Conservatives need to stop denying reality

Thanks for posting and the GOP diehards are in a state of denial thinking that the last 8yrs were good and wanting to see next 4 like the last eight.

They won't read it...and if they do, they won't buy it. But we can continue to hope.

I agree thatthe conservative sgement of the old GOP is dying out. That is why a more moderate candidate liek Mccain can getthe nomination. I see the McCainPalin tickets a a good compromise. Further, I suggest that moderate women may actually vote for the ticket and moderate men have etended towards McCain for years. The addition of Palin will also help with Republicam voter registraion. Just a teh hard line conservatives had turned off voters, the ultra liberals have tured off long time Democrats. I live in Massachusetts, where is the 60s & erly 70s, it was all Democracts and JFK was a saint. Now, my town overwhelmingly voted Republican in te primary and Romney was our Governor. I firmly believe the labels of the party do not apply in the way they did a generation ago. It is more about the candidates thanthe name of the party.

Oh so that's it, Linda, the Republicans are finally coming around and now they are comprising? In their bible women can't be teachers, preachers or Pope, but they CAN be VP, or maybe even eventually President. What a joke!

Sorry but Party labels still applies why else do they use Liberals labels still???

Governor Palin as poster child for women's rights - the laughs just keep coming.

Rosa, you aren't upset about Palin are you? :P

For the record, the current Governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat, Senator Kerry (D) is up for reelection and ahead by a wide margin, Senator Kennedy (D) is not up for reelection but generally wins by a landslide, and the RCP average of polls has Obama up by over 12%. And the argument against Romney in the Republican primaries was that he was considered way too liberal, mainly because some of his decisions in Massachusetts were "liberal."

So I guess we'll have to wait to see how they vote on November 4th.

My daughter is currently taking Senior Contemporary American History ... boy are they having a field day in that class!

Here's hoping that hope will carry us through :o)

Jan - One thing about this year as that students of civics have seen both the best of and the worst of the American political process.

I wish more people would study history - American, International, Contemporary, Ancient - because it's clear that many of our elected officials and our citizens haven't studied it enough.

You just said a mouthful, David. And, once baseless notions are entrenched, no amount of data, reasoning, logic or reality can shake it.

Well, it was said by David Frum. But I posted it because this is something that I had felt for a while. The whole idea of fiscal conservatism has been thrown out the window by the controlling faction of the Republican party. True conservatives believe in responsible fiscal management - not give tax breaks for the rich and cut social programs for the poor, but focused fiscal prioritization for giving all people the opportunity to pursue the American dream. So many true conservatives have become frustrated with the direction the Republican party has gone. And most agree that the country needs a change in direction. Unfortunately the power brokers in the Republican party seem slow to respond.

David thanks a good article; you got a 10 from me.

But what makes you think Conservatives are denying this "reality"? I mean just because we don't fall for the Democrats "alls lost" rhetoric doesn't mean we don't know there are people with problems and don't want to help those people to do better.

That is nothing more than the propaganda of the left.

Dan - It is David Frum who thinks conservatives are denying the reality. As I indicated in my first line, this is a direct quote taken from his article. David Frum is a conservative strategist and thinker, as well as a former speech writer for President Bush, which is why I also noted this in my post so that people wouldn't think it was simply leftist propaganda. If you read his article you will understand from whence Frum draws this conclusion.

It is often said that GWB is no conservative. The policies of the last eight years have not been good for the middle class. As the middle class goes - so goes the country. I would fully expect that there will be more voters for the Democratic party than the Republican party because pocketbooks are low. Most people vote their pocketbook. It will be interesting to see if McCain can distance himself from the policies of the White House in the next 59 days.

Joe - It's clear that is his plan, though it will be interesting to see how he spins having a Bush-like Republican platform, agreeing with Bush on every substantive issue (by his own admission), and signing on to the Bush/Rove attack strategy.

I think that is one thing that Frum was getting at - that the party seems to have focused so much on ideology that it has stopped paying attention to reality.

Funny; in this article Frum is observant enough to note how inflationary policies have pummeled middle-class Americans (so that middle-class incomes have actually fallen, when adjusted to real terms); and yet this is the same man who went to such lengths, just one year ago, writing at least two articles attempting to ridicule Congressman Ron Paul's ideas regarding monetary reform (specifically, abolishing the Federal Reserve funny money system, and providing for a sound monetary policy backed by tangible commodities, i.e. gold and silver).

This article is at least not as riddled with as many pre-Ricardo era economic fallacies as his pathetic attempt at argumentation against Dr. Paul last year; but he still manages to avoid stumbling upon any correct conclusions throughout the entire piece.
In the apparent tradition of all the other statists who people Washington's kept "conservative" think-tanks, he tends to pay the requisite lip service to "free enterprise" and "free markets," yet seemingly never concluding, either explicitly or tacitly, that it is the absence thereof that has created the evils he is lamenting.

He can evidently recognize that the systematic siphoning of purchasing power away from middle-class America known as "inflation" is among the primary factors contributing to the inequality of wealth he at least pretends to deplore; yet he is unable to come to the common sense conclusion that the central banking cartel known as "the Fed" and their monopoly over, and political manipulation of, the currency, is counter to the interests and well-being of the American people, and should be put down and replaced by a free-market monetary system.

Stands to reason, though, I suppose. If the man were to write anything as honest and observant as that, he would have run afoul of the statist establisment frauds who masquerade as "conservatives" at the AEI, the Weekly Standard, and National Review, and hence would have found himself looking for work.

thanks for sharing..

The conservatives need to realize that their reality checks all bounced!

Definitely worth the read

Good article! I'm familiar with Frum.
Personally I think that it is a good thing if both parties move closer to the middle so that more moderate legislation is passed and decisions are made in a reasonable amount of time.

Thanks David.

Conservative thinking is great if it is not used as a dodge to support Bush type policies. Its been proven over and over in the last 7 + years that Bush is no conservative and really just a self serving political fool.

Bush policy does not work, globalization does not work, all we have left is research and development and that is proven to follow the work wherever it goes. How many burger flippers does America need? Is working at McDonald's what we are educating our children for?

If it has been proven that Bush policy does not work why would we want to elect a president that admits he wants to follow the same policy?

Great article but Cassandra was not believed in Troy....look what happened there.

As for the nice folks who say McCain will revamp the party....he's sold his soul....this convention is NOT about him. It's about placing Palin and the Religious Right in firm control of the party. There are still some old style Republicans the Eisenhower/Rockefeller ones that are entirely appalled....they had best say something quick!

The middle is just to blind to see it. They may win this round again but they will overreach and be truly doomed.

Look at the platform and what that Convention floor looked like....is that the America we live in?

jack E because Obama is well..... half white.

and it's sad

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

The Best F#&king News Team Ever - Small Town Values

I have to echo(?) Dan E. comment a bit here too. I don't know for sure what I'm called, but I think I'm more conservative than liberal, and care about the same things all do.
I think there are many Republicans or Conservatives on the street that know or feel like the author in the link as well. No "eye-opener" to them or me. I think that is why McCain got the nomination frankly. I have the rare privilege of being able to say "I told you so" from waaay back predicting that Republican "voters" fed up with DC (including those in thier own party) and would pick McCain, even though not a supporter myself. I was poo pooed in here and elsewhere, as McCain had no party support from the Bush power brokers, was broke etc. etc., so I shut up and watched. Most were sure like in 2000 he would fail, and Bush would pick his own successor, matching a traditional model. I felt voters saw out of control spending and on and on, and that having the Presidency and Congress 6 years, had somehow gotten lost. I don't want to go into huge detail in my opinion why here, that is an article in itself, and getting off target. I take note that in the article, the author uses McCain, Giuliani, and Romney in a more positive light of being different. The same ones that supported McCain the most in my opinion at his convention. I also believe that McCain's choice of Governor Palin was much more than a way to get women's votes or Clinton cross-overs, much more. It has a lot to do with "who she is" as a person, how she thinks, not just her ideology. That's why nobody really gets it in DC, or the media insiders, but everyday "voters" and McCain do.
The author also mentions what I guess are called moderate Democrats like Webb that changed parties because of much the same thoughts. If recalling properly, that most Democrat seats won in 2006 were of his type; moderates I guess and waiting for thier time. See, I think the Democratic Party is lost too, I hardly recognize it any more at times. Lost to so-called Progressives(?) like the Pelosi's, Deans, etc. with too much internal power, that seem to accept groups like code pink, the daily kos, and on and on. Eat thier own, almost self-destructive at times, and risk good men (opinion) like "old school" Lieberman pulling up stakes for "daring" to disagree; with nary a thought of his years of service to the party. He was thier VP choice for peats sake! I'm not so sure that Obama doesn't see that too really, but is taking a safer route as Junior within his party and much at risk. He has a career to worry about within his party; while McCain doesn't have that concern.
Why after 8 years of Bush/Cheney, Iraq, 'pick something', and what everybody said was a sure shoe-in Presidential election for Dems in '08 so tight right now? Anybody know? No matter the candidate, a Reagan type Democratic landslide was expected, even by quietly depressed Republicans. Something is up, and I think Washington/Political Parties with 9% approval ratings don't get it. I'm not sure I do either, but think I've touched on some.
I'm not trying to push McCain specifically here, or knock anybody, only that I see him winning the nomination as a sign related to the article, which is written by a Republican for Republicans. Their are new faces and ideas coming soon in politics; and new voters too. The number of voters calling themselves Independents has continued to slowly increase as another sign. I don't know squat really, but I think Americans are tired of straight party lines, register a party because they have to in most states to have a say in primaries, and want politicians to serve or go regardless. I sure hope so anyway.
I think Republican "voters" want "change" and to fix things just as much as Democratic "voters" want it. Only thing is, I believe it is going to be different than either of the "Party establishment" see it. They want people to flock to thier Parties "as is" by demeaning the other... I don't think that is going to be reality in the future.
Anyway, enough rambling by me...
Thanks for the link and article.

McCain is 'winning' in your party because he is too dumb to see what has happened with Palin. They have set her up, win or loose as the new defacto head of the party....it isn't McCain's platform it's hers.

As for the moderates...what are they going to do? they just want to retain power....they will soon learn they are as useless to the right as the rest of country.

That is another reason he is unqualified to be president!
louis a., Sep 6, 2008, 5:56pm EDT

Thanks for commenting

Time Article

Thanks, David.

Stephanie, you said: "And, once baseless notions are entrenched, no amount of data, reasoning, logic or reality can shake it."

I have good news. This is not always true. I kept a stack of registration cards on my table last election, and carried them with me everywhere I went. I wish I had kept count of the number of people who changed their registration, or had previously been apathetic and not interested but changed their minds. I haven't worked registration this time, but hear from those who are that the numbers are overwhelming this time.

Sometimes, it just takes meeting someone who is passionate and has information, which I also carry when I leave the house. (If anyone is interested, I still have Kucinich and Kerry/Edwards handouts and bumper stickers in my trunk.)

This election day should be very revealing.

A related quote from the wires today from David Frum:

"I am not denying that Sarah Palin may have great skills. She may well. I am insisting that neither you, nor I, nor John McCain has any valid reason to believe that she does. This is not an argument about the attributes she lacks. It's an argument about the information we lack. I am pleading with my fellow conservatives: Please demand more and better knowledge before you commit yourselves to a political leader. That's all."

-- Former Bush speechwriter David Frum.

***It's an argument about the information we lack.***

This is something that to me, all voters should heed before committing. Using both Governor Palin and Senator Obama as examples, they were both relatively unknowns outside thier own States to most average people at first. However, nearly the same day either one was selected the crap was flying with no basis in thought; only by what Party they were from alone. Unfortunate in my eyes...

John - Actually, I would agree on some aspects of your comparison.

Certainly for Governor Palin, the bandwagon was jumped on overnight (it's still only been a week since she was announced, and she is the "savior" of the Republican party). There is still a lot we don't know about her, though what we do know is that she is a far right wing conservative and apparently not ready for prime time (i.e., they won't let her talk to the press).

Obama, on the other hand, went through quite a long period of time where people could get to know him. Remember that Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner for most of 2007 (and actually before that even). So Obama grew on people as they came to know him. We know all we need to know to make our decisions on Obama (for or against).

In both cases they naysayers made their decisions fast. Most did so purely along party lines. Unfortunately, partisanship has become even more acute in the last two Presidencies (Clinton and Bush, each with two terms).

I personally don't belong to any party and considered all candidates in all parties before making my choice. I know that's not true for everyone, but it is true for a very large percentage of the electorate this year.

Jim said: "I have just one thing to add: It all boils down to greed. Government must exercise some form of control over this to our mutual benefit. I hope that the party of Lincoln will take back it's party."

What form of "control" to "our mutual benefit". That's not conservatism -that' socialism. I don't think Lincoln would support that statement. We simply must look at the free market "free capitalism" to work. There is NO control which will ever be mutually beneficial.

Obama says, "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper". This is what you are suggesting and supporting! Not me and I am a fiscal conservative Republican, a has been, so it seems.

About a hundred years ago the communists were open about wanting to take over one or both political parties. They succeeded with the Democrat party, and have been highly successful in neutralizing the Republican party by splitting it internally.

Linda - I would agree with your hesitance to accept government control, but I would question where you might find "free market" or "free capitalism." In fact, there is no such thing, and we would not have survived as a country if it had existed. There are many controls on the economy, and not just the ones that reign in rampant abuses (like Enron), but those that help stimulate the market.

As for the communists, you might want to double check your sources. Neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party is influenced internally at all by communism. Ironically, the Republican party has been accused of acting more along the lines of fascism. While that too is not realistic there certainly have been parallels.

All of us say we are fiscal conservatives. And one of the points of David Frum's article is that the Republicans - and most especially the current Administration - have thrown the idea of fiscal conservatism out the window (and into the gutter). This Administration has presided over the biggest increase in government in decades, mismanaged the fiscal assets worse than any President in the modern era, and took several years of annual budget surpluses and immediately turned them into 7 straight years of budget deficits on the way to a recordbreaking debt. So if you are a fiscal conservative, as I am, the answer would be to not vote for the same party that has destroyed the economy and our reputation and integrity in the world.

And if Conservative's car stops running they just steel one.

David- I hate to sound like a big Governor Palin supporter here, though admit she piques my interest, but the press rhetoric falls along that some line. "They are hiding her from the press" etc. She has known she was the pick about as long as we have. She is not from Washington, worked with McCain, and has been a Governor working on issues for her State more than anything. The big rush by many to see her with the press, is a desire to see her stumble on McCain cohesion; red meat as it were.
The delay is actually smart knowing the media, blogs, etc. Governor Palin needs to be brought up to speed on McCain policy issues, what he expects, etc. It is only natural before being "thrown to the dogs" so to say. Impatience by many is being turned into a form of conspiracy theory on what is she afraid of? I don't think "she" is afraid of anything myself.
Anyway, I think I read her first interview of substance is this week with ABC news.
Take care.

Thanks John. It's clear that the campaign wants to do three things: 1) prepare her, since she has admitted she doesn't know what's going on outside of Alaska, 2) prepare the press and the public with threats of screaming sexism by deeming to ask her any tough questions, and 3) lower expectations to the point where anything she says or does short of falling on her face will be seen as "doing great." She clearly is intelligent and politically savvy. So all of these things essentially guanantee that she won't look so bad. It's a very clever (and expected) political ploy, and one that probably will have its desired effect, but it's a political ploy nonetheless.

David, I believe Frum has a valid point that the leadership of the Republican party has lost its way. The conservative base of the party was totally disaffected until Palin's nomination, which may, just may, offer the possibility of a change in direction in the GOP.

That said, I wonder why no Democrat has had the courage to question the change in direction of the party from progressive (looking out for the little guy) to extreme left ($4 gas and we're still not gonna' drill. You "little guys" are gonna' have to get to work the best you can). Why aren't Democrats questioning why the party of "Joe Six Pack" has become the party of the extreme left haters, so that Hillary was able to sweep the swing states just by a few "shot and a beer" images in her commercials?

Yes, the Barracuda has energized conservative Republicans, but if I was a Democrat, I'd be worried that she was energizing Joe Six Pack (and Mrs. Six Pack) a lot more than Pelosi's "ardent Catholicism" and BHO's "nuanced" statements. If the Reagan Democrats are becoming Palin Democrats, it doesn't bode well for Obama-Biden in November.

Randy - I believe that Frum was not endorsing Palin as representing the future return of the Republican party, but in fact the continuation of its demise. The base of the party is energized by the very disconnect from the realities of the world that Frum was chronicling.

I think you'll also find that the Democratic party has not shifted as far left as you recount. In fact, your example of Hillary followers from the swing states actually reflects the more conservative, change-inhibited folks in the party. As for "extreme left-haters," I have no idea what that means.

We'll see in November which way the majority of Americans vote. I have confidence that they will vote the right way. I'm sure you do too, though I suspect we define that differently.

David - Thanks for posting the links to the various articles. I always enjoy checking them out. I really liked the Time article. I found it interesting that it was suggested that Obama is a conservative and McCain is a radical. I don't share that view.
Yes based on their picks for VP one may think that I guess. But I don't agree. I think that Obama is the one to bring about the changes that we need. Sure he picked a running mate with experience, that only makes sense. But that hardly makes him a conservative. Just as the fact that McCain picked Palin, doesn't make him a radical.
Nothing about McCain aside from his choice for VP says radical to me. Just as nothing about Obama appears to be conservative to me. His pick for VP doesn't say conservative to me. It says he is smart. Experience is a good thing. Funny how people view things so differently!

Connie - Nothing about McCain ever said radical, but it does say rash. Rash may be fine in the Senate but it is dangerous in the White House. McCain touts his conservative record and agree with Bush while also touting his "maverick" myth (a nice myth, but no basis is reality). Palin is as extreme right wing as they come and lied about pretty much everything that she uses to create her "maverick" myth. I see no change there.

Obama brings a new way of thinking, one that includes listening to everyone, not just the ones that agree with you while you demean everyone that doesn't agree with you. He advocates finding the common path that exists for every issue rather than finding the wedge to divide us. He advocates enlisting us all to find solutions rather than dictating a my way or no way philosophy that has characterized the Republican philosophy in recent years.

David- I have to disagree again, but I think the main reason people see the Governor's selection as 'rash" is because she is a woman with young kids, and from a State we don't hear a lot about politically except for polar bears or something. If Romney or Huckabee had been selected, people would have seen it as expected, but still disagree say right wing, too religious or whatever, etc.; but not rash.

John - Actually, the reason it was rash has absolutely nothing to do with her having kids (that's just what the campaign carps on because it feeds their media "reeducation" ploy). No, it's rash because he's a 73 year old man with recurrent cancer episodes who picked someone who the best argument they can come up with for her capabilities is that "Alaska is close to Russia." Please.

Skin cancer is not to uncommon here in Arizona David, especially for those with light complexions. I know several people myself that have had some removed, and get checked myself for it. That doesn't concern me, and doctors say he is clean and will get 6 month check-ups.
Anyway, all that aside, I read this article this morning from salon.com that touches on many things I mentioned way back up there about Parties losing their way, and/or have changed. This one is from a Democratic point of view. I thought you might like to read it?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/

Thanks for the article John.

Sorry for the generic comment, but I have to catch up on my emails. Giving you a 10 with my comment.

an interesting point is that this same debate was made in the 1980s, for the same reasons but about Dems.

unfortunately in our moribound two party system we are stuck in a perpetual sway between two increasingly similar groups...we'll see soon enough it will go in another direction

Charles - There does seem to be a certain amount of myopia by both parties, and a short memory of past mistakes (theirs and the opposing party's).

I think it will come down to the people finally starting to take our own responsibility for this country's govenance to heart. We reward the exact kind of behavior that we say we abhor, and we wonder why the politicians pander.

Alas, we'll see.