Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I Think I Owe an Apology to George W. Bush.
Townhall.com ^ | November 16, 2012 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 11/16/2012 6:47:24 AM PST by Kaslin

William F. Buckley once noted that he was 19 when the Cold War began at the Yalta conference. The year the Berlin Wall came down, he became a senior citizen. In other words, he explained, anti-Communism was a defining feature of conservatism his entire adult life. Domestically, meanwhile, the right was largely a "leave me alone coalition": Religious and traditional conservatives, overtaxed businessmen, Western libertarians, and others fed up with government social engineering and economic folly. The foreign policy battle against tyrannical statism abroad only buttressed the domestic antagonism toward well-intentioned and occasionally democratic statism at home.

The end of the Cold War gave way to what Charles Krauthammer dubbed the "holiday from history" of the 1990s and the "war on terror" in the 2000s. People forget that Bush was elected during the former and had the latter thrust upon him. But at the end of the 1990s, he was one of many voices on the right trying to craft a political rationale to deal with the changing electoral and demographic landscape. He campaigned on a "humble foreign policy" in 2000 and promised something very, very different than a "leave me alone" domestic policy.

He called his new approach to domestic policy "compassionate conservatism."

For years, I've criticized "compassionate conservatism" as an insult to traditional conservatism and an affront to all things libertarian.

Bush liked to say that he was a "different kind of Republican," that he was a "compassionate conservative."

I hated -- and still hate -- that formulation. Imagine if someone said, "I'm a different kind of Catholic (or Jew, or American, etc.): I'm a compassionate Catholic." The insinuation was -- by my lights, at least -- that conservatives who disagreed with him and his "strong-government conservatism" were somehow lacking in compassion.

As a candidate, Bush distanced himself from the Gingrich "revolutionaries" of the 1994 Congress, and he criticized social conservatives like Robert Bork for his admittedly uncheery book, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah." He talked endlessly about how tough a job single mothers have and scolded his fellow conservatives for failing to see that "family values don't end at the Rio Grande." As president, he said that "when somebody hurts, government has got to move." According to compassionate conservatives, reflexive anti-statism on the right is foolish, for there are many important -- and conservative -- things the state can do right.

Compassionate conservatism always struck me as a philosophical surrender to liberal assumptions about the role of the government in our lives. A hallmark of Great Society liberalism is the idea that an individual's worth as a human being is correlated to his support for massive expansions of the entitlement state. Conservatives are not uncompassionate. (Indeed, the data show that conservatives are more charitable with their own money and more generous with their time than liberals). But, barring something like a natural disaster, they believe that government is not the best and certainly not the first resort for acting on one's compassion.

I still believe all of that, probably even more than I did when Bush was in office.

But, as a political matter, it has become clear that he was on to something important.

Neither critics nor supporters of compassionate conservatism could come to a consensus over the question of whether it was a mushy-gushy marketing slogan (a Republican version of Bill Clinton's feel-your-pain liberalism) or a serious philosophical argument for a kind of Tory altruism, albeit with an evangelical idiom and a Texan accent.

Some sophisticated analysts, such as my National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru, always acknowledged the philosophical shortcomings and inconsistencies of compassionate conservatism, but argued that something like it was necessary nonetheless. The evolving demographics of the country, combined with the profound changes to both the culture and the economy, demanded the GOP change both its sales pitch and its governing philosophy.

Compassionate conservatism increasingly faded from view after 9/11. Bush ran as a war president first and a compassionate conservative at best second in 2004. Still, it's worth remembering that Bush won a staggering (for a Republican) 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Romney got 27 percent.

Moreover, according to exit polls, Romney decisively beat Obama on the questions of leadership, values and economic expertise, but was crushed by more than 60 points on the question of which candidate "cares about people like me."

I still don't like compassionate conservatism or its conception of the role of government. But given the election results, I have to acknowledge that Bush was more prescient than I appreciated at the time.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: apology; bush43; compassionate; goldberg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last

1 posted on 11/16/2012 6:47:26 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

One sentence synopsis: In order to win elections, conservatives must become liberals.


2 posted on 11/16/2012 6:55:35 AM PST by Right Brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I think you can be a compassionate conservative without the hokum of calling yourself one, and without massive deficit spending and more entitlement giveaways. A true compassionate conservative would have reined in the housing bubble and cheap money. Reagan was the compassionate conservative. Just like being a parent, punishing your kid because they’re doing something that will cause them harm is compassion.


