the far right wing of the Republican party. I am not far right and I voted for McCain but I honestly never liked the man. I thought he was a real wimp in the debates.

Nov 14, 2008 - 11:23 pm 242. G Alston:

#225 Thomas Jackson

“Moderates are people who follow the flavor of the moment. Having neither the interest nor focus to make up their minds about such ever changing issues as school vouchers, the death penalty, the second amnedment, illegal immigration, taxes, government intervention in private industry, they remain undecided.”

You see, there’s your problem right there, using a definition of “moderate” that you made up. You couldn’t be further afield. Moderates are those who know right from wrong and have opinions on some of these issues you may not agree with.

e.g. you can call me a moderate if you like. I don’t think school vouchers are the answer to the problem. I think education ought to be broken into tracks; a college education is not the answer to all problems. Some people are better off going to a trade school. College isn’t for everyone. Vouchers don’t address what I think is the underlying problem.

So if I fail to support vouchers, people like you wish to label me as not a real conservative, a RINO, a wishy washy moderate with no moral compass, and so on.

Get a clue.

Nov 15, 2008 - 10:11 am 243. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: Actually….

You see, there’s your problem right there, using a definition of “moderate” that you made up. You couldn’t be further afield. Moderates are those who know right from wrong and have opinions on some of these issues you may not agree with. — G Alston to Thomas Jackson

….I think Thomas has it pretty them [moderates] pegged. They have no REAL moral standard. They just ‘go along to get along’.

However, unlike your strawman arg about ‘vouchers’, ‘conservatives’ are not interested so much in ‘vouchers’ as getting a HONEST education. And that might be achievable by the use of ‘vouchers’.

Sakes. I sit on a city-county commission and I continually hear the local [vaunted American public education system] school board vent and polemic about the evil of ‘charter schools’. And then I hear the local university rep try to explain why so many freshmen drop out of the university during their first year.

Why? BECAUSE THEY CAN’T READ, WRITE, or do ADVANCED MATH. And WHY is THAT???!??!?!

So drop your stupid strawman and pick up a pen and write your editor about why your children can’t do squat!

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Education was to replace an empty mind with an open one. These days it seems to replace an empty mind with a vacuum. -- CBPelto]

Nov 15, 2008 - 4:44 pm 244. JimCap:

Look, all the Republicans have to do is nominate someone like Michael Steele or Bobby Jindal and our problems are solved. You see, they can implement the same policies as Reagan or Gingrich, but because they aren’t white, no one will notice and they’ll still vote for them.

Problem solved!

You see, the Republican Party doesn’t have to change ANY of it’s policies that favor the richest 1% or that ship good jobs overseas or that pollute the environment. All they have to do is to put a non-white face on the label and people will buy it.

We all know how gullible the public is. Don’t worry. We can continue with what we’ve done for years. Just slap a new face on the old product!

That’ll work like a charm!!!

Nov 19, 2008 - 2:45 pm 245. stalin:

pelto, I’ll bet you never get tired of quoting yourself.

Nov 23, 2008 - 2:31 pm 246. Southern Bread » The Mythical Center:

[...] –John Avlon [...]

Sep 28, 2009 - 7:34 am

Write a Comment

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