Why Republicans Will Not Win the Senate
This coming election should produce not only a Republican House, but a Republican Senate as well. Even in New York, as Jonathan Tobin points out, the gap between Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo and Republican challenger Carl Paladino is narrowing. And in the Senatorial race, Republican challenger Joseph DioGuardi is trailing Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand by only 10 points! Both Democrats are likely to win, but if a state such as New York is showing the potential of a Republican appeal, then it would appear that all bets should be off.
Unfortunately, a Republican victory in the Senate may not occur for one reason — or should we say two: Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle! First, look at Angle. Harry Reid should be the easiest Democrat to beat. Reid is the personification of everything that has turned the electorate against the Democrats. As the Senate majority leader, he has presided over the very legislation that has produced the unpopularity of the Obama administration, beginning with health care.
But as the latest polls reveal, the race in Nevada between Reid and Angle is a virtual toss-up. Angle might still be able to win, but with each day, the odds in her favor are declining. Fox/Rasmussen gives her a slight +1, as does CNN/Time. Reuters/ISPOS and LVRJ/Mason-Dixon give Reid +2. Hence a wide-open race, at a time when a Republican running against Reid should have a smashing majority, and no doubt of replacing him.
As the team at Real Clear Politics reports:
Angle has proved to be a chronically gaffe-prone candidate, who is running as a proud Christian conservative in Sin City. Complicating matters for Angle, the state allows voters to select “none of these candidates,” which could split the anti-Reid vote. This could be a missed opportunity for Republicans.
In Delaware, the situation is even worse. The former self-proclaimed college Marxist, Chris Coons, is running some 15 to 16 points ahead of Christine O’Donnell, in what is regarded as a state that should have been a shoo-in for the Republicans, if they had a candidate who was a moderate of even a liberal Republican. Yes, many of O’Donnell’s most vapid and silly statements were made a long time ago. But she is a candidate of the TV age, who made a name for herself through the medium, and hence many videos exist that can be replayed over and over to remind voters of the quality of her resume. As John Podhoretz writes, her early career made her a natural for the new talk shows, “because she was young, pretty, and a raging extremist of the right.” Now, those very attributes have become her undoing. Today, TNR.com provides a convenient list of her statements that will contribute to her coming electoral loss.
Being “center” is like saying, “Ride the fence” and all it really sums up is, “If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.”
Please
I’ll take a far right leaning fiscal conservative who is against abortion and gay marriage (and I’m a Lesbian) any day over an America hating Leftist LOON.
“I’ll take a far right leaning fiscal conservative who is against abortion and gay marriage (and I’m a Lesbian) any day over an America hating Leftist LOON.”
Of course YOU would, but that is not the point. THe point is to select candidates that are conservatives that can win elections, not that they agree with every single issue the exact way you do. “Defeating” a Mike Castle in the primaries in Delaware essentially hands the US Senate seat to a “America hating Leftist LOON”. So, what did a vote for Christine O’Donnell against a “RINO” or against the establishment really do? The opposite of what was intended.
The biggest mistake that “movement” conservatives make is that they do not differentiate between national and local elections. If, for example, Christine O’Donnell really wants to emphasis abortion and gay marriage she should run for the state legislature. As a US Senator, these issues are marginal at best and clearly anyone who believes in a “limited Federal government” understands that the same Federal government should have nothing to do with the issues that fall under the police powers that were wisely relegated to the states.
In the end, political power is what is important. TO maintain political power you must create policies that the electorate wants. Sometimes that may require that you compromise on your pure idealogical values. But, if movement conservatives want to learn about how to pragmatically compromise, Ronald Reagan is probably the best and greatest example. Anyone who believes that Reagan was a PURE conservative is completely wrong. AS the governor of California and President of the United States Ronald Reagan followed a “squishy” path when necessary. For example, as governor Reagan signed into law a bill that liberalized the availability of abortions and as President he signed a bill that granted immunity to millions of illegal immigrants. Apparently to the Tea Party set, that would make Ronald Reagan a RINO.
I don’t agree. If Castle votes like a “leftist loon” then what’s the fricken difference? What difference does it make if there is a majority of (R)’s over (D)’s if some of the (R)’s vote (D)? We wouldn’t have the Obamacare today if Snow (R) and Collins (R) hadn’t voted for cloture to allow the debate and subsequentially allow Dems to vote it in using the straight vote. Snow and Collins put the final nail in our coffin. At least O’Donnell provides the voters with a choice. There wasn’t really much of one between Castle and the Democrat.
And one more thing. I’m noticing a trend lately. I’m seeing a lot of people all of the sudden claiming foul as moderates. Smells of Center for American Progress and MoveOn.org to me. Liberals always assume Independent voters are moderates. That’s not the case at all. Independent voters just don’t do the (R) and (D) thing. A lot of them are libertarians. I have been a registered Democrat who voted for Republicans and visa versa. The only reason I register to a party when I do is when I’m interested in voting in the primary. The social issues are no longer the issues of the day. I could care less about them right now. Our livelyhoods are at stake and therefore, people like Castle who vote for job killing bills like Cap and Trade have got to go.
The problem with voting for RINOs is that when it comes down to having a Senator or Representative who will stand up for the conservative point of view, these folks will cave to the liberals EVERY TIME!!! This has been proven over and over, even to the extent that RINOs sell out their constituents and actually cross over to the Dem party. I am sick and tired of the GOP establishment only supporting candidates who sit on the fence and don’t stand for anything really, except being electable. I am also sick of ultra-conservative candidates who alienate potential supporters by coming across as nutjobs. What I truly don’t understand is why the Republicans can’t find smart, conservative candidates who are articulate and media savvy. Why can’t we find people who will run who don’t have shady financial or marital histories? Why do conservatives end up having to apologize for the people who become our candidates? Not that the Dems don’t run some idiots (see Joe Biden) but I guess it doesn’t bother them the way it bothers us.
I do not subscribe to the “Buckley Doctrine” of supporting candidates simply on the basis of their “electability”. How does supporting a candidate who is just as likely to vote contrary to what you believe in gain anything? Holding the power to enact legislation simply for the sake of power is one reason the government is failing the nation. If the views we hold do not gain majority support, then we must work toward that goal, not abandon our principals.
Don’t pay any attention to Radosh. He’s a jerk. No one knows what is going to happen. The significance of Delaware and Nevada is that Tea Party candidates won their primaries. The coherence of our movement is the important thing. We will not win every battle. Some of the battles we will lose will hurt and hurt hard. We will make wrong choices and endure missed opportunities.
The significance of our candidates winning in Delaware and Nevada is it shows you shouldn’t mess with the Tea Party. This is what needs to be sustained. Neo Cons like Radosh are trying to sink the movement. He looks at it as “pent up frustration” and, for him, the general alignment of the Democrat and Republican parties are more or less fixed, permanent features of our times.
I tell you, we will have more trouble with Republicans and with Neo-Cons than we will have with Democrats. As Republicans will show this election cycle Democrats, after all, are not that hard to defeat in elections. Their mind set, and the mind set of Neo-Cons, much harder. Intellectual clap trap.
Mark said ““Defeating” a Mike Castle in the primaries in Delaware essentially hands the US Senate seat to a “America hating Leftist LOON”. So, what did a vote for Christine O’Donnell against a “RINO” or against the establishment really do? The opposite of what was intended.” Just slight problem with that statement: the election is not for 36 days. It’s a little soon to be calling it for “the bearded marxist”. We are at this crossroads for precisely the reason that Rodash pushes: trying to forge alliances and a “big tent” to incorporate all the ideas of the squishy moderates.
Let’s get this straight, there can be no compromise with those who push tyranny, even when pushed in little bites. That is how we arrived at this over-regulated mess we have now.
As for the Reid /Angle race: Reid has loads of money and is not afraid to use it. The fact that it is a toss up should be encouraging, given the ideological bent of the media and the skewed polling data. The “facts” are not exactly as they seem. With the mood of the country, there is no time like now to run the most conservative candidates so that we can actually reverse the slide we are on toward marxism and slavery.
Explain what winning 51 seats in the Senate is supposed to get for us, if a half-dozen of the Senators are RINOs? We have McCain, the Bobsey Twins of Maine, Lindsey Gramnesty, and various tag-alongs already, and all they offer are votes in support of the Right, once in a great while, and almost never when it’s important. With Republicans like that, who needs Democrats? Besides, it is a warped, shallow, and perverted view of man to think that life is all about low taxes and free trade. America is a Christian, European nation. Or it isn’t. But it cannot be nothing. Nature abhors a vacuum, big-time. If we cease to be Christian, then we’ll be Mohammedan, or Leftist, or some other new or old alien religion. That’s why the ‘social issues’ are the only important ones. I get ticked when Leftists complain about the terrible effects using torture inflict on our troops. You might ask some of them if they regret rousting rag-heads. But these same Leftists then claim we can legalize the most perverse, depraved actions at home and just be fine. When NAMBLA cam march in gay-pride parades with big banners flying, do you think we’re gonna be better people, or worse? If Christian America is destroyed, there is no valid argument against Leftism. Leftism is anti-human evil, and evil because it’s anti-human. Absent Christianity there is no evil, or no evil that today’s American would recognize. And it doesn’t matter whether in some cosmic sense America’s view of right and wrong is correct. It only matters that it is Americans’ view. “My country, may she always be in the right; but my country right or wrong.” That’s human nature in a nutshell. Period. Anything different is simply anti-American, or pro-some other nation, which is exactly the same thing, but more misleading. Only question we need to ask our Lefties: “Exactly whose side are you on”? Ignore their words; look at their deeds; act accordingly.
Jacobite wrote: “If Christian America is destroyed, there is no valid argument against Leftism. Leftism is anti-human evil, and evil because it’s anti-human. Absent Christianity there is no evil, or no evil that today’s American would recognize.”
My sense of Christianity is that it views “human” as fallen man. Jesus raises us above our fallen “human” natures. Your view is that Christianity is essentially “humanist.” Would you care to distinguish between Christianity and humanism? Many leftists claim to be humanists and it is a toss-up between many of the Founding Fathers being humanists or deists. Franklin was clearly a humanist.
At the core of the question here is what are the “God-given” rights of fallen human beings? Does one have those rights if one is not a believer? Or maybe Christianity has changed recently and personkind without a belief in Jesus is no longer fallen.
Your assertion that Jesus raised us above our fallen natures and that therefore Christianity is basically a humanist-based religion is fundementaly flawed. Jesus did not raise above our fklawed natures. We remain fundementally flawed. Jesus ccame to offer us salvation, and to act as a mediator of forgiveness of our sins. Individualistic sins; not general or societal sins.
Drivel dribbling from both corners of the mouth. Just look in the mirror.
I will vote for a conservative Democrat, if such a one ever shows up, before voting for a liberal or (spit) “moderate” (spit) Republican. For those who say that voting third party means Republicans loose, well, “DUH”. If Republicans want to win, Republicans can darn well run an actual conservative and not someone a DC dimwit thinks is “central” or “moderate”.
Jacobite – Thank you.
Dear Ron:
A brilliant analysis of a sad situation. Purists of all shades always serve to unbalance the road to success.
I think the reasons you give by comparing the Republicans out-of-power to the Republicans out-of-power is spot on.
In addition, I think there is a culture that has been somewhat corrupted by the media. Glen Beck, O’Riley, Hannity, for all their correct analysis much of the time, make it all seem so easy with their flippant but TV successful personae. (wow my computer speaketh Greek)
Although it is good to see young and inexperienced folks trying to run for political office, one wonders what their intellectual bona fides are – and I would guess perhaps – too much TV watcing. Tho it is a positive not to be an elitist, it is a negative to be thoughtless or overly clever.
I think you are right that the country in general is central-right. And it is important to explore what that means. It means folks that are seeking or listening for solutions that do not destroy or unbalance our country – either from the right or the left. It means folks have had enough of slick easy answers and are listening for well-thought out, difficult but possible paths to a better and more secure life.
If I knew how to present such ideas I would run for something, but it is beyond me. I think it needs people who not only open their mouths, but open their ears and eyes to see where the voters are at and really try to engage them beyond received applause and cheers.
There are a lot of very bright people in this country, but not many of them are running for office – and that is not good.
I hope the Republicans of all stripes will read your blog and do some deep digging into their minds and hearts and come up with programs that both conserve and innovate, but most importantly strengthen a dynamic balance that has always been the United States of America.
Shalom, Cantor Bob Cohen
“Road to success.”
SURE…like with Bob Dole and John McCain.
Wipe out the RINOs.
Sir, I think you are totally wrong. You are making all of the arguments that got Republicans killed in the last election. If you are right and the country does NOT want a much more conservative government, then John McCain should have won in a landslide. He was the centerists wet dream come true. A true deal maker who lived and breathed bipartisanship. Center-right and all that junk, that’s what good OLD John was.
John McCain, though a fine American, was still a loser. Deal with it. If you want to vote for a RINO like McCain, you may as well go all the way and vote for a Democrat. I’m sick and tired of being given the choice of either voting for Democrats or Democrats “Light,” which is what the Republican Party has turned into. So, according to your logic, we should be producing even MORE candidates like John McCain, those “centerists” the whole country seems to “love.” Well, sir, if we did that, then the Republican Party would assure Democratic victories for the next generation. Why would you vote for a RINO Republican when you can get the real deal with the Democrats?
And why, sir, do you think the Republican Party today is so energized? Why do you think they are coming out and voting in droves? Why do you think that we actually DO have an opportunity to take back both the House and the Senate? Is it because we have MORE candidates like John McCain???
No sir, you are wrong. People today are seeing the light and the only people who can at least try to bring us back to some sort of fiscal sanity are CONSERVATIVES. Deal with it. The RINOs were in power under George W. Bush and we all know how that turned out. They, too, were touchy-feely centerists who claimed to want “bipartisanship” and were a dismal failure.
But what puzzles me is, why are people like you so afraid of something really new? Why are you so afraid of actually looking for a new Ronald Reagan and standing for some actual conservative principles? It certainly worked for Reagan, so why do people like you say it can’t work again?
People like you, and all other RINOs, are always so willing to throw in the towel before the fight has even begun. People have now seen what a far-left liberal Democratic version of “Hope and Change” is like. I think they yearn for real change and only the Conservatives can give it to them. Will it be easy? Of course not. But at least it will be a true choice, one that Ronald Reagan could be proud of. And Americans are reacting favorably to it. Look how many DEMOCRATS are actually running away from Obama. So we must be doing something right.
Could we lose some battles? Sure we can. But at least stand for something. If John McCain and the two RINO senators from Maine are more to your likeing, then the Republicans certainly will be in the wilderness for years to come.
Libertyship46::
Thank you for expressing my very thoughts as I read the article; even more truth than poetry.
We are either at the point of real change for the better or a collapse into the debris of total perversion — as we are a part of the ecosystem, the blind will never see through the rot on the floor of the jungle, or the maggots on the corpse of socialistic opportunism.
The Constitution of the United States is the only real revolutionary document, designed to move us toward a more perfect union. The rest is garbage.
Thanks again and have a good day, I know I will.
I go along with Liberty. The Repubs are only getting my vote for two cycles. To stop Obama. But one whiff of Rino McCain [prescription drug program- cap/trade- campaign finance]and they can kiss my grits. All I ever asked is stand up and name one program you will eliminate. Can’t do it? Then you get me thru 2012.
Reid will be ok to have around to beat on. The key is and always has been the House. At the end of the day, in the Senate, you still need 61 votes. Ain’t gonna happen. Would be nice for the Senate to be controlled by the GOP along with the staff sizes, etc., but so what? Nothing much gonna happen in Congress, regardless, given the ideologue sitting in the White House with his truckloads of cheap US Gov veto pens.
This is a Long March. Even if Angel and O’Donnell are “mistakes, one learns from mistakes, corrects them and takes the next step. 2012 will be a banner year. Actually keeping Reid around will end up being a really good thing. That is, if he wins. Oh, and I think about Oct 31, folks will take a final, hard look at Reid and Coons and break heavily for the GOP candidate.
Ron writes: “Harry Reid should be the easiest Democrat to beat.” I find that an odd statement in that incumbents are generally re-elected 80 to 90% of the time. Am I wrong.
Doesn’t “re-elected 80 – 90% of the time” mean “not re-elected 10 – 20% of the time”?
Needed perspective.
The “the road to success,” to which you refer, is NOT built on Bob Dole and John McCain.
Maybe O’Donnell has her problems, but can you really consider Castle a “meaningful conservative alternative??” Why bother?
Mr. Radosh, I generally agree with you, but let me just ask a really simple question: when McGovern ran in 1972 was the majority of the United States uniformly against the war in Vietnam and did everyone suddenly begin to believe in the government running everything? Shouldn’t that be considered in comparison to the context of today, where the entire country is essentially pissed off at getting a socialist government shoved down its throat? I think Peter Beinart is simply trying to paint some equivalence between the nuts who arguably took over the Democratic Party and the people who got tired of having left wing dogma stuffed down their throats.
Two other points. First of all, it is a bit of condescension to say that we should not try to sell the ideas of limited government and liberty even in liberal bastions. Instead of “appointing” Mike Castle as the Republican nominee, maybe the GOP could’ve done a better job at finding a conservative like Christine O’Donnell without some of the baggage.
Second, who says that it is important to try to win the Senate this go around? More Dems will be up for election in 2012 than GOP members so there is ample opportunity to try and take the Senate then.
As opposed to suggesting we read Peter Beinart, may I suggest reading Doc Zero:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/23/doubling-down-on-odonnell/
Yours serve no purpose other than to drive a stake through the very cause that you purport to want: taking control of the Senate.
One other thing: if a fool like Al Franken can become a Senator AND serve on the Judiciary Committee despite not having a law degree or a thorough understanding of the law, then I think a Christine O’Donnell would do just fine (plus, she’s a lot prettier than he is
).
Mr. Bolts, I agree with you. If the Republican establishment were not so keen to shove guys like Castle and Crist down our throats, it would have been far better. Those folks are more a part of the problem than part of the solution. If they had backed more mainstream candidates, the two ladies might not have been the only alternatives.
This country is basically a center/right country, but the choices given are often far left/far right after the parties nominate candidates. Delaware and Nevada offer those choices. Too bad. A more mainstream conservative in each state would have been far preferable, but the DC pols wanted someone like them.
Being in the center does not mean opposing reduced government spending and balancing the budget. The center takes in a lot of ground on those particular issues.
The Republican establishment had better take notice of the desires of the people.
Besides, Franken really is a witch – isn’t he?
When I heard of O’Donnells’ witchcraft comments on Bill Mahers’ old tv show, I thought to myself, “How could she be so stupid to appear on that sanctamonious idiot’s show?” Yes, I will allow that she is not too bright. But when has that been an impediment to joining the Senate? She says stupid things. Biden is much older than she and says many stupid things every year! Not only did he hold a Senate seat, he is now Vice President. Evidently being stoopid is no bar to holding high office; in fact it seems to be a plus.
Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell do not want to stick it good and hard to those earning their money in the private sector. The Democratic Party, for all practical purposes, has declared war on everybody who is not employed by the government. You will be expected to pay most of the bills. That’s the beginning and end of it. This is probably the number one fact a private sector voter should focus on when casting their ballot on Election Day.
David:
“That’s the beginning and end of it.”
War has been declared on the public employees. Who knew that sitting down for a 100 question multiple choice text would produce such bounty and personal prosperity?
I suppose public employees do not pay federal, state and city income taxes? I didn’t realize public employees are exempt from paying real estate taxes on their real property. Of course, public employees pay no sales tax, cigatette taxes, motor vehicle resgistration and license renewal fees. Public employees never pay for parking tickets. When public employees send their children to city or state colleges, all tuition, fees, book costs and living expenses are waived.
Public employees do have health care and do receive pensions after they become vested.
Sharron Angle comes out of the Independent American Party, a “right-hate group” and Christine O’Donnell is a little too conservative, I think. Each wants to help you destroy social security, prohibit abortion, repeal unemployment compensation, abolish Medicare, repeal child labor laws, repeal the minimum wage, repeal the Health Care Bill,and many more wonderful things designed to keep you free.
It is us verses the public sector. I get it. Just imagine, if you could answer 70 out of 100 multiple choice questions correctly, you too would be set for life. WOW. Just like hitting the Lotto.
Eng the war against the public employees. Oppose Radical right-wing extremism. Don’t allow the Tea Party to run the USA off a cliff.
Apparently Lawrence is a “public employee”.
Your whole paycheck comes out of private employee coffers.
STFU
One size fits all; one denounciation fits all; one threat fits all; one government is like the next. Wild eyed anarchist merde.
End the war against public employees. Oppose Radical right wing extremists. Stop the Tea Party from running America off a cliff.
Your dear columnist, Professor Dr. Radosh was a long-term public employee teaching at QueensBorough Community College of the City University of New York. He collects a public employee pension. Incidently, he was a Marxist for most of his student and adult life.
The first responders at the World Trade Center disaster were public employees.
STFU, Delia.
Stop the “war” against public employees? LOLOLOLOLOL.
Hey Lawrence, I’m not holding a gun to anyone’s head to collect my paycheck and pension.
Public employees deserve no more, no less than anyone else
There is nothing inherently dishonorable about being a public sector employee. They should not, however, have the right to collective bargaining and binding arbitration. In 1958 Mayor Wagner of New York signed an executive order permitting city employees the right to unionize. This started the bandwagon rolling and eventually it became the norm throughout the country. The resulting destruction has been mind boggling.
[...] Eng the war against the public employees. Oppose Radical right-wing extremism. Don’t allow the Tea Party to run the USA off a cliff. [...]
Subtle act you got, Larry – it took quite a while ’till I realised that you, perhaps are a…. liberal tool -
Lawrence – your sweeping denunciation of two GOP candidates and the GOP who nominated them, seems bereft of facts.
Could you provide factual evidence that the GOP wants to ‘destroy social security’ – and this is a generality and therefore, requires specifics. Equally, that the GOP wants to repeat unemployment; certainly, it wants to limit the term use – and what’s wrong with that? Equally, I’m unaware that the GOP wants to prohibit abortion; it does want to deny federal funding for it.
Repeal child labor laws? Provide proof. Certainly, Obama’s Health Care bill is rejected by the majority; therefore, the GOP is right to acknowledge the will of the people rather than the agenda of an elite.