3 posted on 11/16/2012 6:58:18 AM PST by throwback (The object of opening the mind, is as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: Right Brother

What Jonah misses is that Bush’s Compassionate conservatism and Romney’s mushy whatever it was are NOT the only two choices.

Clearly articulating why conservatism itself WORKS, and therefore IS compassionate, would be something not tried in a long time.


5 posted on 11/16/2012 6:59:55 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright ("WTF?: How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost....Again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Right Brother

Won’t work.

The conservatives won’t vote for you, contribute to you, or work for you.

In a competition between a “real Liberal” and a “sorta-Liberal” the real Liberal will win almost every time. After all, there is no limit to the amount of other people’s money he is willing to spend.


6 posted on 11/16/2012 7:00:38 AM PST by Little Ray (I have VOTED AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Right Brother

In order to win elections, conservatives must stop voter fraud.


7 posted on 11/16/2012 7:01:04 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
...if someone said, "I'm a different kind of Catholic (or Jew, or American, etc.): I'm a compassionate Catholic." The insinuation was -- by my lights, at least -- that conservatives who disagreed with him and his "strong-government conservatism" were somehow lacking in compassion.

Zackly.

What was so damned "compassionate" about turning over the education of our children to Ted Kennedy?

Those chickens will be coming home to roost (and thereby answering Jeremiah Wright's prayer for America) for years, decades, to come.

Thanks, George.

Of course he was a better President than Obama.

My toilet bowl would make a better President than Obama. At least it does the job it was created to do.

8 posted on 11/16/2012 7:01:30 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Te?xas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

:: My toilet bowl would make a better President than Obama. At least it does the job it was created to do. ::

Yet, just like the election showed, we need to flush twice to get rid of an “obama”.


9 posted on 11/16/2012 7:06:38 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (Bread and Circuses; Everyone to the Coliseum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

What I miss about “W” was that when 9/11 happened, I knew he would do his very best to protect the country and keep us safe. I KNEW it down to the depths of my soul and and I TRUSTED him. Without getting into all the Iraq war crap, he DID keep us safe.

With the current clown in office, I have no such feeling of safety. Frankly, I think the b@stard is selling us down the river to his Islamist buddies. I don’t think it gets much plainer than 4 dead Americans, left to die with no security or assistance .... and people in the military who let him get away with it.

Do I miss President Bush? More and more every day. God bless the man and I hope he is thoroughly enjoying his retirement.


10 posted on 11/16/2012 7:08:24 AM PST by MissMagnolia ("It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains" - Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Right Brother

“One sentence synopsis: In order to win elections, conservatives must become liberals”

I concur. I have never found Jonah difficult to read. This is a chaotic, illogial jumble of words painful to read as was watching Bush fumble around with the Constitution.

Ugh!


11 posted on 11/16/2012 7:08:43 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Here’s a thought: how about leading with one’s ideas, and attempt to win over hearts & minds (or just minds), rather than following?


12 posted on 11/16/2012 7:12:18 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
Clearly articulating why conservatism itself WORKS, and therefore IS compassionate, would be something not tried in a long time.

Yes and no. I think we've seen that an all-too-large segment of the voting population is immune to facts and logic. That does not mean that we need to abandon our principles to reach them, but we do need to "package" the message at a more visceral level, in a manner that evokes an emotional response as much as a logical one.

13 posted on 11/16/2012 7:15:04 AM PST by kevkrom (If a wise man has an argument with a foolish man, the fool only rages or laughs...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stanne

The article is nonsense. It’s tantamount to Christians saying “You know, we could get more membership in our church if we just compromised on the homosexual marriage thing.” Insane.


14 posted on 11/16/2012 7:15:34 AM PST by Right Brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Rush said it best. Conservative-ism is already compassionate.


15 posted on 11/16/2012 7:16:12 AM PST by bmwcyle (Women reelected Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Brother

I think that, in order to win, conservatives must not allow liberals to paint them as heartless. I thought Bush was on to something when he referred to “the soft bigotry of low expectations”, showing how government hand-holding of the poor is patronizing them and limiting their futures. I thought “compassionate conservatism” was an effective pushback.

Conservatives have to quit being made out to be like social darwinists. Americans don’t want to be that. Americans want to see themselves as givers and (voluntary) sharers. To capture that spirit, conservatives have to demonstrate that private charity, when freely and wisely used, can benefit the giver, the recipient, the community, and can leave government entirely out of it. I have to say, as a newly minted conservative, one of my sticking points was that I really didn’t believe that people would give willingly often enough to really be of significant help. It took statistics about the generosity of conservatives relative to liberals, and participation in community activites run by volunteers to help me see how often conservatives give what is needed, where needed.


