The Fight For the Soul of the GOP: Rush, Parker, Dobson and Kondracke

I think he got it right. The repubs need to bt the conservative party- not the middle of the road party.The question now is- what do we do with a socialist president and a far-left, radical congress?

Dave,

I respectively disagree. Kathleen Parker and Mort Kondracke are far closer to the truth on the problems in the GOP, and I still maintain the 46% the GOP got had more to do with white America fearing the backlash of a black president.

Call it passive racism.

Everyone has a bit of "ism" in them, but most of us are able to overlook it when it really counts. We may avoid certain neighborhoods, but won't form lynch parties, act respectfully on established neutral ground. The White House is not established neutral ground yet, much like the baseball diamond before Jackie Robinson or the quarterback slot before the likes of Kenny Washington (but it was Joe Gilliam who really opened the door in the 70's). A lot of us weren't ready for a black president. We worried that we would lose ground in a backlash. We worried that the inequity we supported with silence would be reversed, and time will be the only cure.

When I was a kid, the phrase, "two things you never discuss are religion and politics," was drilled into my head. Today both not only are discussed regularly, but somehow they have become the same conversation. It has only been recently that we even asked what church our politicians go to, let alone what politician best suits our churches. We never really talked about the Bible outside of the home and church, and typically the "God fearing man" described a really good, honest, decent, generous, person who pretty much kept to himself. Soapbox Evangelicals typically were comic relief. But the soapbox got replaced by the boob tube, a few atheist groups pushed a safety net, and a lot of people jumped on the unthinkable bandwagon . . . a bad, dangerous move.

The GOP ate up the religious right, because it was dependable, but it is as equally demanding. The GOP ate up the conservative shock jocks, because they had big audiences and could freak people out, but they are ill informed money grubbing morons which tend to dummy down those who buy into them. In acquiescing to them, the GOP lost its intelligence, found "good ole boys" to lead, and surrendered the middle, which was ripe for the picking by the likes of a smart, well spoken, organized, get it done candidate. This cycle, we gave them a name: independents. Until recently, they were labelled by either party name.

The democrats won the battle of the middle, the majority, and if Obama can establish the White House as neutral ground, black will not be a factor down the road. The GOP can't let the 46% make it think this was close, if it wants a shot. Bush's rating should be the number they take most seriously, only the religious nutjobs and Limbaugh loyalists left to praise this guy. You won't win any election catering to these two groups.

Republicans missed a wonderful oppertunity in Ron Paul. Now they can repent in leisure.

First, as others have said, there is the Bush factor. Nothing you can do about that. I don't think it really mattered who you put up, they weren't going to win. They might have done better than McCain/Palin, but they still would have lost.

Factor out Bush and you would have still had a hard time against Obama. He was an attractive, well spoken, media savvy candidate who had an excellent campaign organization behind him and who, by his very nature, appealed strongly to two voting blocks that rarely vote, and yet did this time around. He turned out the party, as evidenced by Republican losses in other races.

McCain/Palin did not appeal to the independent or undecided voter (frankly I think the only difference between the two is when they make their decision. I think that when it comes down to it they use similar criteria for making their decisions). They're the reason the margin of victory was as large as it was.

If you look at the congressional races where Republicans lost, most were closer than the Presidential race. That's what you should be looking at. That's more indicative of what would have happened in the presidential race had the tickets had candidates of relatively similar general appeal.

I don't think it was wrong to run McCain/Palin. As I've said from the start, give McCain his shot. There was really no chance of winning this time around, even with the most attractive Republican candidate. So go with the Hail Mary. If it works or upsets the apple cart a bit, great. If it doesn't, no big surprise.

The differences between the Republican and Democratic parties that have been there for the last 30 some odd years are still there. This race wasn't a litmus test on the validity of one side or the other. It was a reaction to Bush coupled with a "can't lose" candidate for the Democrats.

Picking apart the party and pointing fingers is natural, but not really productive. And like the fascination with Palin, it will blow over eventually. Next time around we'll be running against the Obama record. We have absolutely no idea what that will be at this point. It's possible that the enthusiasm he brought to this race won't be a factor in the next one. Or maybe it will.

