Posted on 06/13/2009 7:50:30 AM PDT by reaganaut1
...
For conservative commentators Mr. Obama’s election and the turmoil of the opposition present a changed environment, not only from the past eight years when Republicans held the White House, but from the previous three decades, when conservative ideas dominated the national political agenda.
Since the financial meltdown, though, many Americans have sought government action, prompting conservative magazines to refocus on first principles and refight battles they assumed had already been won.
“We’re seeing free-market capitalism trampled in some new way every 12 hours,” said Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, the magazine William F. Buckley started in 1955, which helped to create the conservative movement. Now, Mr. Lowry said, there is a need to restate “the eternal verities”: the free market, traditional social institutions and a tough-minded foreign policy.
At The American Spectator, R. Emmett Tyrell Jr., its founder and editor, agrees. “I’m writing a series of articles on the fundamental principles of the conservative movement,” he said. As for discord on the right? “Our major concern is that conservative philosophy permeate the country, and if the Republican Party doesn’t want to go along with it, that’s their business.”
Indeed, Mr. Tyrell, known for his go-for-the-jugular sensibility, has nothing but scorn for “timid conservatives,” moderates like the syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker or David Frum, the former speechwriter for George W. Bush, who has urged the party to reject the bellicose exhortations of Mr. Limbaugh, the radio talk-show host.
National Review, too, has struggled with how much apostasy to allow in its pages. It rapped Mr. Frum in a recent issue, for example, for his broadsides about Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Lowry explained that Mr. Limbaugh is a “personal friend.”
“The Democrats wanted to turn him into a hate figure, and we’ll defy that with every fiber of our being,” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
When?
Not since 1994 have conservative ideas been given even the chance to be considered at the national level.
the NYT
too stupid to fail
Magazines and commentators are a leading indicator. As in the 60’s and 70’s, the GOP has lost its way. It was previously rescued by the likes of Buckley and Reagan. If the GOP is to recover, conservatives must win the power-struggle between the centrists and the true conservatives.
It is an interesting dynamic ... centrists must be welcome in the party if it is to gain a majority — but cannot be so prominent as to derail the principles of the movement which drives the Party.
SnakeDoc
Great quote!
‘Conservative writers’ like these remind me of the old story about the systems designer who sat on the wedding bed all night and promised his wife how good it was going to be.
So write it, don’t talk about it.
‘When?
Not since 1994 have conservative ideas been given even the chance to be considered at the national level.’
Maybe the line was referring to the 80’s, when Reagan was President.
Again, someone forgot to read the words of Ronaldus Maximus:
I don‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Amen, amen, AMEN!!!
Thank You for that!
Political advice for Repubs from the NYT, priceless.
The GOP better get with the Conservative Program or face fragmentation of the party.
Conservatives will attempt 3rd parties even though they can win widespread.
Let’s save a lot of time & hassle & just ask the Treason Times who our nominee should be in 2012, just in case there is an election in 2012.
In the “middle of the road” all you get is run over.
What did the Dem’s do following their 2004 losses?
They found the Senator with the most LIBERAL record and elected him President.
When you stand for nothing there is no message.
Standing for “everything” is the same as standing for nothing.
The key is, we don’t need to broaden our base. Our base was so broadened in the last election that it had no discernable principles. We had a group of individuals with so little in common politically that no one could figure out what we stood for. Are we pro-illegal immigration, or anti-illegal immigration? Are we big spenders, or not? Are we apologizing for Guantanimo? Are we pro-life or not? From the last election, I would be hard pressed to tell you what Republicans believe.
We need to articulate the principles and strengthen the base. Once the principles are there, and the true base is strong ... then we go after centrists, single-issue voters, etc. within the framework that the principles allow.
I am all for compromise. In politics, compromise is the name of the game. But, we must have an articulated set of positions in order to begin negotiations. If we don’t have principles, concessions in compromise become capitulation and surrender.
SnakeDoc
Sarah Palin, as the Republican VP candidate for John McCain, probably did a lot to round up and lure back a lot of conservative votes that would have gone a-straying, either to third parties, or as “NOTA” in the general election. Clearly, somebody like Colin Powell as VP would have badly splintered what remained of the “Republican” base, something that the party leaders intuitively recognized, even though they would not have admitted it under extreme duress. But like overprotective “helicopter” parents, they will not trust to let the American people make up their minds on whether conservatives will even be ALLOWED to be placed on the ballot.
Right here in Florida, there is a strong push to place Charlie Crist as the favorite for the US Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez. But there is a much more conservative candidate, Marco Rubio, who has been strong-armed aside by the NRSC and Sen. Cornyn. This is the same organization that backed Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter, only to have them turn around and stab the Republicans in the back.
I was wondering the same thing. They know that we stand for a free America; but they want to mix it up which is stupid.
“The key is, we don’t need to broaden our base. Our base was so broadened in the last election that it had no discernable principles. We had a group of individuals with so little in common politically that no one could figure out what we stood for. Are we pro-illegal immigration, or anti-illegal immigration? Are we big spenders, or not? Are we apologizing for Guantanimo? Are we pro-life or not? From the last election, I would be hard pressed to tell you what Republicans believe.
We need to articulate the principles and strengthen the base. Once the principles are there, and the true base is strong ... then we go after centrists, single-issue voters, etc. within the framework that the principles allow.
I am all for compromise. In politics, compromise is the name of the game. But, we must have an articulated set of positions in order to begin negotiations. If we don’t have principles, concessions in compromise become capitulation and surrender.”
Doc nice post thanks.
Bump for later read..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.