16 posted on 11/16/2012 7:16:18 AM PST by married21 (As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MissMagnolia
Do I miss President Bush? More and more every day. God bless the man and I hope he is thoroughly enjoying his retirement.

I wish him no ill will. But as for enjoying his retirement, I couldn't care less whether he's enjoying it or not. At least he was able to retire. Unlike the vast majority of the non-government-employee population.

Yes, he protected the country from further terrorist attacks, but he also helped lay the foundation for the situation we now face by buying into and selling this "religion of peace" mumbo-jumbo.

17 posted on 11/16/2012 7:17:28 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Te?xas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I disagree.. G.W. Bush owes conservatives an apology for paving the way to totalitarianism...


18 posted on 11/16/2012 7:18:45 AM PST by Breto (The Establishment party is killing our country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I agree we owe Bush credit for winning two terms and creating a message that got the votes needed.

We also need to recognize that true Reaganesque ideas can be successful electorally and can be inclusive so moderates and independents can feel like they will benefit from the policies...and the same with Hispanic voters, women, etc. Bush had a populist tone and understanding language that did win Hispanic support. I saw it in a big way here in Florida in 2004. There some of the strongest support in the days ahead of that campaign came from Latinos. We don’t need to change policies but we have to battle the left’s constant focus on driving a wedge between Republicans and different groups. Bush did a great job of that. Although I didn’t see it during the campaign, Romney and the RNC did not.


19 posted on 11/16/2012 7:18:54 AM PST by ilgipper (Obama supporters are comprised of the uninformed & the ill-informed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It’s save-yourself time.


20 posted on 11/16/2012 7:19:12 AM PST by Flightdeck (My four children have been robbed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

There is some truth to what you say, but you are missing my point. How do we really know the segment that is immune to truth and logic is too big - when we are not really campaigning with truth and logic?

For example: How do we know, when Paul Ryan agrees that Obama and Biden “inherited” a bad economy, that people can’t understand that said economy was crippled by policies Obama and Biden agree with - UNLESS we tell them and stop agreeing they “inherited it” from Bush?

OR: how do we know, when Mitt congratulates Obama on bin Laden, that people won’t understand that tactics put in place by Cheney and Rumsfeld got bin Laden - unless we TELL THEM?

So yes, people are immune to logic - but especially - if we REFUSE TO EVER USE IT! And THAT is my point.

We only have to flip about 2%. Now, the longer we wait, the more we will have to flip, but don’t tell me it won’t work, if we never try it.


21 posted on 11/16/2012 7:21:57 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright ("WTF?: How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost....Again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Breto

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. *shrug*


22 posted on 11/16/2012 7:23:52 AM PST by Kaslin ( One Big Ass Mistake America (Make that Two))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

What is “compassionate” about holding a gun to my head to extract tax dollars, to be given to others unwilling to earn their own way, to support behavior of which I disapprove?

What is “compassionate” about forcibly supporting immorality, destroying the family, undermining the work ethic, and denying the fundamental right of private property?

What is “compassionate” about the willful destruction of any semblance of education, to replace it with indoctrination into the preferred belief system of a self-appointed elite class?

What is “compassionate” about believing that much of the population is incapable of existing without coddling worthy of infants?

Sorry, not buying it.


23 posted on 11/16/2012 7:24:07 AM PST by motor_racer (Pete, do you ever get tired, of the driving?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

There is some truth to what you say, but you are missing my point. How do we really know the segment that is immune to truth and logic is too big - when we are not really campaigning with truth and logic?

For example: How do we know, when Paul Ryan agrees that Obama and Biden “inherited” a bad economy, that people can’t understand that said economy was crippled by policies Obama and Biden agree with - UNLESS we tell them and stop agreeing they “inherited it” from Bush?

OR: how do we know, when Mitt congratulates Obama on bin Laden, that people won’t understand that tactics put in place by Cheney and Rumsfeld got bin Laden - unless we TELL THEM?

So yes, people are immune to logic - but especially - if we REFUSE TO EVER USE IT! And THAT is my point.

We only have to flip about 2%. Now, the longer we wait, the more we will have to flip, but don’t tell me it won’t work, if we never try it.


24 posted on 11/16/2012 7:24:38 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright ("WTF?: How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost....Again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Truth will eventually win, it will just take the right person to point out the lie that is liberalism.

Liberalism has always failed and will always fail. That’s just a fact.