What we need to do is evaluate potential candidates from their mass appeal standpoint and support and groom those. It may seem superficial, but superficial (along with incumbent backlash) is what won this race for the Democrats.

bob7:29AMNov 26th 2008
"...What we need to do is evaluate potential candidates from their mass appeal standpoint and support and groom those. It may seem superficial, but superficial (along with incumbent backlash) is what won this race for the Democrats."
----------------------------------
Bob, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think this statement is way too simplistic. Many people elect candidates (in both parites) because of the merely superficial. The two-party system exacerbates it. There are way too many divisions in both parties, but particularly in the GOP, to nominate a candidate that satisfies all sides. That's why we end up with mediocre candidates, and no side being particularly happy.

Party affiliation makes voting "easy" because it puts candidates in a particular box, and we as the voter don't have to do much research and reasoning to find the best fit. That's also why most national elections have been decided in the recent past by the small amount of "independant" voters. Independant voters are not party idealogs, and will swing to the side that best reflects how they feel at that particular moment in time. Bush's election and re-election were never a GOP generational shift, and Obama's will not mean a generational Democratic shift from this time forward.

I do think that the GOP needs to do some retooling of its party message. The best thing that it could do is actively pursue other demographics besides the white south and the white mountain west.

I "voted" for Dobson because I think his views are the most likely to further marginalize the GOP and the "conservative movement," and I think that would be a good thing for the country.

But as for what's good for the GOP, I agree with the previous commenters. Whether you let the Dobsons and Limbaughs in your "big tent" or not is mostly irrelevant, but you can't let them dictate your ideas. Sure, in elections as close as 2000 and 2004, Karl Rove's "4 million evangelicals" can make the difference. But most of the time, most of your "base" is going to vote for you anyway, and you need more than them to win. You need the center.

Which is not to say that a "mainstream conservative" party (and by any sensible definition, John McCain and Mitt Romney are both mainstream conservatives) doesn't have a future in the U.S. Hell, sometimes I even agree with them (;-).

There's an old saying- If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

The Republicans have gotten away from true Reagan conservatism. What they now stand for is vague, at best. If they stand united with conservative values of limited government, pro individuality and freedom, national security, lower taxes, and fiscal responsibility, they will regain the White House and Congress. What goes around comes around in politics.

The current economy, I believe, is the main reason the Republicans lost this election. History, however, shows that conservative government is good for the economy, where as liberal government is not.

United we prevailed. Divided we failed. Republicans have to be the party of unity and true conservative principals. Bipartisanship was tried, and it failed. The democrats will stick to their liberal guns. The Republicans must stick by their conservative ones.

I have to disagree with Jay. Any Republican who would co-sponser a bill with the likes of Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, and Russ Feingold, is not a mainstream conservative (McCain). I believe, however, that Mitt Romney is. I also believe Sarah Palin is. I could see a conservative ticket with them in 2012. It's still a long way off, though.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Sorry, Dave, Kathleen Parker is absolutely right. The old GOP issues of God, guns, and gays is not working anymore.
As to the 'big tent party' thing, I have heard this over and over from the Republican National Committee. Trouble is, the GOP does not look like the big tent party and they know it. When Barry Goldwater was still living, he stated the Republican party ought to kick people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson in the ass and boot them out of the party. Indeed.

Considering the above comments, it seems that Judaeo-Christian ethics cannot be discussed affirmatively, but be pushed into the background to be ignored or followed as only a purely personal choice. Further, the ones who might venture to simply affirm these principles publicly are met with hostility and the ultimate intelligentsia put down of being dumb. Strange treatment for the major element of our Western Civilization success.

DavesRaves 2:13PM Nov 26th 2008 wrote:

>I have to disagree with Jay. Any Republican who would
>co-sponser a bill with the likes of Ted Kennedy, Joe
>Lieberman, and Russ Feingold, is not a mainstream
>conservative (McCain).

And that attitude is precisely why conservatism is dying
today. Was Everett Dirksen (R-IL) not a "mainstream conservative"? He co-sponsored (or at least broke the southern Democratic filibuster on) the Civil Rights bills, in alliance with every liberal Democrat in Congress, and the most liberal President in my lifetime. Conservative patron saint Barry Goldwater voted against that, as it happens, but he also handpicked McCain as his successor, and as David S. points out, had absolutely no use for the Dobson crowd. (As McCain didn't until he decided he needed them if he wanted to be President.) What's "unconservative" about environmental conservation (McCain-Lieberman), welcoming orderly immigration while securing the border (McCain-Kennedy), or fighting corruption (McCain-Feingold)?


Robert M. Clark 9:32AM Nov 27th 2008 wrote:

>Considering the above comments, it seems that
>Judaeo-Christian ethics cannot be discussed affirmatively....
>Strange treatment for the major element of our Western
>Civilization success.

Show me a single comment (pro *or* con) above that has anything to do with Judaeo-Christian *ethics*. While such ethics are arguably a "major element of our Western Civilization success," the specific Judaeo-Christian *religion* is far from the sole source of such ethics. They're shared in large part by Islam, Buddhism, the Deism of many of the Founders, and the much-maligned "secular humanism" of today. What commenters here and elsewhere don't like about Dobson et al. is things like the gay-bashing, the divisiveness, and the dismissal of science. None of which have a whole lot to do with Judaeo-Christian (or any other) religion, or anything whatsoever to do with ethics.

Happy Thanksgiving, all!

Can anyone refute the statement that Judeo-Christian beliefs formed the basis of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and, as a result, became the foundation that subsequently enabled this country to become the greatest country in the history of mankind?

>Can anyone refute the statement that Judeo-Christian beliefs
>formed the basis of our Declaration of Independence and
>Constitution

Yes, "anyone" can who bothers to find out anything about the people who wrote them. The author of the Declaration, the primary agitator for its production and adoption, the smartest person to attend the deliberations on both documents, and a lot of the other people involved, were Deists, which is a far cry from "Judeo-Christian beliefs" as espoused by Dobson & co. Every single one of them, and most of those Founders who *were* "Judeo-Christian," would have been horrified at the attempts of Dobson and the like to intertwine *any* specific religious beliefs or practices in the government at all, let alone its "foundation." That's not just my speculation. They *were* horrified at the way various colonial governments did just that. There's a reason why "no establishment of religion" is the first clause of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. (For the influence of one particular *un*-established (though as it happens also "Judeo-Christian") religious group on the thinking of the chief author of the Bill of Rights, see e.g. H. Sigerman, "Apostles of Liberty," in "A Place at the Table: Struggles for Equality in America," ed. M. Fleming (Montgomery AL: Teaching Tolerance, 2000). Out of print, but still available from Amazon and the like.)

DaveS, Kathleen is right but also, someone does have to fight to keep our lst and 2nd Amendment rights. It is one thing to protect our right to freedom of religion and yes I agree with seperation of church and state.

DavesRaves wrote:

"The Republicans have gotten away from true Reagan conservatism. What they now stand for is vague, at best. If they stand united with conservative values of limited government, pro individuality and freedom, national security, lower taxes, and fiscal responsibility, they will regain the White House and Congress."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In my humble opinion, THAT worked for Reagan because of the context in which he came of age. I am not so sure that many people continue to buy the 'The government is the problem' line feverishly delivered by the most recent Republican ticket. You have to be aware of the fact that, if it had not been for the Government, we might all be running the sidewalk, looking for jobs by now.

Personally, I would favor a more accountable, efficient and transparent government. In addition I certainly do not believe that free markets are always the answer. In some cases oversight and regulation are needed. 'Self-regulation' is a joke.

Realistic and enforced capital requirements for financial institutions are a necessity. The really BIG scandal at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was not what attracted the wrath of the Right (the manipulation of the numbers to ensure that Management would get nice bonuses), it was that the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had not been required to hold more capital than they had. None of that can be achieved without stronger regulation and oversight.

It is part of human nature to want to 'cut corners', often to make more money. I have no problems with that attitude as long as those and only those who cut corners come to pay when things don't go 'according to plans'. I have a MAJOR problem with that attitude when those who cut corners expect others to pay the bill.

With all fairness, Mr. Limbaugh is a very gifted talker and so often very entertaining to listen to. The problem however, is that most Republicans now believe that he has answers to all problems. This has been going on for several years and Mr. Limbaugh has also convinced himself that he does indeed have the answers to all problems. Mr. Limbaugh has now made himself the final court of appeal for the Republican Party. Mr. Limbaugh has now elevated himself as a tenured professor of economics, government, political science and law. What he says is final. Consider this; when President-elect Obama announced his economic team with names such as Volcker and Summers, Mr. Limbaugh came on the air to call Obama’s economic team “a bunch of same old same old who do not have any clue about economics”. How could Mr. Limbaugh call Dr. Summers as someone who does not know anything about economics? Where did Mr. Limbaugh study his economics? Where did Mr. Limbaugh go to school? Since Mr. Limbaugh specifically mentioned Dr. Volcker and Dr. Summers, it fair to compare Mr. Limbaugh with Dr. Volcker and Dr. Summers to help an average Republican to understand why the Republican Party has been put to sleep to be operated on not by a surgeon but by a butcher.

Volcker: Volcker grew up in Teaneck, New Jersey, where he graduated from Teaneck High School, and his father was the township's first Municipal manager.[2] Volcker's undergraduate education was at Princeton University; he graduated in 1949. He earned his M.A. in political economy from Harvard University in 1951 and then attended the London School of Economics from 1951 to 1952 as a Rotary Foundation Ambassadorial Fellow. He has received honorary degrees from several educational institutions including: University of Notre Dame, Princeton University, Dartmouth College, New York University, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Bryant College, Adelphi University, Lamar University, Bates College (1989), Fairfield University (1994), Northwestern University (2004), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (2005), Brown University (2006), and Georgetown University (2007).
Lawrence Henry "Larry" Summers (born November 30, 1954) is an American economist. Born in New Haven, Connecticut, on November 30, 1954, Summers is the son of two economists – both professors at the University of Pennsylvania – as well as the nephew of two Nobel laureates in economics: Paul Samuelson (sibling of father Robert Summers. He spent most of his childhood in Penn Valley, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia, where he attended Harriton High School. At age 16, he entered the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he originally intended to study physics but soon switched to economics (S.B., 1975). He was also an active member of the MIT debating team. He attended Harvard University as a graduate student (Ph.D., 1982), where he studied under economist Martin Feldstein. He has taught at both Harvard and MIT. In 1983, at age 28, Summers became one of the youngest tenured professors in Harvard's history. Summers also served as President of Harvard.

Limbaugh: Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969 at the bottom of his class. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class.[1] As she told a reporter in 1992. All of a sudden, Mr. Rush Limbaugh has now become the Professor of Economics for the Republican Party and the Conservatives in the United States of America. Rush believes that the education of Mr. and Mrs. Obama at Princeton, Columbia and Harvard is useless.

Make no mistake about it; this Great nation was not founded by good talkers but by highly intellectual individuals who subjugated their minds for formal trained knowledge. Without formal training, Thomas Jefferson would have not been able to produce the first draft of the Constitution of the United States. Consider this: In 1760 Thomas Jefferson entered The College of William & Mary in Williamsburg at the age of 16; he studied there for two years, graduating with highest honors in 1762. At William & Mary, he enrolled in the philosophy school and studied mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy under Professor William Small, who introduced the enthusiastic Jefferson to the writings of the British Empiricists, including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton (Jefferson called them the "three greatest men the world had ever produced").[6] He also perfected his French, carried his Greek grammar book wherever he went, practiced the violin, and read Tacitus and Homer. A keen and diligent student, Jefferson displayed an avid curiosity in all fields and, according to the family tradition, frequently studied fifteen hours a day. His closest college friend, John Page of Rosewell, reported that Jefferson "could tear himself away from his dearest friends to fly to his studies." After graduating in 1762 with highest honors, he studied law with George Wythe and was admitted to the Virginia bar in 1767.

We can continue to listen to Mr. Limbaugh talk about talking but it a big mistake to make him the professor of economics for the Republican Party. It is like going to a good butcher to operate on you because he knows how to slice beef.

Amos, you can say that again.