Whatever polls may say, the majority of the American people do not embrace higher taxes, the culture of perpetual victimhood, government intervention in their lives, the taking of innocent life and the defeat of our military at the hands of those who would see us all dead.
This past weekend saw the vocalization of a much hoped-for wish of liberals everywhere: that, as one left-wing blogger put it, “Republicans are a collection of ‘Lost Boys’ right now, desperately looking for a national leader in the wake of the Bush disaster,” while Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday happily posited that, “there’s not a re-assembling of the Reagan Coalition.”
From the Right, movie critic and radio talk-show host Mike Medved has concluded that, “The big loser in South Carolina was, in fact, talk radio: a medium that has unmistakably collapsed in terms of impact, influence and credibility because of its hysterical and one-dimensional involvement in the GOP nomination fight.”
He went on to explain that, “[John] McCain and [Mike] Huckabee are both decent and principled conservatives.” I don’t know about you, but a Republican who recently called the U.S. Constitution “a living breathing document” and another who is the icon of those who seek to curtail political free speech, don’t represent my idea of conservatism. But are there any conservative candidates in the race who can win the nomination?
Old reliable Frank Rich, writing aboard the sinking ship that is the New York Times, has a predictably leftist answer. In a charming piece titled, "Ronald Reagan Is Still Dead," he opines: “The G.O.P. presidential field’s lack of demographic diversity by age, gender, ethnicity or even wardrobe, let alone race, is simply the leading indicator of how out of touch its brand has become.” This kind of logic recalls the fashion stylings of Democrats past; like Al Gore’s alpha-male, beige trousseau or John Kerry’s blue bunny suit.
So far we’ve heard that the Reagan Coalition is dead, conservatism is in tatters and the influence of talk radio giants like Rush Limbaugh has gone belly up. As to the first charge, it’s true that none of the current roster of candidates is Ronald Reagan; but that’s akin to saying that the GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln because there’s no Honest Abe in the race. What has changed is that, just as we have let the opposition obscure the fact that it was Republicans, and not Democrats, who supported and passed the Civil Rights Act, we have also allowed them to define conservatism and its true adherents for us.
So how should we interpret the early primary results? Well, in the first two contests, Iowa and New Hampshire, the majority of registered voters are Independents, and this showed when they cast their ballots for ‘surprise’ winner Mike Huckabee and John McCain, respectively. McCain and Huckabee also finished one/two in South Carolina, a state which has the most sizable military presence of any in the Union, as well as a huge Southern Baptist population; tailor-made demographics for these two.
In the meantime, almost imperceptibly — media-wise anyway — Mitt Romney posted wins in Wyoming, Michigan and Nevada, racking up more delegates in those states than any of his rivals has scored in total so far. Indeed, in taking Nevada, Romney garnered only one less delegate than did McCain in capturing South Carolina, and with considerably less fanfare. Romney’s current delegate total (72) in fact nearly doubles that of his closest rival, the senator from Arizona (38). Out of a possible 2,380 national delegates, so far only 156, or just 6%, have been chosen; hardly a reason for panic.
So why are McCain and Huckabee, and once again, Rudy Giuliani, garnering all the ink and airwaves while Romney and Fred Thompson do not? The answer is simple: conservatism is not dead. If it was truly dying, its opponents would do more to attack its principles and tenets instead of propping up its false practitioners on the basis of their personal magnetism or populist allure.
If the Reagan Revolution is stalled in this election cycle, it is because those at the head of the movement have stopped emphasizing its personal appeal to the average American. This is not the fault of Limbaugh — who is rightly perturbed that he must constantly spell out a candidate’s conservative bona fides or lack thereof — but of those who forget that conservative ideals can resonate with voters in a way that liberalism cannot.
While folks who listen to Limbaugh can proclaim their core beliefs from the rooftops, liberal ‘values’ must be slowly indoctrinated into the mainstream. This is why liberal talk radio is such a failure. Except for their radical base, not many people can take the left-wing mantra straight up. To succeed, they must cloak their message in pleasant euphemisms like 'choice' and 'equal rights.'
Whatever polls may say, the majority of the American people do not embrace higher taxes, the culture of perpetual victimhood, government intervention in their lives, the taking of innocent life and the defeat of our military at the hands of those who would see us all dead. The first candidate who climbs up on the rooftop with Rush and the rest of us and shouts these things out loud, will be the one who walks away with the prize this summer.
Reagan – the first and only president to bargain, deal, and sell arms to Iran terrorists, and responsible for Pakistan nukes and the subsequent sale of nukes to islamic terrorists.
Conservatives – charge everything to their children and future generations — War funding, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, rose to $120 billion in 2006 and $171 billion in 2007 and President George W. Bush has asked for $193 billion in 2008, the nonpartisan office wrote. All of the Iraq and Afghanistan war money — about $11 billion a month — is effectively being put on a government credit card at a time when U.S. government debt has skyrocketed to more than $9 trillion, up from around $5.6 trillion when Bush took office in January 2001.
Bush has opposed paying the cost of waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan with tax increases or other specific offsets. That means that nearly every penny spent gets added to the U.S. debt. The CBO estimated that just the interest payments on the debt would total $234 billion this year, more than the likely $250 billion budget deficit for the year.
These annual deficits and steep interest payments on borrowing all get rolled into the running tally that is the government’s debt — the more-than-$9-trillion figure. Interest payments on the debt will total an estimated $2.7 trillion over the next decade, the CBO said.
Yes, many Republicans did support and help pass the Civil Rights Act. Unfortunately other Republicans chose to betray their party’s entire history shortly after that by pursuing the Southern Strategy and making room for the intellectual heirs of the Confederacy in their party. By opening their party to racists, the Republicans bought a success for a season. This may cost them eventually, 96% of the voters in South Carolina’s Republican Primary were white.
Reagan is a conservative icon because he was successful, not because he was very conservative. If Carter or Mondale had won and run the massive budget deficits the way Reagan did, those same conservatives would be excoriating them for such irresponsible behavior.
dlsic,
I think you were on your way to a point, and then you got off on the wrong exit. What does George W. Bush’s wartime spending and general fiscal irresponsibility have to do with Ronald Reagan again? George Bush’s policy of expanding government could hardly be described as conservative. In fact, it’s divided him from most conservatives. If all of the damned, lousy conservatives were all some kind of Bush worshipers like the left posits, then his approval rating should be higher than the low 30′s, don’t you think? It’s actually really funny, the unbelievable irony of your viral hatred of George W. is that he’s YOUR dream president – not conservatives’. He’s expanded the size of government and welfare spending more than any president since Johnson. Isn’t that what all of you guys eat up and ask for seconds when it’s coming out of Hilary Clinton’s mouth?
freelunch,
Last time I checked, the Democratic party is the only one that has a former Ku Klux Klan member (or “white niggers” for that matter) among their senior ranks in the senate. I don’t know what the statistic you cited is supposed to prove, unless we are to presuppose that “white” people are somehow racist simply by virtue of being “white”.
Mulligan,
I’ll give you a mulligan for being so dense, but Reagan and republicans (there are no conservatives left) like to rack up huge debts by charging it to their offspring. Hell, they won’t even pay for their war which they claim is the only thing government is good for. You voted for Bush (twice); he’s yours!
Oh, there are plenty of conservatives left, but no one seems to have the backbone to represent us. The current crop seems to roll over to get the approval of the media, though that will never happen. Fiscal responsibility is a must for anyone to be a conservative and, with that in mind, GWB is not a conservative. He is a very decent man, but he is not a conservative. Why the left loathes him is beyond me unless it is the main and only real issue fully uniting the left, abortion. President Reagan knew that government is seldom the best solving local issues and history has proven him right. The same is true with much of what Mr. Limbaugh has to say. It is easy to attack the conservative position with emotional outbursts, but it is awfully hard to do it with facts. While I am at it, what ever happened to the Tenth Amendment?
Ian,
I loathe Bush because he lied to us, constantly and repeatedly about Iraq, about fiscal responsibility, about what he would do to make the government work better. I don’t see any evidence that he is a decent man in any way. Even the social conservatives should be upset because it is clear that they only get the crumbs after Wall Street and War Profiteers get theirs. Bush will leave us with a bigger national debt, with a military that is in worse shape, with a nation that is held in lower regard by other nations, with a lower median income, with more uninsured, with more partisanship. This is a man who doesn’t even care if children have health insurance. He claims to be a Christian, but I do not see that in him at all.
President Reagan also talked a good game, but added debt to our children and did nothing to actually reform or improve the government.
dlsic,
Actually, I didn’t vote for George W. Bush once, or twice. Your penchant for making ignorant suppositions in lieu of facts is evident, but please at least try to contain it to your comments regarding a particular political party or philosophical position.
What you fail to take into account with Reagan is that, while he did increase spending, he also reduced the size of government – you may recall that the federal register was nearly halved during his administration, combined with significant de-centralization. He had a Democrat-controlled House and Senate for his entire presidency that were not about to give up their beloved social welfare spending though. At the same time, geopolitical issues (google “Cold War”) were fueling what’s sometimes referred to now as the “arms race”, and that was the main cause of the increases in spending. The validity of those spending increases has been debated by conservatives, but the outcome, whether direct or indirect, was the loosening of the communist stranglehold in the Soviet states. Make of that what you will.
Deficit spending is not a new, nor a conservative phenomena either, so your position smacks of either outright ignorance or partisan zealotry (in your case I would be inclined to say both). In fact, massive deficit spending as we know it today was the invention of FDR and his Keynsian New Deal economic fiasco. Today, in 2008, we are still paying for that debt and the accompanying government expansion and welfare state wealth redistribution from that era.
freelunch,
If Bush “lied” to us about Iraq, then Bill Clinton did as well. He spoke of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and of his desire for regime change in Iraq as far back as 1998. As did all of your Democratic friends in the House and Senate who authorized the president to conduct the war in Iraq, and to this day, despite having the full capability to do so, have not rescinded that authorization. Bush didn’t really lie about his liberal inclinations as far as fiscal matters are concerned either. He billed himself during his election as a “compassionate conservative”. This, again, brings me back to the mystery of why President Bush is so disliked by liberals, such as yourself – he is one of your own! If any of the things President Bush has done had been done by Bill Clinton, you would all be ecstatic. The rest of your meandering, brainless rhetoric is not even worth the time it would take to compose a response. In fact, I’ll concede the points entirely: refusing to socialize healthcare for millions of children, and their parents, who make as much as 85,000 dollars a year amounts to not caring if children have health care. And the military was much better off 8 years ago when we saved all that money on the defense budget and ended up with a military that lacked the men or equipment to sustain 2 years worth of engagement in a country as small as Iraq. Also, you forgot to mention: Bush doesn’t care about black people.
Patrick,
I missed the part where Clinton invaded Iraq on the false pretext that Saddam had something to do with terror attacks on the United States. I also missed the part where Congress declared war on Iraq.
Feel free to cherry pick the data to make yourself feel good about this president. It won’t change the facts.
It’s tough to observe some of the miguided off-point banter taking place here. It reminds me of the high school female brain/perspective. The best thing a true conservative candidate/office holder can do is to get government out of the way of American ingenuity and hard work. Here is where I will state the standard liberal postion that is typically devoid of both facts and cogent reasoning…”Oh and let the rich corporations keep on profitting as they walk all over the backs of the little man.” On the contrary…I will pose this question to the typical liberal. How many poor men/women have you worked for? This may be a time when we have the lowest median income, but it is also the time in which those people have the lowest financial obligation to the federal government (they don’t pay federal income taxes). Additionally, these times also just happen to hold the most new millionaires ever in our nations illustrious history (which again tends to confuse/offend liberals). GWB has certainly blurred the definition of conservatism (to liberals) by using it in his description of himself. Because of this, I will attempt to educate such open minded and tolerant people that describe themselves as liberals (progressives, populists, socialists, marxists, etc.). Conservatism is quite basic and inherently logical. It thrives on the liberty and equality of all. I know this totally goes against the liberal mantra of conservatism, but really, why not question that? Less government…more liberty. The average man does in fact know what is best for him. (I’m using the term man collectively, as they do in every other language, so no, I’m not a sexist). As the preamble to the Constitution says…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Life, all life, is of value. This seems to be the most difficult to grasp by conservatives themselves. I am actually against the death penalty. Of course liberals have never really cought on to any component of this right. Liberty, absolute liberty (as long as it does not infringe on these inalienable rights of others) is what man longs for and thrives under. When man is free to do what is best for himself and his family, they more than just survive, they flourish. The pursuit of happiness seems to be the one best understood by conservatives and misunderstood by liberals. Liberals believe that happiness can be legislated, mandated, and if your not happy, they’ll find a way to make you get happy…even at the expense of other innocent people. Conservative want everyone to be lifted up, elevated in spirit, happiness and success. Liberals are content with the least common denominator. Conservatives see great value in our commonalities and our pursuit of excellence, all in spite of our differences. The reality is, this country is not very diverse. This is a good thing. We all want the same things and have the same goals. Skin color does not equal diversity. Regardless of skin color, Americans want liberty, security, and a shot at happiness. Here is where I am likely to lose the rest of the liberals still reading this…Man is God’s greatest creation. God would not create an entity that is prone to failure. God gave man free will, and guidelines for success. When was the last time that a free man, who followed these guidelines for success was labeled an abject failure? It’s tough to come up with one. The most generous country in the world is the United States of America, we are also the most prosperous. When we are mandated to turn over much of our hard earned income for a whole myriad of expenditures, we have less to give. It is within conservative man to volutarily help those in need. Need is temporary though. Most can get back to helping themselves. When they can’t, private organizations step in and fill those needs. The governmant has never filled a single need in American history (other than security) as efficiently or excellently as the private citizen. We are supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is also at the heart of conservatism. Liberals seem to believe that a government of some people, over the people, because they think they know what’s best for the people, is the way to go. This robs man of his liberty and his ability to pursue happiness. This is foreign to liberals, but then what would you expect from people who do not respect even the fragile of human life.
Finally here is the kicker that liberals cannot accept, but conservatives understand about man in general…Peace is a product of victory in war, not something to “strive for through government programs, subsidies, mandates, or understanding. Liberals need conservatives to protect their rights to spew the illogical drivel that comes from them on a daily basis.
mpm2h -
By your standards, there are no conservatives in the Republican Party.
“I missed the part where Clinton invaded Iraq on the false pretext that Saddam had something to do with terror attacks on the United States. I also missed the part where Congress declared war on Iraq.”
I missed the part where I said any of that, so we’re even. I’m guessing reading comprehension wasn’t your favorite subject in school.
What I DID say is that Bill Clinton “lied” to us about Iraq every bit as much as George W. Bush did, using the liberal standard of “there were no WMD’s! BUSH LIED!”. Before we invaded Iraq, George W. Bush sold the idea to Congress on the pretext of there being biological, chemical, and possibly nuclear weapons there – not on Saddam Hussein having anything to do with 9/11. Bill Clinton, years earlier when we bombed Iraq in 1998, spoke of the same danger of Saddam Hussein having such weapons. Bush sold Congress on the idea based on reports from our intelligence community, who also believed Saddam Hussein had such weapons. So if being wrong equates to lying, it would be correct to say that Bill Clinton, the US intelligence community, George W. Bush, and both houses of Congress “lied”.
Based on that pretext, Congress drafted an Authorization to Use Military Force, giving the President full authority to… use military force in Iraq. That authorization has never been rescinded. If it were, the president would no longer have the authority to use military force in Iraq. In addition, Congress has also provided the funds to conduct the use of military force in Iraq. So, cherry pick reality as much as you want to, but Congress is every bit as responsible for the war in Iraq as the president is. Contrary to what you may have seen on 24, the big bad president and the big bad war profiteers don’t get to go invade countries at the president’s whim.
By the way, as I’ve said before, I don’t particularly like George W. Bush, so I have no utility for “making myself feel good” about his presidency. I understand that your ideology is based entirely on the idea that George W. Bush is responsible for everything bad in the world, George W. Bush is a Republican, all Republican’s are conservative, therefore conservatives all support George W. Bush (and the accompanying bumper sticker slogans that support such impeccable logic). But I’m afraid you’re going to have to come up with some other brainless, one-line, ideology-du-jour argument in this case, because unlike yourselves, I don’t mindlessly worship the president based on what political party he’s from, and I don’t care much for George W. Bush. The “Your guy’s a baddie” argument doesn’t fly.
The Center for Public Integrity reports
If you read the methodology report to see how that number was derived you’d be embarrassed to reference that “study”. I would have gotten flunked out of my first-year critical thinking class for submitting something like that. Then consider who funded the report. *Hint* – George Soros, of Open Society notoriety. If any use of the term “disarm” was considered a “lie” during the Clinton presidency (as it was for this study), I’m sure we’d have similar and even higher numbers (not sure if you remember Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia, pre-Bush Iraq, or any other of our little Clinton administration spats). Liberal indignity towards lying seems rather ironic given their nearly universal support for a president who actually, literally, officially, publicly perjured himself during a government investigation. We ought to have a study about that.
By the way, here’s some names you might recognize who began “lying” us into Iraq… 10 years ago. DAMN THAT BUSH!!!
“…some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll [Saddam Hussein] use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.” – Bill Clinton on Saddam Hussein, 2/17/98
“[Saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, 2/18/98
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Nancy Pelosi, 12/16/98