This FACT needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

We need to start with FDR and rewrite the history books to show what an utter failure liberalism has ALWAYS been.


25 posted on 11/16/2012 7:25:02 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Breto

That’s true in a lot of ways.

You’ll like this, or, at least agree with it:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/bushs_legacy_none_of_the_above_1.html


26 posted on 11/16/2012 7:26:15 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright ("WTF?: How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost....Again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“compassionate conservatism”

Yeah, like conservatism is evil and cruel.

Reminds me of how the word gay was stolen and now means homosexual trumps happy.

If Bush represents conservatism and he is what they should aspire to be like—count me out. I’ll find a new word.


27 posted on 11/16/2012 7:27:56 AM PST by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Brother

I knew that would be the first response, but I don’t see it that way.

Compassionate Conservatives are not “democrat-lite”. Instead we apply conservative principles to lift people up, create wealth, and enhance personal freedom. I’m talking about myself and others, I don’t speak for GWB or know what was in his heart. Nor do I know what this author believes, but there is no dichotomy between having compassion for others and believing strongly in conservatism.

There are good, compassionate people on both sides of the aisle. but WE are the ones who look at government as the CAUSE, not the solution to problems. We are the ones who know that only through personal freedom and the exercise of God-given rights can people truly prosper and enjoy the blessings of liberty.


28 posted on 11/16/2012 7:28:12 AM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Ya know....screw this! There isn’t a republican party. The republicans are democrats and the democrats are progressive communists.

The Democrat Party and the Progressive party. That is what we have now.


29 posted on 11/16/2012 7:31:37 AM PST by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
One of the biggest problems with Bush was that he let the Demonrats define him & attack him daily without standing up for himself. This allowed the media to define the whole party the same way.

The notion that he was above "all that" is bunk, our system of election is an adversarial one where you fight with words & ideas. He never stood up & defended conservatism and explained the evils of liberalism.

The only thing he did that a Demonrat wouldn't have done is cut taxes and even then he didn't make them permanent even when Republicans controlled all 3 branches.

30 posted on 11/16/2012 7:32:56 AM PST by Smittie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

compassionate conservatism - Someone who believes in charity, but chooses to whom and how much of their own personal wealth they choose to give and is content without talking about it and telling everyone how much they give to charity.

Someone who believes in God, traditional American family, family values, strong military, stronger foreign policy, and robust economy.


31 posted on 11/16/2012 7:34:57 AM PST by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
We need to start with FDR and rewrite the history books to show what an utter failure liberalism has ALWAYS been.

Until we get our children out of public schools; that will NEVER happen. We need several generations of parents willing to school their children at home. _Private schools? Tutoring? We need a solution to the poison being pumped into our children at school. It's going on right now.

32 posted on 11/16/2012 7:40:33 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles
In order to win elections, conservatives must stop voter fraud.

This needs to be job #1.

The opportunity is golden. There were whole geographic areas in Ohio, Pennysylvania, and Florida that voted 100% Obaman. That makes it easy, you only have to find a handful of voters who will sign affidavits that they voted for Romney.

There were busloads of blacks who showed up in rural districts to register and vote. Blacks - Maine - Rural? Get on it!

Computer modeling was used to show them where and how to cheat. Computer models can be used to show where and how to investigate.

33 posted on 11/16/2012 7:41:51 AM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


34 posted on 11/16/2012 7:43:23 AM PST by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?

Lincoln also needs to be exposed for the war criminal and dictator that he was.

Real history needs to be taught instead of the propaganda.


35 posted on 11/16/2012 7:47:38 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MissMagnolia
I Think I Owe an Apology to George W. Bush.

Yeah you do, Jonah, along with about 150 million others.

36 posted on 11/16/2012 7:48:09 AM PST by 2nd Bn, 11th Mar (The "p" in Democrat stands for patriotism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

“Clearly articulating why conservatism itself WORKS, and therefore IS compassionate, would be something not tried in a long time.”

Spot on!

I am afraid the Liberals have done a great job of getting people to believe that conservatism is mean spirited and only for the rich. Conservatives have done a terrible job arguing in opposition!

Mel


37 posted on 11/16/2012 7:49:36 AM PST by melsec (Once a Jolly Swagman camped by a Billabong....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

It’s anecdotal, for sure, but there is a clear pattern of people simply ignoring facts that do not correspond to their preconceived notions. I saw a Mark Twain quotation the other day, and I’ll have to paraphrase because I didn’t mark it, but it’s basically: it’s easier to fool someone that to convince them that they’ve been fooled.