No- your claim that the Democratic socialist policies are ‘designed to keep you free’ is sophistry. It requires evidence and logic to convince us exactly how massive deficits and massive taxes to fund these programs, keep any of us ‘free’.
ETAB:
Yes, Fascism comes in flavors. I’ve identified the flavors. I provided the sources. I have not engaged in name-calling. I know it is hard for you to digest the fact that the Right has blood on its hands. Only in your fantasy land are Fascists the children of the Left. I’ve noted your sources and I appreciate receiving your list.
Lawrence – you haven’t answered my questions about your claims about the GOP’s agenda.
Equally, you haven’t dealt with the very basic issue of a definition of ‘right’ and ‘left’. These definitions are not two end points of a singular linear scale, which is what you seem to adhere to; they are ideological axioms on separate lines. Within each line, there can be a linear scale from ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ adherent of the essential ideology – but to call this ‘left and right’ is incorrect.
You do not analyze or critique what you read; you simply swallow it whole; heh, that’s how a citizen of a totalitarian state is supposed to behave. Without thinking about what he is told by ‘the expert’.
Public unions have no modern role; they have moved from their original focus on the rights of workers – a focus which has been taken over by the state…to a focus on claiming privileges for these workers that are not feasible in the private sector. Private sector workers readily go without pay raises for years; and don’t have the benefits and pensions and impossibility of being fired of the public service.
The public service has moved from providing a service to providing an elite work place for a set of people; its focus on service has been abandoned.
Now, your new claim that I, or anyone, states that the ‘right does not have blood on its hands’ is nonsense. The definition of a political left or right ideology has nothing to do with violence. However, it is a fact that a democratic state does not become totalitarian towards its citizens; it cannot, for the definition of the political mode of democracy is that the governance is by the will of the people. Not by the will of the Governors.
Again, why don’t you answer my questions, provide proof of your claims – and – critique the claims which you read rather than accepting them as dogma.
End the war against public employees.
No. If anything, I say crank it up. Squeeze the pips until they squeak.
Larry, you and a host of other public servants are all trying to get on the same high horse. Unfortunately it was paid for by the private sector jobs. I left the USMC and got a job with the airlines many years ago. I made good money but when times were bad I took BIG pay cuts and received less pension contributions from my employer. AFTER I retired from Delta they went into bankruptcy and took even more of my retirement away and raised the amount I had to pay for my insurance. When was the last time you or any of your exceptional brethren took a pay cut? When was the last time you didn’t get a pay raise? Are the people in the private sector the only ones that have to go with the flow of the economy? Do you ever feel like you should share some of the bad times with us? Allowing the public sector to unionize will bankrupt our nation unless it is rescinded. It will take a Tea Party President to demand that exact action from Congress. It will happen and then you and Congress can join your fellow Americans in the work force.
When was the last time you were purged by a Republican governor after 18-years of service? Under one governor, I didn’t receive a pay raise for 4 years. When the economy is on a role and you are making good money do you share with your neighbor, the public employee?
Public employee unionism is an established fact. Let me know when you decide to break the public employee unions. Sounds fascistic to me.
You think we are living on caviar. What a joke.
Lawrence, public employees do not create wealth. A small number are needed for smooth operation of a country, but a large number is like adding too many office workers at a factory and taking their paychecks off the production floor. A company that does that goes broke. A country that spends too much on public employees, goes broke. Your defensive reaction suggests to me that you know you do not produce wealth and fear that any downsizing of the paper shufflers will get you RIF’d.
I have to back this clown in one thing. As a Conservative, I want all those things he listed. Others have responded to some of those items. I will address only a couple.
Repeal minimum wage laws? Yes! The Government has no right to tell a business owner whom he must hire, whom he cannot fire, nor how much he must pay. It is private property! That businessman worked very, very hard, and risked everything, for his business to happen. Then the government comes in and takes away his private property. How does that make him or us more free?
Repeal the Healthcare bill? Yes! Once again, the government is dictating to people how they must spend their money. You MUST buy health insurance. If you cannot afford it, the government (other citizens) will pay for it. If you CAN pay for it, then you MUST! If you do not, they will put you in jail! (per Pelosi)
It is another tax on the productive; a transfer of wealth from the ants to the grasshoppers. Tell me how going to jail makes us more free? Tell me how this government stealing money from one group to give to another (legalized plunder) makes us more free?
Every time you let the government give you stuff, you give the government more power over you and everyone else. How does that make us more free?
You may want all this “free stuff”, but do not pretend it is about freedom. You just want the government to do your stealing for you. You just want to steal. You are just another nasty, lying, little thief.
The point, Lawrence, is that the public employee, although he does indeed pay each and every tax you mention, does not add to the economy, rqhter he necessarily subrracts from the economy by his very employment of tax money greaned from productive people.
Yes, some minimum of government workers can be said to be necessary, Lawrence, as is some governmental activity.
But the public employee is a drain on the economy, not an addition to it. You create nothing on your own, but take from others by force of law. Special, that.
Bright people don’t always do bright things. This happened long ago. How significant is it to today? I’m tired of the self-anointed “Bright Young Things” crowd anyway.
The Democrats have one of the most stupid women politicians in the world in Nancy Pelosi. And neither Biden nor Obama have always come off as very bright. To talk about stupidity in an inexperienced politician is in itself stupid. Look at what the Democrats try to do to Sarah Palin. Here are some stupid hypocritical Democrats.
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/dumbdemocrats.html
Mr. Radosh – you seem to have forgotten “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffords, and former Republican Arlen Spector. What about those reliable Republicans Olympia Snowe or Maverick John McCain? Electing big government left-wingers with an R after their name is an exercise in frustration.
The primary elections successes of ladies like Angle & O’Donnell have already ensured that the Republican machine will change. No more rubber stamps on the candidacies of liberal time-servers who simply want their time at the trough.
The factor that is killing the US economy is too many laws, too many regulations. What we need is a true Republican House that will simply refuse to authorize money to hire the bureaucrats to enforce those laws. Control of the Senate is irrelevant — except to the Beltway cocktail party circuit.
I’ll leave Nevada and Delaware to vote as they please. As a lifelong conservative I’ve watched in disgust as pols wiggled and squirmed from one side of the philosophical center to the other in order keep themselves on the public payroll, and nothing you’ve written changes my strong determination to support with my vote/donations a smaller federal government, less regulatory red-tape, and a return to entrepreneurial capitalism. I still enjoyed your books outing the red menace, though.
Turtle
Social Democratic Parties are based on the labor movement. The labor movement in the US represents a small part of the working class–12% or 13%. The inability of the labor movement to organize a majority of the working class into unions and its inability to project its weight and power onto the Democratic Party is what keeps the DP a non-social democratic institution. The Democratic Party is the 2nd most pro-capitalist party in the world. Make no mistake about it, the DP is not a Socialist party in any fashion.
Which Socialist in world socialist history has advocated a Bail-out of Wall Street? A bail-out of Monte Carlo capitalism? President Obama is not a Socialist; has never been a Socialist. Calling the Democrats and President Obama Socialist is a propaganda tool, a big lie and a scare tactic of the Radical right-wing extremists which now pass for Republicans.
Radosh is correct to predict a McGovern-style defeat for the Republicans in 2010. We haven’t seen such nut cases since Father Charles E, Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy and Robert Welsh. . Angle comes out of the “hate-right” Independent American Party; O’Donnell is financially irresponsible and morally bankrupt; Rand Paul is purely his daddy’s little boy, a brainwashed la-la land libertarian.
Lawrence, you do know that Father Coughlin was to the Left of FDR, don’t you? It’s funny that you bring up the name Joseph McCarthy and then go on to use McCarthyite tactics to smear an entire group with which you disagree.
As far your assertion that Obama is not a socialist, I only ask one question: what in Obama’s actions qualifies you to say that he is not a socialist? Every one his actions has centered around government taking the lead and he even insinuated that Americans’ money is his to determine how to spend and not them (“If the Republicans think that giving tax cuts to billionaires and millionaires I can think of better ways to spend that money.”) So I repeat the question: what in Obama’s actions qualifies yo to say that he is not a socialist?
Fr. Charles E. Coughlin’s economic views were so radical left-wing that even Roosevelt’s New Dealers thought him to be too extreme! He believed the government should have enormous power over the business community. Coughlin was contemptuous towards the free market. He most certainly was not a disciple of either Hayek or Von Mises.
David:
Father Charles E. Coughlin was an American proto-Fascist. He supported Mussolini and had kind words for Hitler. He was not overtly anti-Semitic, yet in private, it is reported, he was anti-Semitic.”Yonder comes Father Coughlin, wearin’ the silver chain, Cash on his stomach and Hitler on the brain.”
Is proto-Fascism leftist? Like the Tea Party, Father Coughlin was against the Northeastern elite and Wall Street. He advocated a populist alternative to the New Deal. In the USA, Leftists were organizing the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the CIO. Father Coughlin was not a fan of John L. Lewis, trade unionism or leftism.
Fascism comes in different flovors. There is a ‘conservative fascism,’ a ‘centrist fascism’ and and a ‘lefty fascism.’ I think Father Charles E. Coughlin was a ‘conservative fascist,’ allied with the Catholic Church for most of his career and deeply anti-communist and anti-socialist. An example of a left fascist would be Juan Peron,President of Argentina, who enjoyed the support of the trade union movement. A centrist fascist might be a Marshall Petain, of Vichy France or a Charles De Gaulle.
I would categorize President Obama as a technocrat and an American Liberal. Like Roosevelt, he saved capitalism during a profound economic crisis. He has not nationalized the banks. The banks remain in private hands. You can buy shares. Same with the auto industry. Public-private partnerships are not socialism. The federal government has provided the private sector substantial subsidies throught our history. The rail roads, real estate, agriculture. This didn’t make the country socialist.
“Public-private partnerships are not socialism.”
They are inherently crony capitalist arrangements. Those business owners who go along with the policy aims of the government will get a seat at the table. All others will pay a terrible price. We are literally talking about the “elites” of both the public and quasi-private sector sitting down to manipulate the economy to their liking.
Fr. Charles E. Coughlin was also an ego tripping whack job. He adamantly argued for a collectivist economy—with him in charge. His anger at Roosevelt probably had more to do with the latter’s unwillingness to let him run the government! Coughlin was not on friendly terms with anyone who would not let him be the top guy.
“I would categorize President Obama as a technocrat and an American Liberal. Like Roosevelt, he saved capitalism during a profound economic crisis. He has not nationalized the banks. The banks remain in private hands. You can buy shares. Same with the auto industry. Public-private partnerships are not socialism. The federal government has provided the private sector substantial subsidies throught our history. The rail roads, real estate, agriculture. This didn’t make the country socialist.”
Nice try at revising history, Lawrence. Saying stupid things like “he saved capitalism” makes it sound as though Obama like the fool before him had some power that only government could use to save us small folks from our errant decisions. That sure sounds a bit socialistic to me. Guess who else made the same argument? Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro. Great company to be a part of, no?
Second, Obama’s administration bought majority stakes in several banks, most notably Citigroup, which has NOT paid back any of the TARP funds. His administration also stuffed AIG with taxpayer funds and that company still has yet to pay any of the money back. His administration ran roughshod over existing contracts with employees and bondholders of GM and Chrysler where both car companies was essentially nationalized. Being able to buy shares is irrelevant: you can buy shares in many state-owned Chinese companies, they are still run by a Communist regime.
By the way, your above statement actually works to disprove your assertion that Obama is not a socialist. Trying to call him an “American Liberal” and a “technocrat” is grasping at straws. A technocrat is one who believes that a country should be ruled and run by experts, which happens to be what socialists believe. An “American Liberal” happens to believe the same thing. Obama himself betrayed what he believes when he said, “I believe if you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.” But I guess because he’s an American that hardly makes him a socialist.
Orwell lives.
Larry: Fascism is “left”. Nazi stands for National SOCIALIST German Worker’s Party. Notice that SOCIALIST part? You engage in revisionist history, which of course was part of Marx’s agenda. Curious.
“Father Charles E. Coughlin was an American proto-Fascist. He supported Mussolini and had kind words for Hitler.”
That just makes him a proto-totalitarian like Lenin or Stalin but with less influence. You know, like most every other lefty. Or union sucking government employee. But I repeat myself.
How much does any American’s opinion of the merits or demerits of a small SW Asian tribe mean anyhow? America is a nation founded by NW Europeans (basically Celtic/Gaels and Germanic/Scandinavians), and embodying their peculiar modes of thought and behavior. Forget DNA (although it’ll work just fine if you can read it), and look at the results on the ground. The US is closest in culture and religion to the home countries of the British Isles, Ireland, Scandinavia, and Germany. What about America reminds you of Italy, Poland, Egypt, or China? A bit here and there — spice in the soup, but essentially it’s all from that little corner of Europe. Remember “personnel is policy”? Well, personnel is culture, politics, and religion as well. Unrestricted immigration might win the Dems some elections, but it’ll mean that Americans will someday be as scarce as the once-great Chaldeans are today. And if you think being a nation of Detroit convenience-store owners is a satisfactory end for the current proprieters of the entire USA, be my guest. I doubt many Americans (or Chaldeans) feel the same.
“Public-private partnerships are not socialism.”
Yeah, that’s called “fascism”.
Mussolini was a socialist, so was Hitler — facism has always been a child of the left. The socialists and communists here in America were very favorable towards both dictators until Hitler declared war on the Soviets; that should tell you something.
The Democratic Party is the 2nd most pro-capitalist party in the world.
Who cares? I’m not grading on a curve. I want both parties tripping over each other to be the 1st most pro-capitalist party in the world.
Jane:
Does it tell you anything Jane that Hitler and Mussolini sent the left-wingers to their death in concentration camps, by the hundreds of thousands. If Hitler and Mussolini were leftists, why treat co-ideologists with such horror?
I believe it is the cardinal myth of America’s Radical Right-Wing to get this wrong, to claim Hitler and Mussolini were children of the Left. It is the kind of myth that separates you from the rent of thinking people and makes you sound pseudo-distinctive. Of course, it is a delusion.
The answer is that absolout power corrupts absoloutly. Leftists in power would eat their own young if they could, ergo they would send fellow leftists to concentration camps. That is the way of satan. Perhaps you should think a little more biblically to understand the paradoxes within power before you demean others.
So…the murder of Trotsky proves that he wasn’t a leftist? The Moscow show-trials prove that their victims weren’t leftists? The Gulag was chock-a-block full of non-leftists? Or, are you saying that the implication runs in the other direction? Either way, it makes for an interesting version of history.
No one in their right mind-except American libertarians and a few anarchists–define Stalinists as Western Social Democrats. The two movements (Stalinism and Social Democracy) have been blood enemies since 1917.
There was a perverse symbiotic relationship between the Old Right and the Stalinists. The Stalinists preferred doing business and politics with the Old Right, as opposed to the democratic Left. The Right recognized the Stalinists as “Socialists,” accepted their claims to being Marxists. The Stalinists accepted the “Old” Right as the true power within Western capitalist society. The “Old” Right was the political block respected by the military leadership. Both Stalinists and Old Right gained prestige and power by this arrangement.
The democratic left,( anti-communist trade unionists, Social Democrats, Socialists, New Deal Liberals) was a challenge to both groups. The democratic Left contested the Stalinists authority within the working class, vied for power and leadership within the working class. The democratic left was strongly anti-communist and willing and able to support regulatory measures against Big Business, through the agencies created by the New Deal; SEC, NLRB, etc.
The liberal and democratic leftists were an mortal danger to the Stalinists and a democratic danger to “Big Business.” Stalinism main pre-occupation during a substantial part of the 1930s was to crush Social Democracy. The Social Democrats were characterized by the Stalinists as “social fascists.” Their meetings were broken up, trade unions paralyzed by internecine factional warfare. Of course, this form of Stalinist politics paved the way for Hitler. The Stalinists believed in the politics of “the worst the better.” After Social Democracy is destroyed,they believed, the workers will rally to the Communists and they will defeat the Nazis.
By ignoring the profound historical and philosophical differences between Stalinism and Social Democracy, the Right undercuts the a ally against totalitarianism. The so-called New Right makes the same choices as the discredited old Right.
Among libertarians and anarchists, the Liberal left is just another political block supporting the coercive power of the state against the individual.
Lawrence,
Exactly what vital function did you perform for us in all your years of “public service”???
Or did you belong to that group referred to as “non-essential”?
Please don’t lecture the rest of us on “right vs. left” , you are obviously completely ingorant of the history behind the conflict between the fascists and the commies. It was a turf war. Nothing more, nothing less. They were both brutal thugs. The fascists were nationalists, the commies, internationalists. Don’t forget, Hitler and Stalin were allies for a time and partitioned Poland.
As for one of your comments about busting the public employee unions, I beleive Reagan fired a whole lot of them when they defied a court order. It could be done and needs to be done. There is no job that a civil servant( I use the term loosely) does that warrents a salary higher than anyone doing the same job in the private sector. In fact, given all the perks and benefits, one could reasonably argue that the salary for government workers should be lower. But these are the thoughts of a private sector businessman.
“Now, the Republican Party, at a moment when it is poised to present meaningful conservative alternatives to the stale bromides of a bankrupt liberalism, far right activists … are succeeding in producing a conservatism that is both not electable and far removed from appealing to the disappointments that are driving so many away from the Democratic Party. … We are not a far –right nation, and candidates of that caliber ….”
Damn! Can’t win with ‘em . . . Can’t win without ‘em!
Gee! That O’Donnell woman and those, what, 30K or so Delaware voters, certainly are a powerful bunch.
For someone as direct as you have been in the past, your statement above is rather elliptical, Ron. Far right activists? Man up! Name names and indicate what specific actions they are taking that will be the undoing of the Republic. Isn’t that your responsibility as a careful academic? Or is this just a polemic directed at a “certain segment” of the population that you suddenly fine distasteful? Can we expect you to do the full-Rosenbaum before long?
The problem with your analysis is this: It assumes that obtaining Republican Senate and House majorities would result in a significant alteration of the agenda that the current Congress and the Administration has already put in place. That is not going to take place over any short period of time unless the Republicans have majorities of similar magnitude in both houses of Congress and the Presidency (Oops! Rule that one out.), or majorities in Congress of sufficient magnitude to pass what they want and override any veto. (Yeah, like that’s going to happen even with the odd Castle or Murkowski added.) Sorry, but elections like those in 2008 have consequences that are not easily undone over any short period of time. The best that can be hoped for is to freeze in place. Gridlock. And that can be accomplished without a majority in the Senate and with control of the House alone.
The center which you, Beinart, and many others so carefully laud, screwed itself royally in 2008 and will live with the consequences of that for a very long time until it demands that certain policies be put in place and cares less about the personalities and ephemera surrounding candidates for office.
You don’t like O’Donnell or Angle? Well that’s too damn bad for you and for the voters of Delaware and Nevada. The voters of both states had primaries they could have taken an active part in and choices in those primaries never-the-less. What happened? Most of your precious folks from the center sat on their collective asses. But you know what, at the end of the day, they still have a clear choice between candidates with vastly different policy priorities that represent the very choices you highlight.
So, if the voters of Delaware and Nevada, or anywhere else, again put personality, class, and anything else that is secondary to the policy difference that clearly exist between the candidates now running, then they will not only be repeating the mistakes made in 2008, they will have absolutely no reason to bitch or whine for any consequences that follow.
All elections, even lowly primary elections, have consequences. And to the voters of Delaware and Nevada this: If you don’t like the landing, then don’t bitch when you passed on the chance to choose the pilot.
Well said Odysseus…
It’s Radosh’s mentality that brought defeat for Republicans in both ’96 and ’08 elections. His thinking is both myopic and defeatist. Majority or not, I and millions of others are ready for fundamental changes in the Republican party. If it takes two more years to gain a majority in the Senate, I can wait.
But the days of scum posing as Republicans while carrying Obama’s water need to end first.
Right on Ode, The thing that Ron and the other hand wringers fail to realise is that for the first time in many years the group of people called Tea Partiers reached their collective limit on DC and its arrogance. This isn’t about a twenty year strategy or having 51 Senate seats. This is about a non-violent revolution that many of you simply have not recognized yet. I have been to several large TP events and the mood is the same each time. The people are fed up not with just Demorats but Republicans too. They do not want to be slaves to DC and their progress programs. They know that there is no more time for these idiots in DC to change and that if it means electing people that would not be they’re first choice but have the same agenda as they do then they’ll do it. I’m 68 years old and I have never seen anything like this mood or movement. Ron, you might not realize this but this nation is not too many steps away from a rebellion either peaceful or if that fails armed. There is simply no tolerance for a Specter, Bennet, Murkowski or Castle any longer. The next round will be the super RINOs like Lugar, Hatch, Snowe, Collins, Graham and McCain.
Well, thank you Tex T. and Inspectorudy.
What Ron also overlooks by focusing on the personality and past of O’Donnell and Angle with regard to their “electability” is the fact that the Democratic party for years has hosted a veritable sideshow of political freaks and loons – and that fact has had no discernible effect on the party’s electoral fortunes or on the policies the party has pursued.
Now, the principle of charity should be applied to the constituencies of these politicians when considering the reasons for their continued reelection: their constituencies may know these politicians are loons, but these voters may view them as “their loons”. In other words, these voters vote for policy preferences over personality. The voters in Delaware and Nevada may have to choose between what they, and perhaps Ron, view as loons but these are loons with differences on policy. So as you both have noted, the real question for voters in Nevada, Delaware, and elsewhere is this: Which matters more, form and style, or policy?
What Radosh is saying is that the failure of Angle and ODonnell will be used by the left to evidence the Tea Party’s perceived failure, and hope that much of that energy is redirected the centrist voters. The center hopes these initial failures will undermine and destroy the successful assymetric attack of the Tea Party insurgency. This is faulty thinking though. By definition asymmetric warfare will continue effectively because the symmetric warfare tactics of the Left AND the GOP RINOs aren’t effective against the Tea Party. They had their best chance to destroy it when the TP was small. And by golly they tried didn’t they? Now, nothing but the TP members themselves can stop the movement. Good luck fighting conventional warfare!
On point. To me it makes sense that the Tea Party movement has first focused on Republican candidacies. But, given that the unifying theme of the movement has centered on fiscal issues not “conservatism” per se, as Rodosh hopes or seems to think, and direct citizen action and involvement contra professionalism in politics, asymmetrism offers the prospect of the movement drilling into the Democrats. There will still be issues that separate the parties but an insurgency within the Democrats focusing on fiscal issues could (would?) knock the supports out from much of the movement to aggregate power and politics in DC. Seems to me that the goal of the Tea Party movement ought not be creation of a dichotomy where one party favors statism and centralization of power and politics in DC and one which opposes that, to whatever degree it does, but rather a systemic eradication of these tendencies.
Don’t let the media spin fool you. I live in Nevada and you don’t see any…ANY….signs for Reid anywhere. True enough that I live in Northern Nevada but it says something about the popularity of Reid that his own son, Rory Reid who is running for Governor, will not use his last name in his campaign. He just calls it “Rory2010″. So let’s not count Sharron Angle out of it just yet, ok?
Mr Radosh:
“If Republicans are to win and govern, they need to build a centrist conservative party that is national in scope, not a Southern or regional party that will continually lose in the Northeast. So I ask PJM readers, is that what you really want?”
Frankly, sir, I could give a tinker’s damn about the Northeast.
For far, FAR too long that portion of the nation North of the Mason Dixon line and east of the Appalachians has been in “the driver’s seat”…and has driven us where we are today.
Maybe they should ride in the back seat and let another region do the driving for a spell, huh?
And with all due respect to the esteemed Mr. Krauthammer, by what sorcery does he divine that a national party has to be “Centrist”?
The way I see it, we’re coming along quite nicely by simply being Conservative.
But let’s cut to the core of the issue…if “centrist” ,(whatever THAT is), Republicans want to regain the Senate as well as the House, then it’s time to pipe down with your bellyachin’ and help the crew take a strain on the lines to pull the (R) candidates to the top of the mast.
This is no less than what good and loyal Conservatives were told to do, and did, for DECADES. They held their nose and voted for the brand.
Well, now it’s time for others to reciprocate…and we’re seeing how gracious y’all are with “Princess” Murkowski and Mike “The Loser” Castle.
Have you STILL not learned the lesson of 2008? The Conservatives’ “Parteibefehl” has pegged the meter.
You can’t count on playing them off against the moonbats anymore, because they’ll sit home and let the moonbats clean your damned clocks.
The “centrists” or “moderates” or “RINO”s are the ones whose turn it is to get played now.
Deal.
It’s ironic that so many conservatives who purportedly love the Constitution and democracy express a desire to disenfranchise the voters in those “misguided” sections of the country that don’t think they way they do.
Yes, let’s ditch the NE. Everone who lives there is worthless. Squishy. Unprincipled. Rush and Hannity and Levin and DeMint and Palin say so. The very states that played such a pivotal role in the birth of this country are now to be treated like wayward children.
That’s gratitude for you.
Need I remind the purists who are out to purge the Republican Party of anything that resembles a moderate how Obama/Pelosi/Reid were able to cause so much damage in such a short period of time? Blue Dog Dems. The Blue Dogs may not have been enthusiastically welcomed, but they were happily tolerated–because they could be counted on to vote with the party MOST of the time. The result? Stimulus. ObamaCare. Financial Regulation. Spending, spending, and more spending. OBAMACARE.
But the Republicans would rather have a ideologically pure minority than a majority that includes a few moderates. Moderates who would vote with THEM most of the time. On a practical level, how is this a winning political strategy?
The Dems understood the importance of being more inclusive. Where they went wrong was in overreading their mandate, and moving too far to the left. And now the Republicans are determined to move to the other extreme. Good luck with that.
The logical conclusion of The Great Purge will be a far-right presidential candidate in 2012 who will alienate those nasty moderate voters who elected Obama in 2008.
That will mean four more years of Obama. But, hey, at least the Republicans will be “pure.” And irrelevant.
black bart: you are on it. Joe Biden is VP and is a clown of the first order. Hopefully the people of Delaware have seen the error of their ways after the Biden VP experience. Even tho’ he is “elite”".
Lawrence: Obama is not a socialist….he is a communist.
I think many people are under estimating the anger out here especially with the baby boomers who have just begun to retire We have worked all our lives and finally get to retire when along comes Barry and his minions to turn this into a third world country.
Don’t count these people like Angle and O’Donnell out just yet. We as Americans haven’t come this far to lose our country to a third world dictator.
In the Nevada Republican Primary, I voted for Sue Lowden believing she would be the stronger candidate against Harry Reid.
However, at this stage of the game I do not believe there would be any difference
in the polls/chances had Sue obtained the nomination. Ditto had Danny Tarkanian
prevailed. The demonization of the GOP nominee would not have taken off so fast
with Sue or Danny, but it would not have peaked out so fast either.
Harry Reid races are have always been cliffhangers even when he had to run against such a populist/conservative stalwart as Paul Laxalt who should have cleaned his clock by a very wide margin. The reason is that Reid is a master at piling up IOUs and calling them in—–and maybe doing a little behdind the scenes blackmailing as well.
So in short, Sharron Angle has as good a chance as anybody else.
PS: Sue has been gracious in her loss and Danny is working his tail off on behalf of his erstwhile primary opponent. Truly toxic nominees do not garner that kind of support. Nor does Sharron hurt the chances of other Republicans in Nevada. Quite the contrary.
Ron, you are just a tad off in your assessment of the Silver State.
Ron, as a lifelong centrist I have been struggling mightily with the O’Donnell/Angle conundrum. I have contemplated how to articulate what I am feeling, what I am sensing, and what I believe related to this subject.
First, to my friends here at PJM, who for the most part have been extremely friendly and warm towards me and my opinions, I greatly appreciate their support and friendship. I have made no secret of my adherence to being a lifelong GDI. A few commenters from time to time seem to lump together folks who do not adhere to a straightline issue litmus test, and have harsh words for “breaking with the command”. I have no answer for them that will satisfy them. I am not force fed my opinions by anyone, the whole of my life, and I damn well will not start at this age.
I take EVERY issue of the day as a separate item, if it is not logically linked to another issue, I won’t link it just because some other guy says I should, and will certainly NEVER do so, if some other guy says I HAVE TO…or else I’m out of his “club”. If his “club” won’t let me reason it out for myself, his club sucks, frankly. The whole reason that I am a devoted anti-leftist, is because of this very demand. Leftists, more than the center right VAST majority of this country, demand strict issue purity. Demand litmus tests on every issue. (See, Joe Lieberman for example). I spit out the litmus paper every time someone wants me to put it in my mouth.
Secondly, there is this rather silly notion that if I am a centrist or a GDI, that my opinions are “squishy” or that I stand for nothing. This is so vacuous as to hardly be worth squashing. Anyone who reads what I write here at PJM can tell you otherwise, in spades. I stand quite firmly on every issue upon which I have worked out and reasoned an opinion, thank you. If my opinion differs from the “norm” or from some “checklist” that I should be adhering to, it doesn’t make it “squishy” nor does it make me “stand for nothing at all”. It doesn’t make me a RINO, a rather ridiculous charge against a GDI, and it doesn’t make me any less committed to my beliefs. If there is no room for me in either party, because I don’t march in lockstep with the “Purity or leave” folks…then neither party has a place for me and I should take my support elsewhere.
And this, thirdly…is where I come down on the O’Donnell/Angle issue. As individual candidates, neither is particularly my cup of “tea”. I think they are intellectual lightweights and I prefer a more heady candidate when I can get one. I think they can hold some pretty kooky notions and they have some peculiar toys in their attics.
But the folks they ran against in the primary and the folks they are running against in the general, I wouldn’t choose if they were in a lineup of gangbangers and gargoyles, as folks I would want to represent me in self-governing this land of ours.
If neither party is going to run someone to represent my notion of representative self-governance, I don’t give a Tinker’s Dam whether one or the other is “electable” or not. They aren’t “electable” if enough people don’t vote for them, so I see that “electable” argument as a bit of a bootstrapping piece of fresh road apple, frankly.
I LOVE Charles Krauthammer. And I have felt compassion, even sorrow at the unfair and unhinged bashing that Karl Rove has taken over the years. But they are wrong, in my opinion. And so are you. I don’t say this lightly. I have weighed this issue out and rehashed it repeatedly, because of my deep respect and admiration for CK and others, yourself included.
The Tea Party as I see it and sense it, isn’t saying that O’Donnell and Angle are the strongest candidates that COULD HAVE been put up, they are sending a very, very, very loud message that just because the existing parties have put up some other stooge, they aren’t going to just swallow another stinky gulp of Cod Liver Oil and hold their noses. “YOU hold YOUR damn nose this time”, seems to be the rather direct and pointed response. We don’t care if our stinker is “electable” by YOUR standards, and don’t come back and tell us about financial shenanigans, weird or perverted backgrounds, or lack of “experience”. The entirety of YOUR Congress is littered with all of the above.
If you want us to adhere to choosing ONLY between the two existing parties, then run candidates that meet some basic standards, or your “electability” argument will be nothing more than a coin toss between “Crook A” and “Mental Lightweight B”…and we simply will run Candidate C…and let the chips fall where they may.
The days of “well, our nitwit sellout isn’t as bad as their communist” seem to be over. Taking back the Senate doesn’t seem to be the be all, end all in the message being delivered. Taking back our self-governance is the message. Yes, it is VERY important that we not be led down a hell hole of socialist bankruptcies. Equally important is to not be delivering a mixed or misread message.
It’s not the Republicans’ house or senate to take back. It’s our damn house. It’s our damn senate. If one does not get that message from the election of Miller over Murkowski, or Rubio over Crist…then one must surely sense something is afoot with O’Donnell and Angle.
The message is this…it’s not about “purity” of thought. It’s not about litmus tests or being “hard right”…it’s about us. Listen to us. Speak to us. Respect us. We are being disrespected by BOTH sides and nobody is defending our honor. We are being taken for granted, and the “mandates” that are being read when we vote the last bums out and bring in the new bums, is a total misread.
The wakeup call delivered by O’Donnell/Angle is this: We aren’t going to “go along” any more. We are going to self-govern this land of ours. If you want to represent us, then REPRESENT US….not yourselves. Hear this message and heed it well. It’s not about “party” any longer. It’s about We, the People. Can you hear us now?
Thank you. Very well said, if a bit long for my tastes.
I was just going to ask Ron to pick the next winning lotto numbers for me since his crystal ball seems to work better than mine.
@cfbleachers,
Well said sir! You have articulated the feelings of us who have become so frustrated and disappointed in the self-serving sycophants we sent to Washington, that we cannot go along with their agenda of protecting their own interests any longer. They no longer serve at our behest,they serve at their pleasure. When we at the Main Street level try to communicate with them, Democrat or Republican,unless we know them on a personal level or can offer a photo/publicity opportunity, we are ignored and the typical response is a “canned”, prewritten email or letter.
“”..It’s not the Republicans’ house or senate to take back. It’s our damn house. It’s our damn senate. If one does not get that message from the election of Miller over Murkowski, or Rubio over Crist…then one must surely sense something is afoot with O’Donnell and Angle….”
This is perhaps the most lucid expression of how we actually feel about the situation in Washington and both parties in general. No, it is not “your” house, senate, and I might add with special emphasis, “The White House”. The will of the American people has been ignored for all too long and finally, the frustration and anger bore fruit, aka, The Tea Party.
If the politicians running for re-election or election do not understand the underlying unrest and distrust they have created, even if they are highly intelligent or just average, they should not be sent to represent us.
There is nothing wrong with “citizen legislators” at all. In fact, we seem to have a dearth of representation by the “citizens” of this country in Washington. O’Donnell and Angle may not measure up to the Harvard model of political acumen at a professorial level, but they sure as hell know what life is like on Main Street. At this point, I will take Mom over Professor Obama any day of the week.
Establishment Republican Logic Explained
A Scientist had fifty frogs.
He lined them up at one end of his laboratory.
He then took a Cricket Bat and created a sudden noise behind the frogs after which he carefully measured the results.
In his book he wrote: ‘Frogs when startled by a sudden noise tend to jump an average of ten feet.’
He then randomly cut one leg off of each frog, he lined them up again and created the same noise with the Cricket Bat and observed the results again.
In his book he wrote: ‘Frogs with one leg cut off when startled by a sudden noise tend to jump an average of seven and a half feet.’
He then randomly cut a second leg off of each frog, lined them up again and used the Cricket Bat to create the same noise again.
In his book he wrote: ‘Frogs with two legs cut off when startled by a sudden noise tend to jump an average of five feet.’
Continuing he randomly cut a third leg off of each frog, lined them up a fourth time and using the Cricket Bat created the same noise.
In his book he wrote: ‘Frogs with three legs cut off when startled by a sudden noise tend to jump an average of two and a half feet.’
Realizing he was on to something he proceeded to cut the final leg off of each of the frogs, he then lined them up and grasping his Cricket Bat created the same noise again.
With no reaction from the frogs he continued to slam the Cricket Bat to make his noise in progressively harder strokes.
In his book he wrote:
‘The correlation is undeniable.
You can see the deterioration with each leg being removed.
Without question the final result is that with all four legs cut off;
Frogs become completely deaf.’
Good analysis, cfb. It seems so hard for those ensconced in the often upscale DC suburbs to understand that we have no friends nor vested interests there except for the ideas we have about how we want to be governed, governed with limits, always with limits. People like Rove, Krauthammer, and Radosh probably have friends of both parties in high-level government positions, friends they respect and sources they respect for stories and articles. That is understandable to us. But basically I don’t give a rat’s behind about that. I want better efficiency in government and smaller government, and more liberty damn it. I won’t get these things by supporting and voting for the go-along crowd. Get the hell out of the way, RINOs, whoever you may be. Basta!
Thank you for that most insightful and eleoquent rejoinder good sir.
I do find it somewhat amusing how libs, dems, beltway insiders, noreaster elites and Radoshes of the world (do I repeaet myself?) scoff at the inexperience of newcomers lke O’Donnell et. al. It isn’t like she is running President or anything right? And after 2 years in the Senate she’ll be as qualified as Obama for that job.
cfb, well said and the message that DC should hear along with pundits that have never in their lifetimes experienced anything like this is that “We’ve had enough”! We all know that every Demorat LIED to us about the Obamacare bill and about almost any other issue that has come up in the last 18 months. We are simply fed up and the character of the candidates is NOT the message this year. It’s the content of the message that is important. Like Noonan said last week, when D’s and R’s negotiate it should be from the o yard line from each end of the field and work toward the 50 yard line. But the way the R’s negotiate is that the D’s start at OUR 10ydl and we agree to end up on our 20ydl as a compromise.
Dude
Have some more coffee. Reid is not the ‘speaker of the house.” Good thing you’re not running for office.
Oh and a tip {from an expert in chaotic systems}:
Predictions are hard, especially about the future.
“Reid is the personification of everything that has turned the electorate against the Democrats. As Speaker of the House, he has presided over….”
The GOP has as much chance of moving to the center as Harry Reid does of becoming Speaker of the House.
Ronnie: I to have a beef (or two) with Reid, but, as you might
imagine it’s entirely different from yours: My problem with him
is that he’s a wus ( I know he boxed on college or something, but
even so). It seems that he runs from the prospect of a filibuster.
Just once I would like him to bring out the mattresses in the
Senate cloakrooms and let the Republican’s do their thing to
the ridicule of the rest of the country. One recent example in
particular: for fear of a Republican filibuster, he won’t bring up
either the Democratic tax reduction renewal, or the Democratic (note
I say Democratic, not “Democrat.” I know whereof my adjectives lie)
proposal on finance reform, before the election. I believe, contarary
to your goals that a Republican filibuster would reflect badly on
them, not the other way around.
There are folks that think the Repubs filibustering reflects well on them, since in filibustering they are fighting for principles we hold dear or to stem the tide of socialism in our land.
“If Republicans are to win and govern, they need to build a centrist conservative party that is national in scope, not a Southern or regional party that will continually lose in the Northeast. So I ask PJM readers, is that what you really want?”
That’s exactly what was voted out in 2006, a care bear centerist bunch of sort of republicans. You know, compassionate conservatives. I’m sorry, but if the republicans can’t win being further right of center than they have been for the past few decades then the country is lost. Saying that we need to focus on the center after five decades of redefining the center further and further toward the left is just blind, rote, bullhockey.
have a nice day
According to the second paragraph, the author thinks that SENATOR Harry Reid is the Speaker of the House.
It is hard to take this analysis seriously after the author has demonstrated a basic lack of knowledge of US government.
Maybe that qualifies him to run for office.
Ron Radosh: “Why Republicans Will Not Win The Senate”
There are 2 reasons why Republicans may, repeat, may not win the Senate:
1. Charles Krauthammer
2. Karl Rove
The Tea Party stayed with the Republicans. The two fools above don’t care.
Yes, and Ron is doing his best to “send out his resume” to such folks with such eeyore articles.
Harry Reid is not Speaker of the House
Dave:
You make some wise observations about public-private partnerships being crony-capitalism. What ever public-private partnership may be, they do not represent “socialism.” Tea Partisans often mistake public-private partnerships for full blown socialism or communism.
Regarding Father Coughlin’s economic program. You are correct to maintain that Coughlin advocated measures which can be characterized as collectivist and/or anti-capitalist.
He saw little possibility of American capitalism reforming itself. “Capitalism is doomed and not worth trying to save.” Coughlin called for a form of “state-capitalism” to solve the distribution problem. Without being specific, he argued that all Americans who were willing to work should be guaranteed an annual wage sufficient to enjoy their share of the material abundance produced by the
US industry and agriculture.
He frequently denounced “international bankers” and “communists.” He called for the revaluation of the dollar, which would put more money in circulation and presumably create increased purchasing power.
Like the Tea Party, he used populist terms in his speeches. He denounced rich and well-educated easterners, “the luxury of Park Avenue and Westchester County” against “widows, orphans and “inarticulate farmers” or Wall Street attorneys, the erudition of Harvard, of Yale, of Princeton, of Columbia,” directed against servant girls, laborers, farmers. He denounced the two-party system as a “sham-battle.”
Common Tea Party themes: anti-eastern, anti-well-educated elites, also highly nationalistic and isolationist. He attacked the majority of politicians for being pro-communist.
Unlike the Tea Party, he advocated government intervention to protect workers from exploitation. He believed capitalism could not reform itself. He openly advocated the abolition of political parties.
He was a fascist, a revolutionary and anti-democratic.
I wish to acknowledge the work of Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, “The Politics of Unreason Right-Wing Extremism 1790-1970″ for the many insights and observations I presented in this discussion of America’s Right-Wing Fascist priest, Father Charles E. Coughlin. I urge my libertarian friends to pick up the Lipset and Raab’s book and read it cover to cover.
So…Father Coughlin was so far to the left he was actually a right-wing extremist. Hmm. Your comparison of the Tea Party to Father Coughlin instantly fails when you acknowledge that the latter believed that capitalism could not be saved and argued for a massive intervention of the government into the economy. How many Tea Partiers have you heard stating that capitalism could not be saved and that only government can save us all? Actually, there is a party that regularly espouses that nonsense and it happens to be the Democratic Party. I would recommend a better book on Father Coughlin called “Liberal Fascism”.
Also, you must give examples of how Tea Partiers came out against well-educated Easterners, how they are being nationalistic and being isolationist. It seems they are more against political elitists and their merry band of Squealers. But maybe you can give examples showing otherwise.
Chris Bolts [...] So…Father Coughlin was so far to the left he was actually a right-wing extremist. [...]
Actually, without intending this, really hit the nail –
Proof: Hitler, and his Nazis, while described as right-wingers, were actually nationalist-exclusivist left-wingers -
Hitler’s antipathy for communism was essentially an anti-slavic, anti rural phobia – in the rest, objectives, ways, etc., he was a Stalin -
Again, Lawrence, rhetoric without evidence is simply sophistry.
Where is your evidence that the tea party is against ‘well-educated easterners’? Oh, and please define ‘well-educated’. Having a degree from Harvard does not mean that you are ‘well-educated’; sophistry exists everywhere.
Equally – provide evidence that the tea party is against ‘easterners’.
I’d suggest that the tea party is against sophistry and elitism, against any set of people who define themselves as intellectually and morally superior to ‘the people’ and thus, entitled to Rule those same people. Such a mindset is embedded within the current Democratic party and White House.
The constant refrain of the Dem. Party and WH, is to the ‘rednecks’ or ‘guns and religion’ filiation, or to themes that the only reason the people reject Health Care is because of ignorance – heh.
As for fascism, it is, like communism, socialism and tribalism, a collectivist ideology, which denigrates the individual, seeks to remove economic and social power from the individual and submerges that individual within a group loyalty. The agenda of all these collectivist ideologies is utopian purity. In fascism, the loyalty is to a purity of origin (ethnic, religious, historical); in socialism, its ideology is to a utopian perfection of life in the future. [Note how Obama, who is indeed a socialist, talks about his focus on the long-term future and ignores current issues]. Tribalism focuses on a purity of kinship.
Only democracy rejects utopianism and rests its governance on reality; i.e., that the world is not and never will be pure and perfect; that we live within fallibilities – whether it be of biological or psychological or chemical fallibilities (ie. new diseases, human nature, weather, soil, etc)..and our role is to deal with these realities in the most reasonable way we can…without forcing people to instead focus on a fictional world, a utopia.
““state-capitalism” to solve the distribution problem” is the definition of National Socialism.
The democratic principal is personal freedom with equal amounts of personal responsibility. If you rob a citizen of either you have either a dictatorship or a smothering nanny state that leads everyone but the government to equal poverty.
Whatever the motivations that leads to it the result is evil.
Lawrence–
Fascism is left wing. Yes, even when professed by the religious.
Fascism can Right, Center or Left.
Lawrence – in order for your adjectives of ‘right, center, left’ to have any meaning, you have to define them.
The ‘left’ is commonly understood to mean collectivism; that is, a social and political agenda of state intervention into private wealth, redistribution of that wealth. The right is usually understood to mean individualism; that is, a social and political agenda that minimizes state intervention, confining such govt agendas to common areas (eg, defense, transportation, communication, currency etc)and that seeks to empower individual entrepreneurship.
Therefore, you are completely wrong to declare that fascism can be ‘left, right, center’. No such thing. It is a collectivist ideology, rejecting individual empowerment, and focusing on the power of the state over the individual. That means it is ideologically left, it is focused on the group rather than the individual.
Lawrence,
National socialism is a left wing movement. It is not a capitalist rightwing political movement. It is a Marxist off shoot. I know that is inconvienient for you, but never the less, that is political reality.
You make an important point.These philosophies were never antipathetical. Let us not forget that the Nazis and Soviets were fast friends until it became more convenient for Stalin to “ally” with us. Had Patton been allowed to execute his own plans, what a different world we would have had.
The recent documentary “The Soviet Story” is a much watch for everybody.
“Fascism”–Left, Center and Right
An analysis of the social basis of different modern mass movements suggests that each major social stratum has both democratic and extremist political expressions.
Extremist groups and ideologies can, indeed, be classified in the same terms as democratic groups, i.e., left, right, and center.
Left-Wing Fascism: Peronism–the “Fascism” of the lower Class
Founded around Juan Peron, President of Argentina from 1946 to 1955.
Oriented toward the lower classes, urban working class and impoverished rural population. Strong state ideology quite similar to that advocated by Mussolini. Anti-Strong anti-democratic and populist content. Stressed the power of the party and the leader derived from the people. Believed democracy results in government by incompetent and corrupt politicians. Shares with right-wing and centrist authoritarianism a strong nationalist bent, blaming domestic difficulties on outsiders like the “internationalist financiers.” Glorifies the position of the armed forces.
Peronism, unlike right-wing and centrist fascism, has a positive orientation toward the workers, the trade unions, and the class struggle. Enacted numerous pro-worker and farmer legislative items. Combined his “labor-ist” program with extremist nationalism, strong emphasis on the role of the leader; corporatist ideology, populist demagogy, and lack of respect from Democracy. Strong opposition to the middkle classes, big business and the landlords.
Peronism is anticapitalist populist nationalism which appealed to the lower strata in alignment with the army. Peronism is a variant of Fascism, a Fascism of the Left because it is based on the social strata who would otherwise turn to socialism of Communism.
Right-Wing Fascism — French Example, “Poujad-ism Movement”
Its ideology was like that of the Nazis and other middle-class extremist populist movements. It appealed to the petty bourgeoisie, the artisans, merchants, and family farmers. It opposed big business, the trusts, the Marxist Parties, the trade unions, the banks, and state control over business. Strong hostility to paying taxes to maintain a social welfare state.
The movement attacked both left and right–appealed to populist sentiments—the idea that the people rather than parties should control government. Combined with its attacks on big business, left parties, and unions, were attacks on the Jews and a nationalist defense of colonialism.
Movement expressed fear of being merged with the workers (a fear associated with hostility to both organized labor from below and the the social ranks above. Paujadism sought scapegoats (domestic and foreign), and expressed strong hostility towards culture, intellectuals, and non-conformists.
They had an affinity to the symbols of the French Revolution and the Republic, its slogans (“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”) but stressed their own special interpretations of the revolutionary French tradition.
The US Tea Party looks a lot like the French Poujad Movement, during the early 1950s.
If Fascism is a “left-wing” movement per se, why is it that they exterminate their comrades, the Lefties, i.e. in the Spanish Civil War, in Germany under Hitler, in Italy under Mussolini, in Argentina under Peron? The Fascists come and take the Leftists away to camps, expose them to torture and then kill them. Not a very fraternal way to treat your ideological co-thinkers. The Communists behave in this fashion also. They eliminated all opposition, right, left and center.
I have read Hanna Ardent’s “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” Found it a remarkable analysis of Hitlerism and Stalinism. Libertarians are not the first nor will they be the last to see the unity of these two movements. These twin evils may have started out Fascist and Communist but moved toward and became something unique: absolute evil. I can not identify fully developed Nazism as right or left wing. I can not identify Stalinism as left-wing. They represent something new to mankind: totalitarianism-a system beyond evil; an absolute political and moral evil.
Lawrence – your error, and it is an error, in trying to define fascism as either left or right, derives from your mistaken focus on the nature of the population in which the movement began to emerge.
If it’s within the workers – you define the fascism as ‘left’; if it’s within the ‘middle class’, you define it as ‘right’. [And by the way, it's proper blog procedure to provide your references.] But this focus on the site of the emergence ignores the actual ideological content of the fascism. And, it is always, always, ‘left’.
That’s because no matter where it began, its essential nature is collectivist. It rejects the power of the individual to make economic, social and political decisions, it rejects the individual as a reasoning and active agent in the world. Instead, it hands this power over to the collective. The collective authority is not the democratic majority but is an elite set of rulers.
Whether the elite is/was a worker, an intellectual, a theocrat is irrelevant. The point is that the ideology is collectivist; rules are developed by a set of rulers, not by the democratic election actions of the people. And, the individual has no right of dissent.
Fascist ideology, which requires that all citizens be clones of the description of ‘what it means to be a citizen of this nation’, rests on a purist utopian perspective. The assumption is: All will be well, if only everyone follows these axioms.
It is interesting to consider that all the collectivist societal forms: tribalism, fascism, socialism, communism; which are all ‘politically left’ have no capacity to adapt to external exigencies. That’s because they deny the function and role of dissent, of the individual, of aberrations from the norm. That is why they all become totalitarian – because totalitarianism is a mode of rule which forces people to submit to the collective. In a large population which has a natural tendency to dissent,the leftist political ideologies all turn to totalitarianism to repress this dissension. Heh – as Obama sues Arizona, and all the smear campaigns by him and the WH against any who dissent and criticize.
It’s strange that you ignore the ideological content of fascism; that’s the key to its nature.
ETAB:
For the second time now I am clearly noting that I’m relying on Seymore Martin Lipset, President of the American Political Science Association (1979-1980) and President of the American Sociological Association (1992-1993) as my guide to the analysis of Fascism. I’ve quoted from “Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics,” Chapter 5 “Fascism”–Left, Right and Center, pages 131-176. I’m also using Lipset and Raab, “The Politics of Unreason Radical Right-Wing Extremism 1790-1970.”
Are you taking notes Mr. ETAB?
I wrote:
“An analysis of the social basis of different modern mass movements suggests that each major social stratum has both democratic and extremist political expressions.
Extremist groups and ideologies can classified in the same terms as democratic groups, i.e., left, right, and center.”
You may not like it, but that is the way the real world looks at the matter. Of course, it is a cardinal myth among libertarians and other right-wing thinkers to assert that Fascism is a child of the Left. I noted,
“I have read Hanna Ardent’s “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” Found it a remarkable analysis of Hitlerism and Stalinism. Libertarians are not the first nor will they be the last to see the unity of these two movements. These twin evils may have started out Fascist or Communist but moved toward and became something unique: absolute evil. I can not identify fully developed Nazism as right or left wing. I can not identify Stalinism as left-wing. They represent something new to mankind: totalitarianism-a system beyond evil; an absolute political and moral evil.”
I guess you missed that, right?
You add nothing new to the discussion. You are blocked by your small time libertarian prejudices. You’ve demonstrated a lack of critical thinking. You are stuck in a left vs. right antagonism, without independent judgment. Murry Rothbard would call you in for a good talking to.
BTW, ETAB. It is standard practice you tell us your references. Where are YOUR footnotes?
Lawrence -ah, now, you move into the ad hominem. Won’t work.
You fail to, yourself, analyze what you’ve read; you simply repeat it without critical analysis. Let’s try it again.
Collectivism is a political ideology that rejects the capacity of the individual to reason about the world and come up with solutions. Instead, collectivism sets up a ‘utopian model’ of The Way It Ought To Be’, rejects the capacity and right of the individual to critique this model, and instead, expects everyone to follow the model. The three basic modes of collectivism are: tribalism, fascism and socialism-communism. They are all similar; they are all ‘leftist’ in that their focus is on the group and a rejection of individual freedom.
You can find this in any basic political analysis, from Aristotle’s Politics to Karl Popper’s ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’. That is, the analysis of the collective vs the individual modes of social organization is a basic area of analysis.
Totalitarianism is not a societal mode of organization, as are tribalism, fascism and socialism-communism, but a mode of enforcing power over a population. Since, in any population of, let’s say, more than 30 people, there is going to be dissent, then, as the population increases, it is more difficult to enforce commonality within the collective. That is why the collective mode, in a large population, will always become totalitarian as it fights against its citizens, to repress them and maintain that collective rule.
I don’t think you understand its nature. I suggest, again, Karl Popper’s ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’.
On Fascism, you might try Paxton ‘The Anatomy of Fascism’ or Eatwell’s ‘Fascism’.
I absolutely reject your opinion that any and all political ideologies have ‘left, right and center’ modes. All ideologies may have a range of variations, from mild to strong commitment to the basic axioms, but the essential definition of ‘leftism’ as focused around empowering the group and that of ‘right’ as empowering the individual….precludes these definitions being used within ONE political ideology. You can’t be both a ‘groupie’ and an ‘individualist’.
So, no, it is not a myth that fascism is a leftist ideology; it’s fact. Again, the political ideology that is defined as ‘left’ privileges the group. That’s fascism – as well as tribalism and socialism-communism.
Certainly there are operational differences between these three subsets of the leftist political ideology. They are distinct in their identities. BUT – they are all collectivist and thus, ‘children of the left’.
There is only one political mode of ‘the right’, focused on empowering the individual – democracy.
Looks like you’re stirring up the hornet’s nest of unhinged wahabbi teabots, Mr.Radosh.
These clowns also know that Harry Reid is a senator!! wellwhatdyaknow!
(The parallels between these tea party wahabbis and islamic radicals..in the degree of fanaticism is becoming more and more obvious and ominous. )
Their primary goal is to defeat the GOP
Which leads to the conclusion that the loudest and protestingest teabots are marxist “plants” workin’ for the man – Soros
Mr. Radosh – I disagree with your basic conclusion to this. Going “centrist” is every bit the same as RINO, we have entirely too many currently in office.
I think our nation is aspiring to see MORE conservatism.
With November in mind, for a couple months now I’ve used this as an email sig:
–
BigPat says Remember In November…
Leave No Incumbent Standing!
I stand firm with that message. And further, I don’t see a CongressCritter one with the cajones to even mention TERM frigging LIMITS.
None have the cajones to investigate the missing birth certificate that no one has seen, even though Pelosi signed notarized form Obama met the Constitutional eligibility clause (she belongs in prison). Yes, I realize Obama doesn’t have time to glue this to his forehead, that’s because he’s too busy chumming with Ahmadinejad @ UN HQ.
Even the conservative ones (no names) aren’t willing to delve into this BC issue, so there is indictment from Citizens Grand Jury sitting in Mueller’s lap right now, that he needs to respond to. (as of late August).
LEAVE NO INCUMBENT STANDING!!!
This nation belongs to US after all, WE THE PEOPLE, and were taking ownership back!
“Centrist”… HA!!! Centrist nothing!!!
Before we kick social conservatives to the curb because they’ll prevent the mighty Republicans from winning, let’s be serious. How many conservatives are straight up libertarians? Meaning they’re atheist fiscal conservatives who lean unmistakably left on social issues like abortion, assited suicide, or gay marriage?
A healthy chunk of the minorities who vote democrats are social conservatives. African Americans are probably a lost cause, (they’re not a reliable voting group to begin with) but there’s JUST enough Asians or Latinos you can peel off to make a difference in a competitive states or districts. Doesn’t it make more sense for the GOP to approach these non white conservatives and engage them in ideas about limited government than for them to go “centrist” and try to appeal to moderates who may not support the party once the obama hate ebbs? Do the math – they’ll be many more minorites than libertarians in the coming years.
I read Asian newspapers based in this country. Reader opinions left on articles covering the AZ law or the “Dream act” reveal an even split. Some are very much hesitant about the government spending any more of their money to support to even illegals of their own ethnicity. I’ve read them complaing about unions and crappy American schools. You can have a rational discussion with many amnesty supporting Latinos who aren’t afraid acknowledge the other side. The GOP fears a certain militant faction of the minority population too much, I think. Many of them SHOULD be voting GOP. Seriously.
Oh, please. Most of us — libertarians with a small “l” — are ordinary Americans. We’re mostly Christians, personally conservative about abortion, uneasy about same-sex marriage, and at least willing to listen to arguments over assisted suicide (I’m violently against it). What we are that you probably dislike is opposed to laws that are supposed to protect us from our own little selves.
The “mainstream” conservative is a decent chap, trustworthy, responsible, and good to have as a neighbor, but in the usual case he doesn’t think much about why his values are good ones that predominate in a free society. He thinks his life, his property, and his kids’ virtue are protected by the State. If any notion has been conclusively disproved in recent years, that one surely has. He might not realize it, but we despised libertarians do. We are the folks who actually think about why individual liberty is right — and why no amount of State power can substitute for it.
But go ahead. Keep blaming us for your troubles. Keep insisting that we must be a bunch of dope-smoking atheist pacifists who have an abortion every other week. Keep driving us out of your ranks, so we’ll have to choose between political isolation and keeping company with a bunch of fringe loonies. And when you lose an election by a handful of votes, because the Democrat has out-pandered and out-vote-frauded the Republican, go ahead and blame us for “stealing” your guy’s votes. I’m sure it will make you feel all self-righteous and justified in your prejudices, a nice balm for having shot yourself in the foot.
Amen Francis. Here endeth the lesson.
And here beginneth the truth.
Maybe, Francis…we need better descriptors. I have been repeatedly written on these very pages that ascribing the appellation “liberal” to a hard core, kneejerk, anarcho-leftist is not merely lazy, it is inane.
“Progressive” other than as an inexpensive auto insurance company, is utterly ridiculous to describe people stuck four decades back.
“Elite” is a cosmic joke.
And, it’s not much better in the center or center/right field bleachers either, Francis. If I am a staunch small government, anti-leftist, fiscal hardbody…but, sort of a live and let live social values person…what does that make me?
I don’t self-identify as a libertarian, I am instinctively very protective and respectful of faith based folks, and I think that intentional media distortion is the greatest crime of our lifetime. Is there a “word” that accurately and adequately describes my politics?
Not really. We need to make those words mean something, Francis. Now, more than ever.
I’m not “blaming” anyone. I’m responding to the author’s arguments that the GOP must flock to the center to win, which involves alienating the religious and moral values conservatives. The establishment blames US for driving away moderate voters.
You kinda proved my point. We’re libertarians with a little “L”. We’re conservatives whose ideas about limited government and individual responsibility are compatiable with parts of the libertarian ideology. But we’re not generally interested in open borders, drug legalization, closing down Gitmo, and mutli language education, which also part of the libertarian agenda.
Libertarians don’t win anything. Even now, their candidates garner about 2-5% of the popular vote? Not even the daring tea parties are dumb enough to throw their votes on them. It’s not the overall libertarian agenda that’s flourishing, but their focus the fiscal conservatism and limited government. We probably already have the voters we were meant achieve by moving to the “center” and inching towards the left. Not too far right, but never a liberal outright, passionately religious but not a single issue value voters.
What’s more viable – going “center” to appeal to moderates and independents temporarily by your side thanks to the sour economy, or reach out to the EVER growing number of minorities and immigrants who are socially and religiously conservative? If you can effectively communicate the benefits of fiscal conservatism to them, then you’re in it for the long haul.
The Republic can no more abide tolerating abortion than it could tolerating slavery.
Damn straight.
Also, it’s been discovered by most that Obama isn’t cool, never was, and never will be, regardless the efforts by the MSM. Fascist liberalism has sunk itself under the weight of this clown’s agenda.
Killing unborn babies isn’t cool, forcing people to buy a national healthcare policy isn’t cool, most of what these fascists want to shove down people’s throats isn’t cool, either. About time.
Amen.
I was listening to Fox News morning show yesterday and one of the male hosts referred to Ahmadinejad as far right wing. So, I guess that looking at foreign politics is like looking in a mirror and left and right are transposed. Here in America the left are the stastists, but abroad it’s the right who are the statists.
Blaming Angle and O’Donnell for Republicans not winning the Senate is silly. Voting fraud will be the only way Dems hold the Senate.
As Limbaugh points out it takes 60 seats to establishment a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. 51 seats, if several of them are like the RINO sisters from Maine, gets you empowered RINOs. What you get is Democrat Lite. And the chairmanships, now there’s the rub, that’s what this brouhaha is really about: chairmanships. The GOP had the majority throughout the nineties and the early part of the new millennium. How did that work out? Higher spending and more pages of Federal Register than even the Dems managed under Clinton. Do people really want more of the same old, same old?
Put another way you cannot lose what you don’t have in the first place.
And even if the tea party guys lose this time round, they won the first battle which is to kick the RINOs out (or make a good start on it). No-one cannot win if your generals are traitors!
So, if you lose this election — who exactly has lost?
Mr. Radosh, right now, there is no conservative party that is ready to be elected, let alone govern — first it has to be restored to have meaning and purpose again. This takes time, especially if you have to wield the Karcher in the temple first to evict the Philistines and pork dealers — this is the very thing that Jesus did, in case you’d wonder what he’d do here.
And there is no way round this repair job either, the people don’t want to elect Democrats anymore, not even those that dress up as Republicans.
When liberals like Mr. Radosh start offering advice to conservatives about how we can ‘win’ , it is a clear indicator we should stay the course and see what happens. The looney liberals are always filled to the brim with good ideas about how to spend other peoples money, how other people should conduct their affairs and how other people should use their property.
Tell you what Mr. Radosh; why not tell your fellow liberals how they should shape up their stratagies, and let us conduct ours.
Wow, Bleach,
I was hanging on every word of what you wrote. I must say that your comments are the best I have read on this subject. OUTSTANDING!!!
What many of you people just flat out fail to understand is that our country is going down the tubes for two reasons.
one, the constitution is no longer the law of the land, because it’s now whatever everyone ‘wants it to be’. and when the law is what everyone ‘wants it to be’, then we don’t have a law. Can’t you see that?
two, the size of gov’t and debt are on a path for the destruction of this country. It is inevitable and just because people all around you are acting like herd-like lemmings pretending it isn’t so, does not mean they are right.
Finally, the centrist republicans may possibly repeal obamacare and stop cap and trade, but they WILL NOT stop the two problems mentioned above. If you think they will, you haven’t been paying attention and you are living in a delusional world.
and the
Yes, that is exactly what I want. I want a Republican party that more accurately reflects my beliefs, even if it doesn’t wrest control away from the Democrats. What good is controlling the Senate if everything we do is held hostage by our leftmost members? They become the most powerful force in the party because their support must be bought again and again, issue by issue.
Move the whole shebang to the right. If we don’t win this time, we’ll win next time. Or the time after.
I wonder how long it’ll take McCain to re-assemble his ‘gang of 15′ — or however many rinos and dinos he can gather up and convince to ‘go maverick’ on the rest of the senate to throw some weight around. Since his delusions of becoming POTUS have evaporated this will be the only power he can muster up and wield as a threat to the senate — if he can convince others to go along with him. The main sticking point is a POTUS that isn’t of his own party where the role of ‘maverick’ seemed to be most effective.
I doubt many dinos will enlist in such a role with McCain spearheading the effort until a Republican POTUS is elected.
What a pitiful old man he’s become. Sometimes I just don’t understand Arizona politics.
McCain and his various gambits and shifts – given his prestige and prominence – have undermined the Republican Party significantly. He no doubt believes he’s kept it saleable. Perhaps it would be smaller without his influence and tactics, but it would be more coherent. Currently it’s just a less focused version of the Democratic Party, an apologetic opponent.
Um, only one-third of the Senate is up in any given year.
Don’t you think this has SOMETHING to do with an inability to take the Senate, given the GOP’s existing nine-seat deficit?
In 2012, fully 24 of the 33 Senate seats up are in regions that are particularly brutal for Democrats in this cycle (according to Jay Cost over at Weekly Standard). Maybe we should just be patient, finish off this election cycle, then concentrate on keeping up the pressure rather than engage in all this hand-wringing about Delaware.
Also, if the GOP really were just a regional party (it isn’t), does that not also make the Donks a regional party? We could easily turn around Ron’s bromide as follows:
“If Democrats are to win and continue to govern, they need to build a centrist liberal party that is national in scope, not a West Coast/Northeastern or regional party that will continually lose in the South, Midwest, Mountain West, and Ohio Valley. So I ask my fellow tenured faculty members, is that what you really want?”
So, a 51 Senate majority will roll back all of Obama’s disasters? No, it will set up republicans to accept all blame for 2011, the year of complete economic wreckage. Spare us the histrionics over your liberal republican friends.
No, I’m afraid you have it exactly backwards. It’s people like Ron Radosh who will see to the creation of a regional party if they get their way. If the party apparatchiks continue to stifle and roadblock conservatives, they will be left finding themselves at the helm of a GOP that has become nothing more than a bastion of northeastern Democrat-lite. THEY will be the third party, not the new conservative party resulting from such a hypothetical schism.
What is so precious about a minimal Republican majority in the Senate? Especially if it comes by having a handful of RINO Senators who reliably give aid and comfort to the other side at the most inopportune moment? That is exactly the sort of thing people are beyond sick and tired of.
Add Ron Radosh to the list of editorialists who just don’t get it.
Mr. Radosh says O’Donnell and Angel are not electable. But the question is according to what standard? It is obvious that his standard of value is that one must always be willing to compromise on one’s basic principles. Yet that is precisely what is being rejected by many Americans. It is why Dems will be losing and why RINOs, those perennial compromisers on everything, are being rejected. Americans are fed up with both parties negotiating away their rights and freedoms. The tea party movement is aimed at both parties.
Castle was a leftist, so it was more important to purge the R away from him so he could not betray the GOP and Americans as a Senator after getting elected. We can still get to 10 more Senate seats without Delaware anyway.
Besides, if we get only 8 seats, the Dems are weakened and we take the House therefore stopping any new madness from Obama/Pelosi/Reid. Then we bag 5+ more Senate seats in 2012 along with the POTUS, especially if we get the Presidency with a Tea Party focused candidate like Palin.
If we win the White House with a weak moderate or leftist Republican like Romney or the others, we will lose against Obama with low turnout or worse, we win with a Dem-Lite Romney type who will not lead the effort to restore the Republic and begin the process of:
* Defunding the Left of all federal funds,
* Freeze and then gradually reduce federal spending,
* Make Bush tax cuts permanent,
* Open up energy resources all over the country including streamlined regulations for nuclear plants,
* Picking interpretationists for the courts,
* Restoring America’s reputation in the world
* Stop scaring and vilifying business people so they can grow businesses
* Reduce sharply the budgets of Dept. of Education and Energy
With Romney or other milktoast Republicans as POTUS or leading the Senate, we will simply continue the Bush/Obama policies of growth of government until we get in terrible trouble financially even worse than we are now.
It is important that we reform the GOP to be the Common-Sense Constitutional prudent Conservative party. Keep putting Tea Partiers in the GOP Precinct Executive positions and State Central Committees to continue the transformation and becoming again the party of Reagan.
I’ve noticed a lot of moderates on PJTV. I thought PJTV was somewhat right of center.
Have I missed something?
I’m guessing that some of them live in the Northeast and think they rule the country still from the Ivy League. Is it an elitist thing?
I’m more of a VDH type from CA. Just curious?
If you win running as a leftist, it hurts, not helps.
SW, who in particular?
My take on the PJM (don’t know if you mean to restrict yourself to PJTV)
Bill Whittle lives in California, a rock ribbed fiscal conservative and a social values “live and let live” type. National security genius.
Roger Simon is a converted hard core leftist, now a staunch fiscal conservative, and a social values “live and let live” type. Staunch defender of Israel and our allies around the world.
VDH is a former Democrat, historian, rock ribbed fiscal conservative, social values center-right, brilliant analyst and essayist. He is a northern Californian.
Stephen Green lives in Colorado, is a rock ribbed fiscal conservative, an avowed anti-leftist and is pretty much a centrist or possibly center right on social values issues.
Ron Radosh is one of the nation’s foremost experts on the infiltration of hard core leftism into America. He is a former hard core leftist, converted to fiscal discipline and is a live and let live, center leftist moderate on social values issues.
Phyllis Chesler is a renowned author and lecturer on women’s rights worldwide. She is a staunch defender of Israel and our allies around the world and of women everywhere. She is a brilliant analyst of the hypocrisy of the left as is David Horowitz, for whom she also contributes.
Scott Ott is a social values conservative and a rock ribbed fiscal conservative.
If you weigh the general “attitude” of PJM or PJTV, it comes out strongly anti-leftist extremism, strongly fiscal conservatism, and probably “live and let live” social values. Which is probably why I am so comfortable here.
We don’t always agree. (For instance, I take a MUCH stronger stance against the Journolistas than does Roger, for instance. He thinks they are silly and inane, I think they are dangerous and criminal.)
But MANY of the regulars are strongly faith-based and very strongly values voters. It’s a big tent here. But in many ways, it’s a center/center right blog, imo.
Thanks for the information.
Sap
I align with cfb, but beg to differ about PJM. The bloggers tend to be center/right, but most of the commenters detest RINOS, which means they detest any compromise.
continuing my comment. I want to thank Ron Radosh for this post. (Ron – TNR is beyond salvation. Chait thinks all Democrats are Liberals, and he wants to be liked too much by all the alumnae.
Since I have not been following Nevada or Delaware in depth, let those voters decide.
I vote in New York, and am thoroughly disgusted with both parties, and what passes for a TEA party in NY. I am voting mostly GOP this year, in protest. However, there are enough GOP candidates with business backgrounds (not in my CD), to make New York the most fascinating contest in the country, if enough voters actually realize that both Gillibrand and Schumer are on the ballot before Nov. 2.
Enough CDs are in play with a gubernatorial contest that has just begun, that the turnout model is going to give the Democrats deep heartburn.
My tentative prediction is that Chuck Schumer is going to have to spend a ton of money to try to boost turnout in NYC to offset the surge in turnout in the downstate suburbs. Who would have thought that Anthony Weiner and Steve Israel have to actually campaign? Or that the Amsterdam News would punch Andrew Cuomo in the nose? I am looking forward to seeing how Jay Townsend takes advantage of the way turnout is going to really put Chuck on defense in the last two weeks.
As a reminder in case anyone from NY GOP is reading this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/business/14schumer.html?sq=The Reckoning Schumer&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all
“…“He is serving the parochial interest of a very small group of financial people, bankers, investment bankers, fund managers, private equity firms, rather than serving the general public,” said John C. Bogle, the founder and former chairman of the Vanguard Group, the giant mutual fund house. “It has hurt the American investor first and the average American taxpayer.”
…
“He built his career in large part based on his ties to Wall Street,” said Christopher Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, which advises investors on the regulatory system. “And he has given the Street what it wanted.” …”
Perhaps the center-right, with some real world business people, will become the new party that 50% of us are looking for (with NO Bloomberg, but a Linda! – do not write off Connecticut)
It’s interesting that you said, “Let the Voters decide.” I was under the impression that this is exactly how we got Angle and O’Donnell in the first place: a Primary Vote. If the GOP had its way, then the Establishment Candidates would be the nominees.
So if Angle and O’Donnell lose their general elections, maybe the will sober up the tea party activists re the quality of future candidates they promote.
How does the author define centralist or center right. If you define it by what it means in terms of todays RINOS then it is to left. If you define what the country believed what was centralist 30 years ago it would be different. Many of voters are upset with what the RINO call middle of the road but spend our money like center left or fully left. Thus the term RINO. So to describe the tea party too far right for the center right voters may be missing the the great number of voters who were voting 30 years ago and will be voting in record numbers this year.
I usually agree with Ron Radosh but not this time. I think it’s more important to get quality people in there than to just fill the seats with republican butts. I’d rather lose the senate and have a lot of conviction conservatives than win the senate with careerists.
Yielding to the Northeast, wouldn’t that be putting the GOP on the leash of a REGIONAL party?
What makes NORTHEAST REGIONALISM transcendent over any (all) the others?
WOW!! Lots of great posts – and, better yet, lots of great arguments against Radosh’s foot-shooting exercise in political blather. We have seen in just my adult political lifetime how effective the RINO-type GOPers are in vying for the White House: Ford, Dole, Bush 41′s 2nd term, and McCain (not quite sure how to categorize Tricky Dick’s presidency…). And although Goldwater was swamped by that old bastard LBJ, I was thrilled to vote for him and my Conservatism has been fired up ever since (actually, the “fire” began Freshman Year at a liberal “elite” college – fun to be in THAT minority! LOL…). Fortunately, I was rewarded for my stick-to-it-iveness with the victories of RR in the 1980s. Obviously, I’m in this for the long haul – as are millions of other Conservative Americans. And, as one poster slyly observed, “It’s THEIR turn (the RINOs and other GOP “elites”) to hold their noses this time in November!” – and that may well be the case from here on out (at least in my lifetime, please, God!!).
I guess there will always be that tension in the Republican Party if enough “moderates” insist on hanging on. (My first intro to this multi-generational tug-o-war was as a child, when popular Ike trounced my father’s favorite, Bob Taft, at the Convention – when they used to actually vote on the nominee at the Convention!) But I hope that Conservatives/Tea Partiers will prevail as the majority for many election cycles to come; and if THAT strategy, over time, fails, I’m confident that RINOS, now (thankfully) an endangered species, will make a comeback – but I’ll be in the Precinct in the Sky at that point in time and no longer concerned with earthly matters…
See where Bob Dole just endorsed Christine O’Donnell?
Regarding the Nevada race, why is it somehow a sign of impending victory for the well-known incumbent to be at 43 percent in the polls?
Because, y’know, the comments are just full of posters saying O’Donnell is going to win. Wow. It’s like the entire point of PJM posts REPEATEDLY flies over these people’s heads.
Near as I can tell, Bill, it’s because somebody important said so. Now stop being disruptive.
Emma, something else to remember. Sharon is being portrayed as a flake. This means that there are people who are going to vote for her but just won’t say it because they don’t want to be laughed at even by a pollster.
Good point. The motivation and angst that people carry with them to the polling booth this year is not made up mostly of “electioneering babble.” People have concerns broader and deeper, are not nearly as responsive to campaign onslaughts as loud campaign managers have perhaps grown accustomed to.
Can we leave the “Republicans are turning into a regional party” talking points to the Democrats? The GOP is on the verge of taking back the House, and if Democrats manage to keep control of the Senate, it will be by the barist of margins. That doesn’t sound like cause for worry to me, especially when most Dem support is confined to the Northeast and the West Coast. Why doesn’t anyone ever gnash their teeth and ponder how Democrats can appeal to all those backward Republicans in fly-over country?
Maybe voters are supporting Republicans in backlash to the Obama agenda, but it is a GOOD thing that the Tea Party is dragging the GOP right. Voters need clear alternatives that moderates like McCain and Romney can’t provide. And staying the course with a moderate agenda won’t save the country from financial ruin.
Fact 1: The Republican Party is not the Democrat Party.
Fact 2: McGovern and his purists wanted to turn America into a social democracy away from the Constitution.
Fact 3: The Tea Party wants to reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government and restore constitutional government. This is a different thing from Fact 2 and is not radical.
Question 1: This tired old accusation that ‘far-rightists’ are demanding ideological purity. Funny, I’m a far-rightist and I have no clue, who you are talking about. Just who are these demanders of ideological purity.
Question 2: Do you consider the ObamaCare accepting, Cap & Trade soviet-style economic policy supporting, 2nd Amendment hating Mike Castle a moderate? By that definition, Obama is a moderate.
Question 3: Before O’Donnell won the Delaware GOP primary, there was no talk among the GOP establishment about winning control of the Senate. Suddenly, it’s O’Donnell’s (and Angle’s to expand the conspiracy theory) that the GOP is not going to win the Senate. How did this happen?
Question 4: Is 51 US Senators being Republican a controlling majority of the US Senate, when it includes the Maine Bobsey Twins, Scott Brown, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and who know how many other squishes?
Question 5: George W. Bush was a moderate liberal, the hardcore liberals successfully painted Bush as a hardcore conservative and conservatism got the blame for Bush’s policy failures. After Bush I we got the uber-liberal Bill Clinton. After Bush II, we got the socialist/marxist/anti-colonialist Barack H. Obama. Do you see any problem, any problem at all with electing liberals (moderates) as Republicans? Just wondering.
Oh, after the ultra-conservative Reagan, we got George Bush I, who promised to govern as Reagan’s third term and got the ‘Education President’ instead.
You truly hit the nail on the head.
When the smoke settles on the morning of November 3, 2010 there will be many so called “pundits” scratching their heads trying to figure out how they missed it so badly. Discounting the anger of the American people is dangerous. When the MSM and pundits from both side tried to miss-count the number of people who showed up on the 28th of August, other sources revealed that the count was closer to 650,000 people, even the ParkService conceded the croud was at least 350,000. Satallite photographs and analysis confirm it was the larger figure. In business if you recieve a letter from one upset customer we know it represents at least 20 other who wouldn’t take the time to write. Do the math on how many were on the DC Mall, the number gets very vast very quickly. Americans are not going to be having a “temper tantrum” a phrase of contempt uttered by the late Peter Jennings, Americans are going to put government back in it rightful place.
Jennings’ remarks were indicative of how he viewed the American voter – children throw temper tantrums. Not much has changed in the ensuing years in the collective minds of the MSM.
As for Beck’s little ‘gathering’ in August I certainly might have been there had it been a bit closer to the ‘other’ Washington — Washington State.
As to Ron’s rantings – and Rove and Krauthammer’s too – maybe their just trying to stir up the base to push these TP candidates over the finish line? If this is their strategy then what they are saying makes sense – if not then what they are saying is this election is all about who holds the power in DC come January 2011. In which case they’ve missed the entirety of the Tea Party movement – which is to take back power – for the people and the states.
Ron Radosh wants more go-along/get-along Republicans who will compromise our country away to the Marxists
No Thanks!
winning 51 seats with two squishy politicians is the SAME as winning 49 seats BECAUSE THEY WILL VOTE WITH THE DEMOCRATS in true “moderate” style.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Better to have a looneytoon like Coons voting with the Democrats rather than a squishy Castle (he has, and there’s no reason to believe he would not continue to do so). The legislative result is the same, but when Castle “crosses the aisle” the bill automatically becomes “bipartisan”. And when Democrat legislation continues to be passed with a Republican majority, REPUBLICANS WILL OWN THE DISASTROUS RESULTS.
Get it!? I don’t think you do, Mr. R…
I’m not being a purist, I’m being a realist. Losing the majority by a slim margin ( <5 seats) is far better than gaining a majority with people who will only help the Dems to continue their agenda. It will be so much harder to keep the conservative resurgence going to 2012 if we take majorities in 2010 and nothing changes…
Patrick, as far as strategy is concerned, what you said was brilliant in its obvious and simple truth.
I’ve been following this thread and read every comment, from the first to yours, and I’ve found it to be fairly inspiring so far.
There is one thing I’d like to add about Mr. Radosh. As most of you know, he, like David Horowitz and a few others, were raised in the church of American Socialism, much as was our current President. What Ron and those few others (excepting Mr. Obama, of course) have experienced in their own conversions to a generally rightward view of man and politics – and a heartfelt owning up to what they now consider a not very wise or helpful past – has been a very harrowing journey, rife with personal sacrifice and an unusual amount of self-reflection and awareness. Not easy that. So, even though I certainly do not agree with him, Rove or Krauthammer on this matter, I do, nonetheless, welcome his opinion even as I am very glad that what he would advocate did not occur. The movement towards regaining a real American Constitutional republic with a much smaller, cheaper (yes, cheaper!), more responsive and less restrictive government which respects the opinions and values of its citizens needs every person of goodwill in its tent, and that will include many people like Ron Radosh who may have cultural and style issues, and even some issues of substance, with some of the Tea Party people trampling down the ramparts of the RINO establishment. In short, we all can get along; but I believe we now need to give our insurgents their heads if we are ever to make a dent in the Democrat-Socialist death grip we are in at present.
As to the hopeless defenders of the “progressive” faith on this thread, well, if they don’t understand that Fascism was a leftwing and, indeed, Progressive, movement, welcomed as just another slightly different shade of collectivist thought and applauded by most of the contemporary left, from Father Caughlin to George Bernard Shaw to smilin’ Joe Stalin, then just what the hell could they possibly understand about our current dilemma in America?
I only have one question,how can you be a conservative and also be a centrist? Centrist ” a persom with moderate political opinions”, the democrats don’t even live up to that definition. The Northeast once called the cradle of democracy is now the hot bed of socialism and nothing but socialism will please them. If you are not convinced that this philosophy is wrong just look at what the so called centrist have done to New York and California, just to name a few.
Peter Beinart strikes me as too effete to say much of anything worthwhile. I thought his Palin/McGovern parallel on This Week (last Sunday) was especially lame.
Charles Krauthammer said this past week that he hopes he’s wrong and that he supports O’Donnell.
Putting the fork into both Angle and O’Donnell both seems a little premature at this point.
In Nevada, I’d take a dead goldfish over the prospect of re-electing Hair Reid.
A short rah rah tea party video
The short answer is that while a large portion of Americans are as dumb as doorknobs and *might* give the House back to the Republicans, they are not quite moths to flames (fingers crossed.)
No, if that many Americans are as dumb as doorknobs they will demonstrate it by leaving Congress in the *cough* capable hands of the Democrats. As it is now, we have a flatlining economy and a government pursuing policies diametrically opposite of those that could actually get the economy back on track. In this climate even the most disconnected and self-absorbed Americans have some inkling of it.
I’ll give you this much – your implication that it’s the ‘doorknobs’ that’ll hand the republicans the keys to the house is fanciful on your part – but inaccurate.
BC,
Have you ever considered this from a different angle? That those you call dumb as doorknobs, the majority, are actually a lot smarter than you and your small coterie of progressive losers?
Here’s a cluebat. The readers here see you that way, and you reinforce it every time you comment. The one I’m replying to being a good example of the smug imbecility you routinely project.
You’re done for a couple of generations, BC. You had the fling this country gives you progressive sheep every 40 years or so and the adults are taking it back. You impress only each other, and you don’t matter any more.
great leaders are those like ronald reagan, that are able to convince the opposition,that it is in their best interest to come around to your way of thinking;john mc cain has always crossed the aisle and,gave liberals,what was in the best interest of liberals,while his trade-out was him being called a maverick.which is liberal code for my patsy;and a guest appearance on david letterman,and the view,crucifying conservatism;he as president would have destroyed the republican party for decades;by bowing to the alter of liberal causes.those liberal failed polices would have been blamed,on conservatives;exactly the same reason why america turned against george w.bush;for bowing to the alter of,ted kennedy,on domestic,and social entitlement issues;because he listened to his advisors;karl rove,colon-oscopy powell,and laura bush;all progressive liberal sympathizers,instead of his own conscience;of course his “new world order”moderate daddy,probably had a word or two of advice;that his number one son;”bill clinton”gave to him;look at the last 50 years of the republican party;the gop establishment has always put all it’s eggs in one basket,for moderate republicans;told conservative america, “shut up” and take the lessor of two evils.except for ronald reagan,all failed as effective leaders;why?first they think like trial lawyers,and professors,that comprimise principals,and negotiate on behalf of the highest bidder,or percieved fairness,and feelings and not like ceo’s,and coach’s where they win for the team they represent;may the best team when,according to the rules of the game equally applied to their skills,and ability’s,and not feelings being hurt because the team that didn’t play well lost;so we must give the losing team,an advantage so everyone wins;o-boy doesn’t everybody feel better now?no;not the team that prepared the most,and worked the hardest,believing,and told if they did it would pay dividends in the end;so much for ambition,incentive,determination,and hard work;thanks to those who think like liberals,and moderates,who only care about and believe in the fairness,and the feelings of losers,who want to play by their own rules,and standards,instead of demanding everyone play under the same rules,and standards;stand by your principals even if you stand alone;even liberals do that,even if they are sic-o-phant,and immoral principals;moderates do not;because they have no principals,at all;look again at the past history of republican nominee’s for president,and presidents;all but ronald reagan ran as a conservative,and tried to govern as a conservative;in spite of everything he fought for;against a tidal wave of liberal,and moderate republican opposition,he took his message to the american people;defeating the opposition,and as such was the only successful president,or republican nominee in 50 years that ran for president;why?conservatism;domestically,economically,socially,and foreign policy’s;which is;the only path to be fluently capable of abiding by the intent of our founders.the u.s. constitution,the bill of rights,the declaration of independence;truth,justice,and the american way;on behalf of life liberty,and the pursuit of happiness;all others are selective constitutionalist;which are those who stand by the constitution and the law,when it benefits them,but condemn it when it does not;no rain man elitist intellectual types who have no connection to what drives the spirit,of the human soul;probably because you no longer have one.we true constitutional conservatives would rather lose on principals,then win with liars,and thieves,who campaign as conservatives but govern as selfserving progressive liberals;we are patient as well eventually all of you self serving pork whores,and pimp slumlords;will be gone;either by our votes,or by the true author of the u.s. constitution;the same that endowed to us our rights,and you liars,and thieves took away;jimmy joe;”the liarfryer”
For one thing, I would like for the national figures, especially Palin, to stay out of our primary elections.This has created a problem for us in my state. She has supported figures without doing her homework and we are stuck with what she gives us. Enough! The other comment I would like to make is that most people I know seem to want politicians to stand for something that they feel will help the country and help the individual. I am not interested in a wishy-washy candidate. I would be willing to give Angle and O’Donnell the go-ahead. See what they can do, if you don’t like them, fire them.
Translation: northeasterners are immune to common sense. Nonsense. All the Tea Partiers and other conservatives have to do is to unapologetically make the case for limited government and point out forcefully that progressives are SUICIDING the country and northeasterners will begin to come around.
The Tea Party is less concerned w/ electing Republicans or having Republicans gain power than it is with electing folks who are for limited government and fiscal sanity. As we have seen over and over, a Republican victory does NOT equal a victory for limited government and fiscal sanity.
Also, what’s all this nonsense about purity? The Tea Party is NOT about ideology. The US faces a genuine crisis of huge national debts and unfunded mandatory spending. Being concerned and demanding solutions does not make anyone an extremist or ideological purist. It makes one a responsible citizen.
I think people want fiscal conservatives in office now, even some democrats want fiscal conservatives if they can keep from falling too much into social conservatism. The democrats are now trying to look as conservative as possible to get re-upped, even to the point of faking some aspects of social conservatism. It doesn’t matter how much they lie, as long as they get into office.
No, I don’t want more RINOs in office. That’s what we got in ’94 wasn’t it? That sure helped us out a lot didn’t it. In order to cleanse ourselves of the liberal progressive filth that’s been dumped on us we don’t need RINOs, but at best we can hope to minimize the RINOs getting into office. Every RINO we put into office waters down the effort to undo the damage that’s being done now.
Winning is great, but winning at any cost means we end up with more progressives whether they be democrat or republican. We don’t need them, and we can’t use them to get our country back to where we need it to be. Progressives are liars, they don’t want this country run by the constitution, and I’m sorry, but RINOs are nothing but republican progressives. Keep your McCains please.
It’s OK if we have candidates who are willing to go along with the “nazi party” on a few non-essentials. What the heck!
Has anyone read Scott Rassmussen’s new book, ‘Mad as Hell’? Grounded in polls and historical facts and presented objectively, it offers a perspective on our situation that makes sense to a person who’s watched the US march in the USSR’s footsteps for 50 years and wondered that no one could see the ultimate end, fiscal bankruptcy.
Or, we could answer the question “Why Republicans will not win the Senate” this way:
Because they don’t show any understanding that:
1. We are facing a serious crisis,
2. The Tea Party is primarily about finding solutions to the crisis, and
3. That running big government, big spending candidates in an environment which has been clearly anti-big spending and anti-big government for more than a year now is NOT a winning strategy.
In short, the Republicans won’t take back the Senate because many of them are either too stupid or too arrogant to understand that the political climate has changed and that they need to adapt if they are going to survive as a viable political party.
Let me make the “Kill Shot” on why GOP “centrists”,(whatever that is), should immediately pipe down and support the likes of O-Donnell and Angle as much as they can:
The Alleged Hawaiian still has two more years in office, (barring justice being done upon him, or he being found to be a fraud and Constitutionally unqualified), so that means that if any vacancies occur on the Supreme Court, he’ll be the one to appoint new Justices.
And if that doesn’t get you off your ass, then face it…you’re in the wrong political party.
You are terribly confused, Mr. Radosh, as confused as Rove. People on the right are learning that winning with a majority like you desire is the worst possible outcome. We’ve done our time, max time, all eight years. That means no parole supervision from you and Karl. We’re free, free of illusions. You’re fired.
Business as usual in Washington is over, they just don’t know it yet. Reclaiming government for the people and from the powerseekers of both parties only starts November 2, 2010. We will replace as many democrats and rinos as we can this time in order to create gridlock for the Obama agenda. In 2012, we’ll elect a conservative President and increase the conservative margin in both houses. The newly elected will vote for reining in the federal government or they will be replaced. The majority of people are now aware of how disfunctional Washington has become. It did not become this way overnight, and it will take more than one or two elections to fix.
Mr. Radosh is an elitist. Mike Castle, the previous Republican from Delaware, could in no way be considered a conservative or even a centrist – unless you define support for cap and trade as centrist. What Mr. Radosh has done is to redefine reality and to shift the political spectrum so that centrist now equals Democrat. O’Donnell won the primary and beat Castle fair and square in an election. If she loses it will be because milktoast Republicans attack her rather than attack her opponent. It is the same with Sharon Angle. Why have you written columns bemoaning the fact that they cannot win instead of spending your time and energy working to defeat their opponents. At this point you – and other milktoast Republicans – are more damaging to either candidate than their opponents. You strangle them from within instead of reserving fire for the political enemy. How bold? It is people like you that gave us Obama.
I’m surprised that anyone can take seriously the notion that Republican propects this year have been impaired by the Tea Party–the Republicans were dead in the water a year and a half ago, and all the leftists now warning about the Tea Partiers “driving us off a cliff,” etc., were warning conservatives in no uncertain terms that they’d better get on the Obama bandwagon or be left behind. It seems like decades ago–and all because of the Tea Party. The Republicans are still pretty much dead–only the Tea Party has breathed some life into them, for how long, who can tell. (What poll results, incidentally, suggest a McGovern-style defeat, either now or in 2012?) I think we should stay focused on pushing the Republicans, once they gain power, to focus their attention on undermining the Democrats’ pillars of power. David Thompson is absolutely right to look at the public employee unions–if the right of government employees to collectively organize against the rest of us was to be taken away, it would devastate, perhaps destroy, the Democrats. So, that reform would be worth more than just about any other–especially since it would also make it much easier to go ahead and take a hard look at budgets, on federal, state and local levels. The Tea Party should be the killer instinct of Republicans; in order to do that, though, they also need to put the fear of electoral death into each individual Republican officeholder.
If the northeast can’t grow up, then wall it off.
Mr. Radosh,
Your message sounds like it comes from the ruling elite that we’ve also heard from Mr. Rove, Mr. Krauthammer, Mr. Moran, etc. Your thinking has gotten us what we have now. And it appears there are a chunk of us who are saying that we’re not going to encourage the insanity any longer. You know, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results – the definition of insanity.
And even if Angle and O’D lose, that doesn’t mean I’m going to throw in the towel and say, “Oh, I was wrong, you were right.” Nope.
If our founding fathers had said, “It’s no use to fight the majority,” we never would’ve become the United States of America. They were underdogs. But they won! And praise God they did. That’s why I think the name Tea Party is so significant. We may be underdogs, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be victorious. Au contraire.
This is another one of those struggles of life. It’s good and necessary that we have these lively discussions in our society. And we will always have them. Eternal vigilance is necessary for liberty to prevail. Stand strong my liberty-loving friends!
To enhance a GOP advantage in 2012, I think it’s better that the dems hold a moderate senate advantage until then.
sorry, most of us who don’t bother to vote do so because I got tired of choosing between a center left and left candidate on economics.
CA is a prime example of the results of ‘centrist’ republicans looking to be ‘realistic’ and ‘compromise’ with the democrats in control. An energy deregulation which was insane as it in fact didn’t deregulate anything but did institute completely nonsensical rules as a compromise between left and hard left…We are circling the drain. We voted in a republican ‘centrist/moderate’ in Schwarzenegger- look how that worked out, still ever expanding government control and interference with environmental idealogues given unbridled authority. And our next choice isn’t any better- Brown or Whitman. One a complete leftist loon who refuses to do his job enforcing the will of the people by abandoning defense of prop 8. The other a ‘centrist’ who is saying anything to anybody and has stated support for further green madness, talking out of both sides of her mouth on illegal immigration etc. etc. etc.
Bill:
You must be some really powerful anarchist. Were the first responders at the WTC holding a gun to your head to collect their paycheck and pension?
Maybe your are just a cowboy Radical right-wing extremist, dude. LOL
The lack of response from the author indicates he does not read the comments. But for those who do, please reference Carroll Quigly’s quote:
“Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy (Tragedy and Hope: 1247-1248).”
This explains why people like the author and Krauthammer fear independent thinkers. They are a threat to the goals of a class of individuals (to whom the author and company think themselves a part of but are not) whose goals are not in their interest (for example, it is in Soros’ interest to collapse the currency, but not theirs).
Why Jewish “intellectuals” have historically worked against their own interests is their business, but the apparent need to drag everyone else to Hell with them is extremely tiring and explains the desire of nearly every other society to drop-kick them out of town.
So yes, vote in the Rino who will abet the Dems’ efforts to turn the U.S. into a Third World S**t-hole. When we’re all eating bark and dandelions, at least Ron’s pathological need to claim “victim” status will be fulfilled.
Mr. Radosh does not have to respond to the comments. He is an elitist and he has spoken. It is your job to listen. You and I may comment if we wish but he will not demean himself to engage in an honest discussion. : )
Radosh is kind of a mean guy, far as I can tell. He introduced an entire piece by mocking me for failing to know the youthful ideology of one of his subjects in a previous piece, Mr. Halevi from The New Republic. So he does read posts, but refuses to engage except to zing the offending poster with a swift kick to the chops. As I reconstruct it, the real reason Radosh got mad was because I differed with his elitist castigation of Pam Geller, without whom the GZM would have met virtually no opposition. So, I figure Ron is jealous of true activists like the feisty Geller, and just basically passive-aggressive.
I suspect I’m not the only one who, after reading the teaser for Mr. Radosh’s opinion piece, skipped directly to the comments to see how the old, rehashed “moderate” arguments of the past were being rec’d in this new era of the Tea Party. Thankfully, the immoderate deceits and political malfeasance perpetrated in the name of “moderation” of our conservative principles doesn’t appear to be going down very easily these days. Conservatives must cease to participate in the belly-crawl to political suicide that our moderate Republican elitist masters have been urging us towards. The comments posted here suggest that time has finally arrived. And not a minute too soon.
Any time this discussion starts, we must be very clear about the terms we are using.
What does “center” or “center-right” mean exactly? There is no clear definition. As a result, pundits like Radosh can make it mean whatever they want it to mean. To Radosh and the establishmentarians like Krauthammer et al, “center-right” seems to mean the squishy, demi-liberal adoption of Big Government solutions. “Of course,” they tut, “not the Big Government solutions of the ‘liberals.’” But it is, in essence, the same, failed mindset that a huge, out-of-control, Central Government can make life better for us little peeps if we just give them unrestricted money and power.
So the GOP “centrists” don’t like ObamaCare? What is their solution? A reformed, not-quite-so-big, but better GOP-Care. So the centrists denounce allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire but there is Boehner on TV saying how he could compromise with Obama on letting the tax rates for the “wealthy” expire.
Conservatives believe in a Federal government that is ACTUALLY smaller (not theoretically smaller), in chopping Federal programs that are not Constitutional, in not spending beyond Federal revenues… These are not radical, “far right” ideas, these are sensible positions that most Americans favor. If Angle and O’Donnell are not the ideal candidates, there will be others to come with better polish, but we will never again sacrifice commitment to principles for that polish.
Let me try this again since the moderator might not have like my previous post. I am not making a direct comparison between this administration and the Third Reich. Still, this administration is plenty dangerous and it needs to be fought; not compromised with as I read in this piece. So here goes:
It’s OK if we have candidates who are willing to go along with the “nazi party” on a few non-essentials. What the heck!
What good is putting a “centrist” in office? After 1 term, they can’t say no to lobbyists. They refrain from making the hard choices like cutting spending and abolishing earmarks. What fine examples the “centrists” make. Look a Specter, Scozzafava, Crist, Bennett, Murkowski, Castle – they lose in the primary fair-and-square and stab the voters in the back by switching parties or write-ins. It’s their privilege but the message it sends to primary voters is “Your vote doesn’t really count. I am a party unto myself.” We may lose the Senate in 2010, but 2012 isn’t that far off and the leftovers of the current batch of Dems and Dem-lites will be scrambling to be seen as “centrists” and Tea Party accolytes.
It normally takes 3 election cycles — 6 years — to take a solid majority in the Senate. The reason is that only 1/3 of Senators are up for reelection in any 2 year cycle.
But we DON’T WANT people just because they have an (R) after their name in the government — we want people who will restrict and reduce the power of the federal government. The RINOs (like Castle) just vote with the Lefists on all the major big government bills anyway — they must be purged.
So it will take us until 2014 to get the Senate purged of RINOs and as many Leftists as possible. The goal is somewhere in the high 60′s, ideally the mid 70′s. This permits blocking filibusters and enables veto overrides.
And it is not simply a majority that we are looking for in the Senate. It is an increasingly solid Conservative majority.
Looked at this way, the election of Castle would have been a step backward because we would have had to wait until 2016 to get someone more conservative in there. If the Delaware electorate want more of the same Obamanations, then they should reap what they sow. In 6 years of seeing Coons vote for the far-left policies they may wise up and Conservatives can find, perhaps, a better, conservative candidate to put up.
In the next Senate cycle, we can hope to get real conservatives in the place of Graham, Snowe and Collins (if they don’t switch parties first, that is).
Make RINO’s like their namesake: a rare and endangered species.
The Republicans are still pretty much dead–only the Tea Party has breathed some life into them, for how long, who can tell.
You bring up an excellent point – one often overlooked by Ron R. – Rove – and Krauthammer et al.
To use an analogy somewhat akin to what Obama has been using of late – some Good Samaritan (We the People – AKA Tea Party) come along to help push their car out of the ditch only to be greeted by the multiple drivers who can only sit on their collectives arses in the car and piss and moan that we aren’t pushing hard enough to get them out of the ditch.
Actually, I would add that they are spinning the tires and throwing mud up onto the Tea Partiers who are busy pushing.
Senate races with Democrat incumbents polling below the dreaded 50%:
Nevada – Reid 45%, 43%
California – Boxer 47%, 48%
New York – Gillibrand 48%
You sir, and Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer keep bashing Angle and O’Donnell and you may well realize a self fulling prophecy that will allow you to gloat or pontificate over the wisdom and prescience of your opinions. If you are a Conservative and you have nothing good to say about the Republican’s chances in November I’d prefer to read your intelligent insights post November 2nd.
Add to your deep concerns with Angle and O’Donnell the penchant for the Republican establishment to self destruct. The Democrats seem to have no trouble at all finding positives in the likes of Coons, Frank, Rangel, Waters, et. al. and will either defend them or be non-committal but Republicans are determined to prove their high mindedness by demonstrating how willing they are to be self critical. “Wonderful! Lofty! Commendable!” say the Democrats as they agree wholeheartedly and loudly, from every microphone and camera stuck in their face, with the accuracy of your criticisms and snicker off mike and camera at our political incompetence. Please, Sir; keep the negatives to yourself at least until after the election.
Amen a thousand times over!!!
Ron,
Like Krauthammer, you continue to paint O’Donnell as a radical conservative and unelectable. She simply would adhere to the Constitution which does not, in my opinion, make her radical and unelectable. Secondly, where you both miss the boat is in the degree of the shift in the electorate away from statism (which is just now becoming frightening to a large number of the citizenry, especially Tea Partiers such as myself) and toward restraint. A tsunami is about to happen and you still can’t see it coming. Get on board and start writing about the radical leftist O’Donnell is running against rather than continually belittling her chances to win. You and Krauthammer are both likely to get mud in your face come November if you don’t stop your harping!
All those responses up there? They prove that conservatives will remain a minority in COngress, not just the Senate but the House as well. Let me be the first to say I’m so sorry for your loss. Please know that our prayers are with you in this your time of grief.
Now, there’s a very special auction happening on EBAY . . . it’s a mouse with a fully functioning human brain! Bid early. Bid often.
We have to start seriously contemplating secession. Its time to divorce. Places like the Northeast and California should be given the boot. Unfortunately, there is no other way.
Yes, there is another way.
It is called Devolution: devolve power (and revenues) back to the States and let each State decide whether it wants to be a worker’s paradise or a free market haven. This is a return to the U.S. that existed prior to the 20th Century usurpation of power by the Federal Government. The Federal Beast must be put back in its cage. After that, if California voters want to lay waste to their State, let them. But the rest of the Union will not support them and the remaining, sensible Californians are welcome to live in freedom in another State.
I want for the word “centrist” to be banished from the lexicon for at least 50 years. The left have been hollowing out the Constitution since from before I was born and I for darn sure don’t want to expend my energy moving our politics from dynastic presidencies and the brink of socialism to some supposed comfy point where the Constitution is only sorta kinda eviscerated.
I want a politics that is repulsed by the idea of a living (barf) Constitution; multiculturalism; open borders; the ghastly political doctrine known as Islam; tolerance of the killer fruitcakes in Iran; adulation of the third world; schools that trash our superb European heritage; schools violence; bastardy; the left’s death grip on higher education; federal control of student loans; hate speech laws; money politics; fiscal insanity; bureaucrats as privileged overlords; the lost, unwinnable war on drugs; crushing taxes; policies that force off shoring of our manufacturing capacity; a Commerce Clause that justifies federal control of whatever the Congress wants to control; a lying Department of Justice; a president who won’t salute when the national anthem is played; a president without a paper trail; presidents who have never served in the military; voter fraud; concealment of the crimes of communism; concealment of the far left nature of German fascism; cowardice respecting the nature, extent, and effect of black crime and the black underclass; New Black Panther Party anything; a legacy media 100% in the tank for the left; union thuggery; unused provisions for impeachment, recall, initiatives and referendums; voting rights for people on welfare; and the belief that sticking up the taxpayer is ok so long as it’s done by majority vote.
All of the immediately foregoing items have been made possible by the la di da, respectable types in contradistinction to whom Ms. O’Donnell is, I hear told, some kind of certified loose cannon. I say “God speed” to Ms. O’Donnell and if we end up without one more conservative senator or one less RINO senator, well then, Michael Steele call your office.
If the answer to your question, Mr. Radosh, is “national, centrist conservative party” we’re not asking the right question. You can quote me on that.
Surprise,surprise. Here we have another so-called conservative ready to cave into the elites and RINOs that he thinks are the path to sound government. Where has he been for the past fifty years or so?
This man, Mr. Radosh, is precisely the reason there is a TEA Party movement being exhibited on display for all of the elites in both parties. Fuck off.
I usually like Radosh’s articles but he gets this one completely wrong. He falls for the leftwing “mainstream” media spin on Christine O’Donnell. Democrats’ propaganda arm is trying to smear her just as they did Sarah Palin, but they ignore the fact she is running against a self-described Bearded Marxist who has followed the same Black Liberation philosophy as Barack Obama. Anyone who has followed those philosophies has no business being elected a U.S. Senator.
The beltway elites have told conservatives time and again to suck up and support their hand-picked squishy moderates out of loyalty to the party. Now look what happens when conservatives win nominations: the elites act like whiny sore losers, their candidates switch sides or bolt to run as independents. I have no respect for these hypocrites. People like Radosh should spend less time bashing their own candidates and more time focusing on where the real problems is: the radical policies of the far left.
There are some of us out there who are appalled by the prospect of seeing the two Democrats in question winning thanks to the incredibly gaffe prone (or just plain goofy) delivery of these two canidates.
Angle needs to concentrate on the economy (she seems to do well there)and learn to not make so many gaffes (maybe light hand the social issues) O’Donnell needs to get an inner filter (or external handler) that will stop her short of sounding like a loop. Not that O’Donnell is completely wrong with everything she says (some things I can very much see her point)…but she really does need to learn to be careful when she speaks; she does come across as a few bricks short. Is it fair that one side should be so harshly judged while the other side makes just as many or worse transgressions (on top of creating so many problems for the country)? No, but that is the reality on the ground, and it will not change until things change at a most basic level which will take time. So — they need to be careful of what they say to the media, or even when the media is around, and they need to get in front of what has already been done straight away. The people are looking for someone to lead them away from such problematic politicians, not more of the same, these challengers cannot come across as corrupt, banal, or hare brained.
It’s so amusing when the CINOs among us start advising us that we would do better if we were only more like the marxist/socialist/perverse liberals/progressives.
Remember that in 1994 the silent majority’s anger was a tiny fraction of what it is now, and they aren’t so silent anymore. Yet they gave both legislative bodies to the Republicans, the first time in over 40 years that the Republicans controlled both bodies together.
I think that the drive-by media (Limbaugh’s term is so much better than ‘lamestream’) and the liberals are going to be so surprised at the TSUNAMI coming in a few short weeks. And if the RINO leadership doesn’t blow it in two short years, the sweep will continue in 2012.
The only weapon the liberals have to stop it is ACORN and its derivatives, the new DOJ, and fraudulent elections. They are working very hard on this project.
Thank God for AM radio and the internet.
.
It’s so amusing when the naive among us fall for the line that we would do better if only we were more like the marxist/socialist/perverse liberals/progressives – and their running dogs in the Republican party like Mike Castle.
Remember that in 1994 the silent majority’s anger was a small fraction of what it is today, so much so that they aren’t silent anymore. In that year they gave control of both legislative bodies together to the Republicans for the first time in over 40 years.
I think that the drive-by media (Limbaugh’s term is so much better than ‘lamestream’) and the liberals are going to be so surprised at the TSUNAMI coming in a few short weeks. And if the RINO leadership doesn’t blow it in two short years, the sweep will continue in 2012.
The only weapon that can save the democrats are ACORN and its derivatives, the new DOJ, and voting fraud, a project they are working on assiduously.
Thank God for AM radio and the internet.
.
Sorry, but too many of you are missing the point. Who cares if the author is on the public payroll? The main point of the article is that we should welcome rino’s and diablos back into our embrace.
I say, FTS. We’ve had enough of fence straddling, look where it has got us. In an effort to appear ‘inclusive’ and open-minded, we’ve wound up with both houses of congress, and the executive controlled by these ideological thugs of the left. We have a Republican party that runs far and fast from anything resembling American values or decent morality in the name of compromise.
We don’t need friends like Castle or Steele. We need men and women with backbone and conviction for our values. I don’t care if a candidate ‘dabbled in witchcraft’ in high school. I damn sure know she won’t vote to let in illegals through the back door or vote to fund abortion, or for a supreme that thinks the Constitution is toilet paper.
Easy to compare this time we live in to the past in regards to the parables of politics.
There is something afoot this time that defies parallels and standards of the past. In so much journalism there is an insulting penchant for ignoring the will of the people as it has arisen today. There is a sea change that runs under the radar, an awakening that is unlike any before among the electorate. It does not fit nicely into any well known and standard definitions of punditry. In fact it does not fit at all in any standard measure or reference.
A new time is here for America determined by Americans who are not of the political combines and ruling elite. No matter what transpires November 2nd and beyond these tyrannical things and people behind are history.
I think your entire article is silly. By the way, who cares what New York thinks. I’m sick of the word “moderate,” and I’m sick of the word, “centrist.” This is something some arrogant, know it all’s in the media have shoved down people’s throats because they fear conservatism.
I guess I have to put Ron Radosh in the category of Republicans who just don’t get it.
Can we talk? Historically, Republicans have a very poor track record at standing tall in a stiff wind for fiscal responsibility. How many spending programs have Republicans, once empowered, ever cut? How many entitlements have they ever repealed? Once upon a time, our country could afford to be foolish with its money. Look around, Ron: those times have come to a close. We are looking at a tidal wave of debt so huge that it presents an existential threat to our country. What the Soviets couldn’t do with their ICBMs, our liberals are accomplishing by turning our economy into a porta-potty and our currency into toilet paper. So-called moderate Republicans such as Castle and Murkowski, of little use to us in the past, are frankly of no use to us now.
At the risk of repeating myself here (I’ve used this analogy before), the Democrats are playing Thelma and Louise, spending money at full throttle and heading for the cliff. We are the screaming passengers. We don’t need a moderate Republican to lecture us about how, if we would be so kind as to quit criticizing them, they would drive us much more slowly and carefully toward the cliff. We need to turn the damn car around and go the other way. Want to help? If not, step aside.
Radosh and Krauthammer have decided the GOP’s problem is conservative voters, as if it is the dog’s job is to wag whenever the tail demands it. Sorry, you’ve had your chances. We the conservative voters have decided the problem is the GOP, for forgetting who they work for. The GOP leadership has been spoiling for its recent and thorough butt-kicking for twenty years, and the Tea Party folks are wearing the boots that can do it. If the moderates don’t like us, tough. The GOP can go out and find themselves another base. Be sure to go all out capturing that decisively important hand-wringing-unprincipled-Country-Clubbers-in-full-snit demographic.
And FWIW, I predict the GOP will take back the Senate.
Mr. Radosh calls it a “centrist conservative party that is national in scope, not a Southern or regional party that will continually lose in the Northeast.”
Funny; his vision looks more to me like “a Northeastern regional party that will continually lose elsewhere.” But apparently, Radosh suffers from the delusion that if it’s the Northeast, by definition it can’t be parochial. Could somebody at PJM kindly spray for old-media relics?
‘A brilliant analysis of a sad situation. Purists of all shades always serve to unbalance the road to success.’
From many of the comments on this site and on others, I am very much afraid the Republicans will again shoot themselves in the foot. Even when faced with the alternative…to vote for Reid….I would find it very difficult to vote for Angle and it seems incomprehensible that the Republicans can’t see that MS. O’Donnell’s resume is on a par with Obama’s. She has done nothing except speak of her ridiculous beliefs. Some died in the wool ‘Conservaties’ have actually said they would rather elect a Democrat than a RINO. Apparently, they were playing outside when the concept of counting was taught in kindeergarten.
Elinor,
This is from one of those died in the wool ‘Conservaties’ (as you spell it)….
What are some of those “ridiculous beliefs” you claim that Ms. O’Donnell has spouted? Are any of them as ridiculous as these: “…I think when you’ve made $250K, you’ve made enough money…” or we need to “…spread the wealth..”, or that those who don’t appreciate Mr. Obama’s “vision” are just “..clinging to God and guns..”?
If you would vote for Harry Reid over Ms. Angle then you’re not a moderate as you would have us believe.
Ron
We’re through electing these Ivy League “know-it-alls” (RINOs) who “get along” with the other side of the isle only to back-stab us with votes on Cap and Trade, Healthcare and then sneer at us when we hold them accountable by not returning them to the Hill.
Besides, your analysis is dead wrong – just look at Chris Cristie in NJ. He’s kicking the $#$%!! out of the public employee unions and the state’s runaway government and making no apologies for it. It’s ruling class vs Country Class, Ron, not Republican vs. Democrat. Get it?
And why do we never hear any hand-wringing on the left about appealing to the great Middle? Seems to me that didn’t factor in the last election. Good grief, they elected a nut who gives Chavez a run for his money when it comes to nationalizing the private sector, and your worried about offending independent voters with “uninitiated” candidates who espouse radical ideas like limited government? What are you smoking?
A majority dependent upon the likes of Mike Castle is of dubious value. It would be a majority in name only, given there are at least a handful of Republican Senators (with Castle adding to their numbers) we would not be able to count on in any highly contentious debate.
It wouldn’t be limited to “social conservative” issues.
Or do you forget Castle wants Cap & Tax (& Lindsey Graham tried to shove it down our throats this past session), that McCain helped inflict us with “Campaign Finance Reform,” that the tax cuts about to expire weren’t made permanent in the first place, at least in part, because certain Republican Senators wouldn’t support it?
There’s a group of Republicans who are all too eager to provide “bi-partisan” cover to the Democrats on contentious issues. Meanwhile, the Dem caucus votes pretty much in lock-step on these same issues – - – yet no one (outside of us) criticizes them for being too ideological, etc.
Why is that?
Rather than blaming the voters who nominated O’Donnell & Angle, perhaps the focus should be on the “king-makers” in Nevada & Delaware who foist candidates on the state primary voters who LOSE to the likes of O’Donnell & Angle.
I don’t give a damn whether the Republicans win control of either house. I care about my country and the return of free markets are all that can save it. I will vote for the candidate most likely to shrink the federal government and I don’t care what party tries to attach itself to that person. I want guts in Washington, forget about the party labels.
Ron,
We tried the “centrist republicans” with the Bush Administration. It got us runaway debt and spending that hurt the country and the republican party.
Wherever the voters are today, center, center right, far right the only option we have as a country is to stop the insanity of the last 10 years.
I’m surprised you don’t realize that. Eight more years of democrat light isn’t survivable.
The candidates have been picked. The time for analysis is over. Now is the time to get busy, and to pray that we can overcome the very valid points you make.
Radosh is wrong – the Senate was really not in reach this cycle but will be won by the GOP in 2012 when more seats held by Democrats will be up for grabs. O’Donnell and Angle won their primaries fair and square: it is not up to Radosh or Krauthammer to tell the people of Delaware and Nevada how to vote in their primaries. As for Beinart, he is a stupid far lefty – why anyone would want to quote him, is beyond me. This is the fool who states that “Hamas has moderate elements”!!!!!
51 Alice L
…. As for Beinart, he is a stupid, far Lefty and why anyone would want to quote him, is beyond the rational pale. This is the fool who states that, “Hamas has moderate elements” —
…. and presumably, Mr Radosh, that Hitler made the trains run on time?
RR: Why Republicans Will Not Win the Senate
MR: Why it does not matter
Because after the elections, when taxes,
and interest rates, start going up, and the
economy starts going down, again, everyone
will find a common purpose: Shrinking Govt.
spending. Everyone will insist, quite loudly,
that their representatives do so _Right_Now_.
…. As usual, Charles Krauthammer put it so well ….
Nope.
Wrong.
Should read: “Charles Krauthammer usually puts it so well.”
But this time Mr Krauthammer has absolutely missed the nature of who and what We, The People, are and what we are engaged in here.
(Clue – think Second American War of Independence)
Mr Krauthammer has not yet cottoned on to the fact We, The People, are not “winning” or “losing” anything — but that We, The Sovereign American People ARE everything — and, like you, Mr Radosh, thus far, this time, Mr Krauthammer (severely handicapped, one must assume, by ‘Beltwayitus’s’ distorting lens) is way off the mark. Both in his assessment of what’s happening in America — and in his commentary.
We, The People, Mr Radosh, whose first whispered warning, only, will be heard come November 2, are neither punishing nor rewarding “republicans.” We are ensuring that only our representatives are sent to the Herculean tasks of sweeping eight decades of “Democratic” potty detritus from the halls of gummint, from the bureaucracies, from the fiat courts, from (and perhaps especially from) Foggy Bottom. And to then set about the even greater task of dealing with and if necessary of removing from our shores the increasingly-hostilely-colonizing thirty-five-million-man Criminal-Alien Army DC’s elitist traitors have spent decades treasonously Trojan Horsing in for just such a time as, it appears, may well be approaching.
Yes Lawrence. Public employees do pay taxes. However, govn workers don`t produce anything. Your paid taxes are just recycling already taxed money confiscated from the private sector. The private sector can exist without the public sector but not the other way. Govn produces nothing. They exist at the leisure of private sector production so be careful how much of the golden egg laying goose you want to slaughter…
Tell your theory to the first responders at WTC. Government produces nothing? What kind of anarchist are you? LOL
First responders provide services. They don’t produce anything. “Produce” refers to a product. Are you deliberately misunderstanding the use of the word in the post you responded to? Or do you really not understand? The only thing you might want to pretend the government produces (when the employees aren’t smoking pot) is the car turned out by Government Motors. That is actually a product.
The idea that government produces nothing is curious. It probably comes out from the works of dear old Ayn Rand.
Does the teacher of your children or grandchilden produce nothing? He or she just provides a service Educating your children,right?
Did the planning and construction by the federal government of the Interstate High way system just provide a service?
Have the millions invested by the federal government in scientific and technological research and development just provide a service?
It seems the libertarians, Emma, know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. What is the value of an education provided by a good public school teacher? What is the value of the vast and essential Interstate Highway System? What is the value of mass public transportation, aided by the federal goverment?
It is not the role of public employees to produce widgets. Let the private sector makes it widgets.
Yes, I hear you Emma, and from what I hear and read, you worship at the mighty alter of private enterprice. I know there is no idea of balance in your belief that private enterprise produces all and creates all wealth. Let me suggest that both the private sector and the public sector create wealth. Alexander Hamilton understood this concept–reality. I know you are not readdy for it.
No, the government does not produce anything. Teaching is a service (and that service has been tainted by too many teachers with the agenda that America is evil). Firefighting is a service. Police protection is a service. Everything the government does is a service.
Government is important, indeed indispensable, but the people must protect themselves from those who are drawn to politics though self importance and delusions of godhood. They are the ones who expanded and expanded and expanded government because they think they know more about how to run people’s lives than those people do. Our government is at least 50% too large, at the very least.
Look at what the government has done to too many Americans. Nearly 50% don’t pay taxes. Nearly 50% receive some form of the dole. These citizens are being robbed of their self respect and indeed their citizenship because they aren’t productive citizens. They are just subjects awaiting their bread and circuses.
Oh, and I am a government employee.
I normally agree with Radosh, but he is wrong on this one – and the fact that he quotes nutty Peter Beinart, proves that he is wrong. I believe that Angle will defeat Dirty Harry Reid and O’Donnell may yet pull off a victory over the bald, bearded marxist. There is nothing “extreme” about Anble or O’Donnell: many people believe that the Department of Education is a waste of money. The bottom line is that their Democratic opponents have declared war on capitalism. Look at how they will vote. And let’s not forget how well backing Arlen Specter went. Arlen who????? Let him be a bad memory. There was nothing “centris” about Arlen. Like turncoat Murkowsky, it was always all about him.
Abolishing the Federal Department of Education and returning control of public education to the states is nowhere near as radical or extreme as some of the proposals of some of Obama’s unconstitutional czars. In fact, it makes sense in light of the fact that Obama’s school safety czar, Kevin Johnson or Jackson I believe is his name, is a defender of pedophilia (NAMBLA), and has admitted that his goal is to have a gay agenda introduced into the public school curriculum. If my kids weren’t already grown, that would be enough for me to take them out of the public school system.
No, we cannot allow such a radical administration “fundamentally transform America” in such ways, and we can’t afford to have RINOs representing us who would allow it.
Rove,Krauthammer and Radosh have it wrong. A Mike Castle would have done little to advance a conservative agenda. Quoting Beinart is beneath contempt. He is a far left apologist for Hamas.
Is that what we really want? Just what are we supposed to do about it? I don’t live in Delaware. What kind of douche ass question is that?
The problem with O’Donnell is not her ideas. Granted that her red-meat conservatism is a hard sell with many Delaware voters, the real problem is her personal weakness – her lack of substance.
All she’s ever done is talk. Lately, she couldn’t even earn a living.
If she had the record of Joe Miller, or Rand Paul, or even Sharron Angle – I think she’d win.
BTW – I’m really tired of the O’Donnellites who rant that Castle is a traitor who always voted with the Democrats on important bills. Castle was a centrist who voted with the Democrats about half the time – way too much, and more than almost any other Republican – but still a lot less than almost any Democrat. He voted against Obamacare and the “stimulus”, for instance.
Incidentally, what does Angle have to do with your thesis? Angle’s problem is her campaign style (“gaffe-prone”), not her positions, and Nevada’s about as far from the Northeast as one can get.
Election results in November will reflect not only the mindset but morals of Americans. I sense a shift in the public’s awareness as this could be the most politically-astute electorate in over a generation. Sure, the race for the future of this country is in question, but the stakes have never been higher. Which way will we go, I wonder?
A fine article, but I believe it misses two points. First, McGovern’s troops were way, way out there. . .basically for their time. All the anti-war stuff made them seem extreme to many folks along with pro-abortion at the time, which wasn’t settled law yet. Tea Partiers are hardly as far out there, the vast majority of them talk about fiscal restraint and lower taxes and then the social issues. I believe you’ll find the McGovern’s were much more social and then fiscal second (or at least in that order).
Second, the impact of the Tea Partiers is being felt but will continue to be felt in ways that haven’t been looked at yet. Think a Lindsey Gramnesty is going to feel as free to play a middle of the road conservative in upcoming votes? Particularly being from S.C.? The Maine Twins may. . may be able to get away with that. But one never knows.
Finally, look at the Dems. They ran “centrist” democrats in many races in 06 & 08 due to the Iraq war, Bush Bashing and all that hopey changey crap. Came to Washington and voted with their party (basically walking the plank). These folks aren’t going to get re-elected nor will they probably ever be able to run state-wide again, or at least for quite awhile. They were “pretenders” running in a district whose values and positions were anemic to their own. People saw thru that after the first 20 months. If the economy doesn’t improve, wait until 2012 when many dems face re-election at that time. . . someone like Nelson of Nebraska. He’d be toast this year, Tea Party candidate or not. Think he may be voting a bit more on the conservative side in the next two years? The country has swung back to the right because we’ve gotten a taste of what the Dems, both natiionally and locally have to offer and it’s only taken 2 or 4 years depending on your position.
This will be a start and a good cleansing and renewal for the Republican party. Sure, there’ll be disagreements and those who will, will point it out and blame the Tea Partiers every chance. There will be disagreements. However, at worst the TP will make folks at least think about their vote and it’s impact a bit more. That’s a good thing in the long haul.
I have news for you, the Tea Party is not interested in being coopted by the Republican establishment so they can continue politics as usual. If that means they don’t control both houses this round and Republican seats are in jeopardy to Tea Party candidates again in 2012 then so be it. Both parties have been racheting up spending and government control over the populace for two hundred years. We’ve had enough. If Republican legislators don’t get the message that we demand fiscal conservatism, we will fire them too. The Republican contract is a disaster compared to the Tea Party platform, and we demand a laser focus on the core structural issues of governance and accountability.
The die is cast. What is to be gained by pissing and moaning? The Republican electoral team has taken the field and the election battles have been joined. The conservative commentariat is now lamenting about a reality that cannot be changed, while whining that the great good cause of power for its own sake has been fatally undermined. Are they not now undermining the battle in progress?
Radosh:
“Far right activists who demand ideological purity and rigidity on all issues dominate the activist base, and seemingly are succeeding in producing a conservatism that is both not electable and far removed from appealing to the disappointments that are driving so many away from the Democratic Party”
Mr. Radosh, you are (unfortunately) absolutely correct. because of the religious fanatics of the right, so many who are disenchanted with the equally dogmatic democrats are politically homeless, with no place to go. “If I have to choose between Jesus or Marx, I choose nothing”
But of course nihilism by default makes you to worship in the church of Marx. Strange you cannot see it. Perhaps liberation theology might be an option for you – it is a nice mix, or should I say medley?
Why do you hate Jesus? What is so evil about Christians, that you would tolerate Marx to spite them? Do you really fear what Christians might do to you? Do you honestly perceive a real threat, or is it just imagined? Do you honestly believe there is a chance in heck that we Christians could ever actually fully enact our social agenda, and even if we could, would it be so terrible?
Marriage between one man and one woman. That is the way it is now, and always has been! Do you suffer because of it?
No abortion. That would mean almost 2 million more beautiful babies are born every year, until women become more careful again. “But women would be forced to carry them to term!” Mm-hmm. And the vast overwhelming majority would then opt to keep that precious baby. Guess it wouldn’t be so discomfiting after all. those who do not so choose can give them up for adoption, and there would be homes waiting.
Prayer in school. The way it used to be before the government took over the schools.
Creationism in school. Evolution is still a theory, but is treated as Gospel. Teaching a viable alternative, and demonstrating the weaknesses of both theories can only provide perspective to each and help to keep both honest… and teach some desperately needed critical-thinking skills. Again, it is how it was before the government took over. We learned to read from the Bible.
SoCons ended slavery, gave women the vote, ended Jim Crowe laws, reformed welfare, ended the Soviet Union, etc…. Back when the country was overwhelmingly Christian, the streets were clean and safe. Doors were not locked. Folks said Please, Thank you, Sir, Ma’am. Was that so bad?
SoCons are usually Fiscons. Sorry, but if you want fiscal reform, you are going to HAVE TO embrace the SoCons. Or continue to watch the country go to Hell. Is that too high a price to pay for you? Really?
This is your idea of eschewing “ideological purity on all issues”, huh?
““If I have to choose between Jesus or Marx, I choose nothing””
If that’s the case, then I’m afraid that that is all you will get, and it will be more than you deserve.
FWIW, I think that you have internalized as factual the caricature of conservatives that has been promulgated by their political enemies.
And that would be your folly, but hey, you’re quite welcome to it.
Still eschewing, eh?
Dear moderates: We’ve tried it your way and it hasn’t worked. As a result of your “work together obsession” we nowhave a completely out of control congress because both sides have “worked together” to spend us into oblivion. Come over to the dark, libertarian side and be right for once.
Bye.
I have great respect for Mr. Radosh, especially after he realized how guilty the Rosenbergs were and how the American Left continues to move even further left than they were when their beloved Ethel and Julius were put to death nearly 60 years ago.
But I disagree with him about this. Even if the GOP gets 46, or 47, or 48 seats, all of those who fill those seats will be either Tea Parties or those too scared to buck the trend and will stick with the party. I believe Harry Reid will lose, but even if he wins he will be in charge of a much-reduced Dem majority that really will not get anything through. This means no more Dream Act, no more ObamaCare funding, no end to gays in the military, and no illegal amnesty. And the House will surely go Republican. And in 2012, more Dems are up for re-election in the Senate, and many of these come from states Bush and McCain won, which means they will be in a weakened position. So the goal may not be to win it all now; the goal is to make sure those who do win are the right kinds of people, and, in 2 years, we rid ourselves of the Obama cancer we have inflicted on ourselves while also electing more Republicans and Tea Partiers to the Senate. In 2013, we will have a Republican in the White House and a majority in both houses. And THEN we will get things accomplished, our way.
Apparently, Mr. Radosh has not been to a Tea Party rally. The one’s I’ve been to have been focused almost entirely on federal spending and state’s rights. I’ve never seen social issues like abortion or gay marriage being protested.
Mr. Radosh seems to think Republican control of the Congress is the most important thing. Rather than electing principled candidates to Congress. It’s just this type of mentality that gave us Specter, Jeffords, Murkowski, Snowe, Collins, Graham, and President G.W. Bush. And look where it got us.
Tea Party candidates like O’Donnell and Angle may not win the general election, but Radosh should also remember that they earned the right by beating their Republican establishment foes fair-and-square in the primaries. We may not end up with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress in this election, but at least we’ll have enough solid conservatives to thwart Obama’s socialist agenda until 2012.
Who do you consider “Far right activists who demand ideological purity and rigidity on all issues dominate the activist base”? What ideology do they demand? I may fit your preconceived and prejudiced opinion. I would like our country to favor Individual Liberty over Government control. Is that the form of “conservatism that is both not electable and far removed from appealing to the disappointments that are driving so many away from the Democratic Party”? Although I do not require “purity” I would like the Candidates I vote for Have a solid understanding of the form of Government our Founding Documents created. Once elected I expect them to follow the sworn oath each one takes. They will all make mistakes, let them show honor in admitting them and work to fix them for the good of the Country. I expect the welfare of the American Citizen to come before “party” concerns. That is their duty as elected Representatives. Is that the Far Right unelectable and unappealing form of conservatism to which you refer? As a Tea Party member,9.12 member, Republican member and delegate, I’m sure the label “Far right activist” is directed toward me and thousands like me. I disagree, I find my ideology appealing to a very large and diverse group, American Citizens.
Mr. Radone presupposes that we want to reinstall Republicans in power. Every year we are told to elect people like John McCain or Lindsey Graham or the Maine sisters because they get the GOP power, seats on committees, and control. But when given all that, these folks move the center to the left, vote the people more government, more costs, more expenses and less freedoms and liberties.
All of the men who throw their hands up in the air and declare us handing victory to the left fail to mention all the candidates inside the Democrat Party that are running to the right. Handing control to the GOP in 2010 or 2012 isn’t the goal. Handing the “keys back” to the party that drove us over a cliff isn’t the goal. The goal is to force everyone back into being right of center, not just elect left of center people with R temporarily on their chest. The goal is to elect and/or get elected eventually, people who have core values that cannot be swapped after losing the primary. The agenda of Obama is dead. We put a stake through its heart last year.
The idea that we were going to unseat Harry Reid with anyone is delusional. The idea that we were going to take Joe Biden’s seat in Delaware, for Gods sake, is delusional. The idea that some handsome man with a truck could take Teddy’s seat is insane. Oh wait. That actually happenend. And it can happen again. And each time we imsist on strong voices, we get HEARD. So wake up Rove and Krauthammer and understand that our goal is NOT to give the GOP power. Once you absorb and process that fact, you might stop whining about O’Donnell and Angle.
And hey, did anyone see that even SNL is at a complete loss to define O’Donnell? Yeah, everyone in DE is going to immediately believe that she ran a dog fight ring and burned down a house for revenge. Lame.
Well, if we are center-right, then we certainly are not left, which is the direction the Democrats were trying to take us.
I’m not a TEA Party member, but one thing they’ve given to me? I will not hold my nose and vote for a RINO again. I respect them for that.
Besides, if Republicans gain the Senate, too, with 51, that’s no where near enough to overturn a veto, and we’ve got “independents” that caucus with the Dems and several RINO’s that almost caucus with them, so I say, vote for what you believe in, you’ve nothing to lose.
Your thinking all wrong. Have you forgotten that control is really about votes? Don’t you remember getting excited when Brown won because he could break the 60 vote super majority? What good is… well I am not going to retype it all read a blog posting of mine http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com/2010/09/not-gaining-senate-majority-doesnt.html
Public employee unions are bankrupting America…..period.
So Mr Radosh, what you’ve done is again outline the unpleasant situation we’ve gotten ourselves into. We were the political giant who went to sleep, and just woke up to the noise of our house burning down.
The unpleasant reality is that our choice is to either support candidates who reflect our values, or Republicans who will likely vote with the Democrats. Some choice,huh? Well it wouldn’t be this way had we not gone to sleep in the first place. Now, we have to face this reality, do damage control as best we can, and keep working to turn things around both within our party and in the country as a whole. And it will take more than the next election.
Let’s realize that both schools of thought are valid. We need to both break the Democrat monopoly in Washington, and reform the Republican party. And we need to do both at the same time. Sadly, there will be tradeoffs between the two. This one was a victory in reforming the Republican party. The nomination of McCain was a victory in getting Republicans into control. We’ll have some of one, and some of the other.
But it’s now been decided. Let’s all get behind O’Donnell, and work like hell to get her into office. No time for finger pointing among ourselves. The stakes are too high on both fronts. We have to fight the left, instead of yet again fighting amongst ourselves.
Let’s stop arguing and avoid the recriminations, get to work on the massive task of victory in November, and then the harder task of building and keeping this conservative movement alive and advancing in 2012 and beyond.
I don’t just want Republicans to win the Senate. I want CONSERVATIVES to win the Senate.
The center-right has been successfully demonized as being “radical” and “far-right” so long now that people, like you Ron, take it as conventional wisdom, which is definitely conventional, but rarely wise.
We need to redefine what “centrist” actually means. I believe it is not merely someone who sits in the middle between left and center-right, as that implies a center-left mindset – and that satisfies no-one. Not the 20% self-described “liberal” and definitely not the 42% of the electorate who claim “conservative”. Even the 35% who currently claim “moderate”, when push comes to shove, will abandon that and go one way or the other. And that will almost invariably end up with a majority of “conservatives” in the electorate. So someone tell me why we should have a party that panders to that middle group and leaves the larger “base” unfulfilled instead of embracing the base and reaching out to the “moderates” and convincing them that their agenda most meets their needs? After all, the moderates are the ones that need convincing and they put themselves there to be convinced. Besides, do you really think a “centrist” party is going to peel off any part of the 20% of “liberals”? When a self-identified group gets near those numbers, it’s the hard-core true-believers. they can’t BE convinced to vote for you.
In essence, Ron, you’re advocating the same policies the GOP has run for nearly ever – chase the “moderates” by being “centrist” and throw a couple bones to the conservatives but generally ignore them as they will always be there. Which was what Bush and the Republican leadership have done since Gingrich was ousted, and continue to try to do this year with neglect and active hostility towards conservative challengers in Florida, Delaware, and Alaska. Basically, be “Democrat-lite” and manage the disaster that liberalism is creating instead of actually averting it. What did that get them in 2006 and 2008? Oh, yeah, the people will vote for the actual Democrat or Republican rather than the pale imitation.
No offense, Mr. Radosh, you should go out more.
Like your friend Mr. Podhoretz, neither one of you really get the TEA party and the tea party peopel.
hoo hoo, the ‘centrist’ bugaboo. A monkey loaded by the media on the intellectual backs of Rightist. The myth simply refuses to die down. Against all evidence, it keeps on living—in the minds of well-meaning conservative commentators.
No. It is this ‘centrist’ nonsense that dragged us (i.e. U.S.) from the Republic that was brought to us by Ben Franklin, and we have miserably failed to ‘keep it’. Everytime the Right has gone unabashedly Right, it has seen ascendancy. Every single time it has pandered to this unikorn of ‘centrist’ political mirage of an oasis, it has sunk. Sunk big time.
It never was a good to time to go ‘centrist’—certainly not now. Even yesterday i saw a poll where huge chunk of republican populace (not the leadership—which is nutty, at best) who want to see the party move even more to the Right. Sir, the Rightists comprise roughly 44 percent of population, as opposed to 22% left-leaning, 25% or so ‘independants’ who are flocking enmasse to the Right, precisely because it is Right (and not ‘centrist’ linguini), and 10-15 % who don’t give a dang, or are ignorant of what is involved and don’t care to find out. And even if we DID get the ‘northeastern republicans’ by going ‘centrist’, we will, by the same token loose a lot of those who are sick and tired of centrist. And even if we don’t loose the latter, the former are seen to be as useful as a ‘centrist-pretending leftists’. I.e., their only use is to confuse and give false hopes to the Right, which invariably throws the Right’s calculations, say, when making a whip-count of who is going to stand against the loony left legislation popping out of the Obama popcorn machine.
This is the final battle between the Left and the Right, and any concenssions extended by the Right to anything left of, well, Right, are going to work against the Republic. On the other hand, we go out with our true colors—those of freedom and liberty and of the Constitution—we do have a chance of defeating the Left at the pollbooths in Nov. (not that this will be much useful, considering Obama’s total preparationg to take over the whole agenda enacting business to executive branch.) Ron Radosh is a good conservative, and often quite insightful, but this time, i believe, he is the victim of the myth created by the leftist media—Right can gain anything by cutting corners in its principles and becoming ‘centrist’.
As an aside, republicans CAN”T win senate—at least not in any useful way—but that has nothing to do with failure to turn linguini (hattip on usage ‘linguini’: Rush Limbaugh) . If you look at the number of seats up for election and do a little bit of elementary arithmetic, you will realize that is literally impossible for the GOP to win a veto-proof majority—without which you can not stop, let alone reverse, the Obama machine.
Socialist “analysts” try to pose the imperative Republicans MUST win the Senate in 2010 in order to be considered “successful”. Not So! WE DON’T NEED sOCIALISTS DEFINING “SUCCESS” FOR US.
We will win the House….That’s a given. The ideal for this cycle will be to get close in the Senate (49/51 Democrat’s favor). Given the appalling losses Dems will suffer Nov 2, the GOP can be assured of 5-6 Dem Senate votes on any bill in 2011. Enough votes to pass any bill – although NOT by veto proof margins.
QUESTION: Will your Demi-God in the White House then veto all such bills??? If so, ‘Goodbye Obama’ in 2012; Goodbye the rest of the 34 Demo Senators up for re-election in 2012.
You Socialists are in a REAL quandry, are you not?
I love it when left wing hacks are telling us how our party should operate. We tried that with McCain and the results were just as you wished, a loss. Stop telling the conservative party how it should operate, we are taking the party back and you can cry and throw all the temper tantrums you wish, but the majority of the American people agree with our message, not yours.
And to that “facist” loving Lawrence, if you bother to really do some research on non-liberal blogs and wikipedia, you will find that facists are socialistic in nature, in other words, ultra-liberal. When you actually learn what a word means, you can use it in the proper way. It is in the school of Alinsky that you learn to call the other side the names you really are to draw attention away from you as you pursue that very agenda. You are an indoctrinated, kool-aid drinker who needs to wake up before you realize that you’ve been used. If the country does become a socialistic society, you will get your 2 bedroom apartment, 2 loaves of bread per month ration and be happy with it, right?
Ron, get a copy of “Ethical Oil” by Ezra Levant, read it and then make up your mind about it.
Then, revisit this column, because both sides can’t be correct regarding the issues, and those who demonize the Tea Party folk, will have to deal with their errors.
I spent that much time and effort to respond to your post, and you won’t post my reasoned response? Ron, really, I expected much more from you.
PJM, I used to respect you. I used to comment here in your defense (under another name – my real name). But you haven’t been as conscientious as you used to be.
I made a comment hours ago, without profanity, and it’s still in the queue? Whoever is monitoring this thread, please email me, as I’d like to know why my comment isn’t worthy. Otherwise, post it.
Ron,
Angle and O’Donnell are bringing the RINOs out of the closet. When the Establishment Republicans come out against primary winners, they prove their time has past.
I’ve found several of Mr Radosh’s books to be very informative. However I really don’t see the virtue of his argument here.
The view of the conservative American voter seems to be -
(1) A legislature in the hands of a “business-as-usual” Democratic party is a sure path to financial ruin, social disintegration, and rapid decline to Third World status for the US.
(2) A legislature in the hands of a “business-as-usual” Republican party will take the country down the exact same path, though perhaps not as quickly as would the Democrats.
(3) A legislature in the hands of a radically reformed Republican party might possibly be able to avoid the above gloom & doom if it adheres to some basically straightforward principles.
Radosh probably agrees with proposition (1), and is willing to settle for (2), since he believes that (3) isn’t likely to happen.
Our Conservative Voter believes that (2) isn’t good enough, believes that (3) absolutely MUST happen, and is willing to vote accordingly.
Is that about it?
You just don’t get it Ron. We The People will no longer accept whatever candidate is offered by the RNC. No more business as usual. No more RINOs like Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe. We would rather have 48 solid conservative Senators we can count on than 51 with 6 RINOs we can’t count on.
It’s called principle, Ron. We The People will choose our own representatives from now on. The RNC hasn’t done such a good job in many cases. Mike Castle would have been no better than Chris Coons.
Ron,
In case you havent noticed, the McGovern Wing of the Democrat Party dominates the Democrat Party….and now holds both houses of Congress and the White House. We also have a person more radical than George McGovern in the White House.
Also, the New Left has been very successful in pushing its agenda, creating a new zeitgeist built around their values, beliefs, and ideology.
Seems that they werent so foolish after all…but rather very effective.
First, since when was it considered a lock for the Republicans to take the Senate? Up until O’Donnell won the nomination, all of the talking heads doubted it would be possible for the Republicans to take control.
Second, it is much better for the Republicans going into 2012 if they don’t control the Senate. I’m sure you could guess why.
Radosh asks if I want to make it impossible to build a centrist conservative governing force in the Republican party. I can’t. It’s already impossible. The RINOs made it impossible.
McCain and his ilk hijacked the party years ago. If we give in now, they will think that we don’t really mean it.
Don’t count Tea Party votes as safe republican votes. The bumper sticker I was going to put on my car this year until Tea Party candidates gave us some some hope, was the following: “Don’t vote. It just encourages them.”
Angle and O’Donnel are necessary, even if they mean not controlling the Senate. They mean “give us candidates that we can trust on limiting government, we WILL NOT vote for people who compromise on that”.
Ultimately all the “social issues” are minor compared to the fundamental issue of the scope and purpose of government. It is a GOOD thing that people become unwilling to compromise or seek the center on that.
Actually Radosh, It’s too late for appeassement,moderation,co-existence,or bipartisanship;all pious frauds designed to weaken conservative patriots.The “centrists” are whorish scum who sell their soul to whoever bribes them with the promise of jobs(Republicans),or welfare mortages (Democrats). These people are ruled by fear and greed and exist to be intimidated,and bribed as the situation dictates.The bipartisan buying of their votes is what has destroyed the US economy. The country is already ireconcillably split: ever hear of the phrase “fly over country”,used by libtards to sneer at those who call the cities which these libvermin infest “People’s Republics”? WE ARE A DIVIDED NATION whose politically committed citizens are engaged in a cold civil war. Regardless of who wins in November,The corrrupt ruling parties/business elites/academic frauds and other establishment garbage, will not be able to avert the economic catastrophe that weill make the cold civil war go hot.When that happens, we’ll need disciplined committed partisans willing to fight and die for a vision of America free of liberal(stalinist vermin)unemcumbered by”moderate”sell-outs like Castle, McCain,and similar cretins,ready to stab them in the back.An America split into economically healthy red states,free of the parasitic drag of blue welfare states would be a finer place to live than the present “united” states of fraud,pc stalinism ,anti-white discrimination,and welfare spending mandated by a terminally corrupt elite of new world order plutocrats.Face it Radosh:Civil war is coming,and when it does,the moderates will either become extreme or become extinct.Which will you be?
I don’t know if Mr. Radosh reads these. But I am going to leave some posts anyway – parts of his article and my comments following. Besides I said he is a jerk, so I should prove it. Lucky for me his article is obvious – makes my work easier.
From article – “”So many of this new movement’s activists seem to be saying: “We are against candidates of both parties who don’t speak for us, who are not fiscally responsible or really conservative, or in the case of some Republicans, are so-called RINOS.” Therefore they have got behind candidates like O’Donnell, despite solid evidence of her inability to be elected.”
Comment – Too intellectual. Your characterization of the activists is an act of surmise on your part (“seems to be saying”) and then you draw a real life conclusion (“Therefore…”) when actually we have no idea if any of these characterizations, or your conclusion, are real. A flaw in logic and meaning here – “…got behind candidates (plural) despite her (singular O’Donnell’s) ….” Are you saying Angle’s winning is hampered by O’Donnell? Minor style point, I think it better to write ‘winning the election” than “to be elected”
From article “Unfortunately, a Republican victory in the Senate may not occur for one reason — or should we say two: Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle!”
Comment – This is one large comment, and a sneaky statement. We DO NOT read in the article a statement that if the Republicans do not win the Senate, and if both, or one, Angle and O’Donnell lose, those Tea Party mistakes will have contributed to that lose. That is true. It is NOT true that if the Republicans do not gain control of the Senate that the fault will belong to these two candidates. If the Republicans fail the reasons will be, first and foremost, that the Republican Party will have failed to convert Democratic seats in play during the election to Republican seats. There are 19 Democratic seats up for election in Senate races. Other reasons for a Republican failure will be, small number of Democratic seats up (19 out of 57), incumbency, “safe” Democratic seats, and failure of Republicans to convert a majority of the 19 up, and, if they lose, Delaware and Nevada.
Comment – If Republicans fail in the Senate the reasons will be revealed by trenchant, honest, perceptive, realistic and passionate political strategy, not ad hominem articles – if there is such a thing.
From Article – “Now consider today’s Republican Party. At a moment when it is poised to present meaningful conservative alternatives to the stale bromides of a bankrupt liberalism, far right activists who demand ideological purity and rigidity on all issues dominate the activist base, and seemingly are succeeding in producing a conservatism that is both not electable and far removed from appealing to the disappointments that are driving so many away from the Democratic Party”
Comment – Quite a closer. No proof, discussion or examples provided in the article. But more important, here revealed for the first time the article’s real objections. This tendency to ideological rigidity far to the right of the country’s conservative center was not mentioned in the article’s discussions of the two candidates. The article describes O’Donnell as an air head, actually. Deplorably, Angle, the more serious of the two, gets no mention at all and the article does not contain one single word about her, her campaign, her proposals – nothing.
From Article – “The process works something like this. When parties lose power, activists ascribe the loss to the ideological impurity of their incumbent president. In so doing, they vent the frustrations they kept bottled up while their side was in power. Since defeat frees them from the messy business of governing, ideological purity suddenly becomes easier. And since defeat usually hits party moderates disproportionately hard, the opponents of purity usually hold.”
Comment – This silly surmised fantasy is from Peter Beinart and I just want to point out how generalized and vague it is. Mr. Radosh says of this vague generalized abstraction, that it “hits the nail right on the head”. I think the statement too porous to take a nail.
From Article – Charles Krauthammer put it so well: “The very people who have most alerted the country to the perils of President Obama’s social democratic agenda may have just made it impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate and definitively stop that agenda.”
Comment – Irony appeals more to one’s pretenses, than it conforms to reality. This statement shares the fallacies found above in my comment about preempting real and significant political strategy discussion by using these two races. In a bit of small dishonesty here, Radosh is using the Krauthammer statement to express an opinion on these two races, when Mr. Krauthammer was restricting his comments to the Delaware race.
From Article – Now consider today’s Republican Party. At a moment when it is poised to present meaningful conservative alternatives to the stale bromides of a bankrupt liberalism, far right activists who demand ideological purity and rigidity on all issues dominate the activist base, and seemingly are succeeding in producing a conservatism that is both not electable and far removed from appealing to the disappointments that are driving so many away from the Democratic Party. [America] is clearly a center-right nation… We are not a far-right nation, and candidates of that caliber will eventually push those who could be allies in defeating the left smack into the hands of our opponents. If Republicans are to win and govern, they need to build a centrist conservative party that is national in scope, not a Southern or regional party that will continually lose in the Northeast. So I ask PJM readers, is that what you really want?
Comment – Radosh refers to a number of components that make up a political spectrum. Apparently, according to Radosh, there is something like a left, a liberal center, a conservative center, and a far right. Apparently he thinks the current administration, basically, is bankrupt liberalism, so I gather he thinks it liberal center. We think it on the left.
It is more than contemptible that Mr. Radosh using vague labels to attempt to influence and control choices by advocating a ‘centrist conservative party that is national in scope…” meaning what? What is a national conservative center? What differentiates it from Conservatives? Radosh’s use of the term “far right” is merely his way to discredit Conservatives he does not agree with.
He should state what those disagreements are. He believes that in order for a Conservative candidate to win in the Northeast East they cannot be what? Espouse Southern or Regional opinions? Something other than prejudice must be moving Mr. Radosh but perhaps the issue here is that as Conservatives try to take over the Republican Party, Mr. Radosh and the Neo-Conservatives are trying to co-opt the Conservative movement and keep it a big government, intrusive hegemonic prize staffed and advised by ex-radical members of the elite.
As I remember it was Mr. McCain who lost in the Northeast and Mr. Reagan who won. First time, too. Mr. Radosh, tear down this wall. Tell us, what is the national conservative center, and what way does Angle not fit in? And who else doesn’t fit it. And why?
I agree with Mr. Radosh that the Republican’s are positioning themselves as a minority party, but I wouldn’t characterize the solution as “centrism”. The one-dimensional linear “left-right” perspective is half the problem: it creates (as Ayn Rand observed) the myopia of “false alternatives”.
The solution for the Republicans is not to be this proportion or that of “left” or “right”. The solution is a coherent political philosophy embracing one unifying principle: inalienable individual rights that no government may not infringe upon.
The Republicans need to take a principled stand. If they define every issue in terms of this one principle, they can defend freedom and economic liberty (ie, capitalism) as well as the founding principles of the Constitution, including limited government. Only this will give coherence to the party and broad appeal to the electorate.
People can debate what the *source* of rights is (see Rand’s position here http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_man_rights), but whether you think rights derive from nature or God, if we can both agree that we *have* them, and then stay true to that, that’s something to build a party on.
It would clear away the confusion surrounding “Founding Principles” vs. “pragmatic realities of our times”. Or “freedom” vs. “economic freedom”. (Are the two really different? Does one class of human action such as the press, deserve protection, while anothe class, such as business deserve to be regulated?)
Or the debate over “open borders” vs. “closed borders. (Is the United States a private club or do people have a right to seek their rights here without the hazing of excessive immigration requirements?)
Or whether there *should* be government-run social services such as welfare or health care or social security. (Does *anyone*, citizen or otherwise, have a right to claim the product of another person’s effort?)
Or separation of Church and State. (If the only proper function of government is protection of rights, does the government have any business promoting anyone’s religion with “faith-based initiatives”?)
Or strong defense vs. an internal police state. (Can you defend rights while abrogating them?)
More fundamentally yet: If we *have* an inalienable right to our own life, do we have a duty to sacrifice our lives for the so-called “greater good” (whose good?) or do we have a right to seek our happiness without that ball and chain around our necks from birth? (Neocons like Bush and Paul Ryan say the former.) Does *anyone* have a right to claim even one bit of our life to serve their ends? Does anyone have a right to tell us *how* to live our lives?
I could go on. All these issues are clarified by one underlying principle: a committment to individual rights, properly defined. In the absence of that principle, the only result for the Republicans can be inconsistency and incoherence, as reflected in the hodge-podge of concrete issues and self-sacrificial moral imperatives in the pathetic “Pledge to America” recently released (I said something more about this at my blog, http://robbservations.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-start-for-america.html).
The Tea Party is a rebellion against the status quo of both parties. Most importantly, it’s an inchoate stand for individual rights and a rebellion against philosophical incoherence. Most Tea Partiers aren’t sure exactly *what* they are for beyond some kind of founding principles in the Constitution, but they know they *are* being manipulated by others trying to define them — the soft-Left Conservative neocons (who pay lip service to some aspects of freedom, but really believe we all have a more fundamental duty to “society”), the Republican Party leadership (who only want to preserve their power and who will cut some taxes but never end a government program that cuts their power), or the Religious Right (who mainly want the government to promote religious views and religion as such) — they sense something’s wrong with this.
The only solution to unify people under an enduring pro-freedom coalition is a single principle: individual rights. That will pull in a lot of patriots, while shucking off many RINO’s and some religious fanatics in the Conservative movement, but it will also attract a quite a few independents and libertarians and even a few DINO’s who vote Democrat out of their own frustration and confusion. This will actually roll back government control over our lives and allow the Republicans to function as a real party. Maybe for the first time.
If anyone has doubts about Mr. Radosh’s conservative views, if he has any, read his hysterical and discrediting review at http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/The%20Enemy%20Within.html concerning a book A sensible, rational, important and well researched re-evaluation of the career, character and significance of Senator Joe McCarthy. The review, I believe, first appeared on National Review Online on December 5, 2007. The book is called Blacklisted By History and is written by M. Stanton Evans. I will write a review if anyone is interested.
If we (the voters) want change in Washington, we are going to have to prepare ourselves for some less-than-perfect elected representatives.
In Wisconsin, we have a HUGE race heating up between incumbent liberal Russ Feingold, and businessman (and rookie politician) Ron Johnson. Johnson is FAR from the polished career politician that Feingold is.
That is one of Johnson’s strongest suits. So, he’s not as smooth on the insider vernacular. So, he occasionally gets his subcommittees confused with his investigative councils. So, he stammers a bit on the detailed discussions of some arbitrary bill regarding the crop rights of Ecuadorean farmers. BIG DEAL!
There is NO way we will ever be able to groom a class of Conservative politicians who can match… gun for gun… the likes of long-term powerhouses like Reid and Pelosi and Feingold.
We gotta take the best we get… show them to the good people of this country… and start clawing our way back into the fight.
If someone is not a well oiled salesman and a dynamic manipulator we are lead by the media to believe that they are an idiot and are unacceptable as a candidate. While these things seem like weaknesses in todays political game I believe the voters are fed up with the pitchmen, spin ninjas, master manipulators, and conscienceless liars. I would gladly welcome a principled individual that was constitutionally grounded over all the Madison ave imaging and picturesque gravitas you can muster. Imperfect is real, and real seems to be in vogue this season. America is like the emotionally unstable girl that is only attracted to bad boys and wonders why her relationships always end in abuse. Don’t allow yourself to be seduced by surreal and superficial illusions. Sharon Angle is brave to put herself up against the smear machine. I love it that Rand Paul makes honest, principled gaffes with the gotcha corrupt media. The fact is, it doesn’t matter this time. Anyone seen through their worst moments looks like an idiot, a liar, a failure. You don’t have to be a wiz kid to vote according to constitution and be honest with your constituents but you need supreme talent and jedi abilities to play both sides and walk in corruption and still get reelected over and over.
HOWARD NEMEROV;
“Larry: Fascism is “left”. Nazi stands for National SOCIALIST German Worker’s Party. Notice that SOCIALIST part? You engage in revisionist history, which of course was part of Marx’s agenda. Curious.”
Most Americans now know RINO=Republican In Name Only.
Now learn SINO: Socialist In Name Only.
The Nazis specialized in the BIG LIE. It was part of Hitler’s approach to mass propaganda. You are willing be believe the Nazis when they used “Socialist” in their name. What other Nazi BIG LIE do you believe in?
I’m not sure that this is an appropriate threat for these comments. But I couldn’t find a better one. So here goes: Until this week, I was a supporter of the Tea Partiers, and I participated in one of their rallies. But when I was watching and listening to Sarah Palin during her appearance on a TV show the other night, she made me very uncomfortable, because she gave me a distinct impression that her successes have gone to her head, and that she now has delusions of grandeur in the respect that she implied that it is HER intention that the Tea Partiers will take over the Republican Party. As a longtime staunch Republican, I will oppose such a takeover. Tea Partiers have their place. But it isn’t to take over the Republican Party. They should work within it for changes. I’ve compiled a list of a few Republicans whom I would like to see as possible candidates for POTUS in 2012. But Sarah Palin isn’t one of them. Michelle Bachman is MUCH more qualified than Palin is, and Bachman isn’t on my list either.
In the first sentence of my post #139, that was supposed to be thread, not threat. Sorry ’bout that.
Also, disregard my post #140. I’m not ditzy. Really, I’m not.