People who have had their opinions shaped by the schools, the media, and Hollywood, simply cannot process information that contradicts that. I’ve seen it in action over and over again — they will either ignore an inconvenient fact, or if they can’t ignore it, they will dispute the source (”oh, that came from Fox News’), question the motives (”that research group is funded by a foundation who has one member who does business with the Koch Brothers!”), or, a personal favorite of mine, the good old false moral equivalence (”well, even if that is true, what about [insert totally irrelevant “counter-example” here]?”).

And that’s the behavior from people I know to otherwise be of high intelligence.


38 posted on 11/16/2012 7:51:21 AM PST by kevkrom (If a wise man has an argument with a foolish man, the fool only rages or laughs...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MissMagnolia

While I don’t agree with everything W. did I sum it up with this line as I told it to my wife and a few others, “I would rather have George W. Bush holding a knife at my throat than have Obama invite me to dinner.”


39 posted on 11/16/2012 7:52:34 AM PST by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

Excellent point


40 posted on 11/16/2012 7:53:32 AM PST by Kaslin ( One Big Ass Mistake America (Make that Two))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
Clearly articulating why conservatism itself WORKS, and therefore IS compassionate, would be something not tried in a long time.

I will agree, but how do you articulate these beliefs when there is no real vehicle(i.e. the main stream media) to do so?

41 posted on 11/16/2012 7:54:43 AM PST by Right Brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Right Brother

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_s-Qk07KxA


42 posted on 11/16/2012 7:56:45 AM PST by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
Clearly articulating why conservatism itself WORKS, and therefore IS compassionate, would be something not tried in a long time.

Wow - what an idea!

43 posted on 11/16/2012 7:57:22 AM PST by tentmaker (Galt's Gulch is a state of mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Right Brother

You do it in ads, and in the debates, and get away from these sterile answers designed not to offend.

You don’t run an entire campaign on the premise that Obama is “a nice guy who is simply over his head.” You don’t agree that he and biden merely “inherited a mess” and haven’t quite gotten out of us yet.

You tie all failures, over and over, in every message, to liberalism. You tie all sucesses, like bin Laden’s killing, over and over, to conservatism.

So you piss off our enemies a bit more? Who cares? All we have to do is flip about 1-2% of the undecideds - and dammit, I’m convinced it would be done.


44 posted on 11/16/2012 7:58:04 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright ("WTF?: How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost....Again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

All we have to do is change about 1-2% - to win elections we are now losing. That’s all. We don’t have to change the entire 51%. We have a huge weapon on our side - we happen to be right. With that, we can change 1-2%.


45 posted on 11/16/2012 7:59:50 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright ("WTF?: How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost....Again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

” Clearly articulating why conservatism itself WORKS, and therefore IS compassionate, would be something not tried in a long time.”

30 years


46 posted on 11/16/2012 8:01:06 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker ((God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

All we have to do is change about 1-2% - to win elections we are now losing. That’s all. We don’t have to change the entire 51%. We have a huge weapon on our side - we happen to be right. With that, we can change 1-2%.


47 posted on 11/16/2012 8:01:06 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright ("WTF?: How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost....Again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

In my voting lifetime, there were vestiges of conservatism articulated in 80, 84, 94 and 2010. Seems to me we did alright in all of those.

In 92, 96, 98, 2006, 2008, we ran from conservatism - and all were unmitigated disasters.

In 1988, 2000, 2004, there was sort of a mix, and we squeaked by.

In 2002, the Dems just ran so far left, we won big by defaut.

Seems to me history is clear: the wider the ideological chasm in an election year, the better we do. The narrower, the worse we do.


48 posted on 11/16/2012 8:05:50 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright ("WTF?: How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost....Again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

” You don’t run an entire campaign on the premise that Obama is “a nice guy who is simply over his head.” You don’t agree that he and biden merely “inherited a mess” and haven’t quite gotten out of us yet.”

NAILED it.

You also nailed Bush(for the right reasons) in your article.


49 posted on 11/16/2012 8:09:20 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker ((God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

Excellent post. I didn’t read it before my post #41. You are so right. You can articulate conservatism using everything from brilliant dissertations to pencil drawn stick figures and the majority won’t get it. Their political thought has almost become an uncontrolled reflex due to a lifetime of propaganda. If we do not wrestle back control of our schools and the media, any effort to promote conservative principles is futile and the country is finished. I hold little hope, because the lake of the electorate is being restocked with more liberal fish every day.


50 posted on 11/16/2012 8:16:34 AM PST by Right Brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson