Noonan: Baseless Confidence. It may take a defeat in Nov for the GOP to unlearn the lessons of power

WSJ Opinion Journal ^ | May 11, 2006 | Peggy Noonan

[daviscupper]

Now that is a reality check.

[Oldhunk]

I think the point she is making is that we don't have any good options. The real question is how do we get Republicans to start acting like Republicans again? All we can do is hold our noses to try to keep the Dems out of power in November and we get more of the same - Democrats light. The situation really sucks.

[Blackirish]

Peggy is a bitter old coot who can't get over the fact that she is no longer employed to write presidential speeches.

---

Nice personal attack on gracious woman without addressing the substance of her article

[B Knotts]

You think that maybe, just maybe, the Bush apologists might wake up one day and friggin' realize that there is a serious problem in the GOP.

Naaah, just blame the critics. Just as Papa Bush's loss in 1992 was the fault of Ross Perot, not the fault of Bush breaking campaign promises.

The script is getting a bit old, isn't it?

Whatever we who read and post here think we ought to do, the reality is that most Americans are not on this thread, and the reality is that the GOP is not engendering confidence of late.

And it's not solely or even primarily about immigration, but so much more: spending, size-and-scope of government, regulation, etc., etc.

Heck, I was a volunteer for Bush, but am not really enthusiastic about the prospects for November. Oh, sure, I'll vote GOP where it matters...it's the average voter I'm concerned about. I'm not so sure they'll follow suit.

The answer to all this, obviously, is not name-calling against those who point it out, but rather a change in attitude by our servants in Washington.

I'll leave it to others to determine the likelihood of that occurring.

[rcofdayton]

There's not much difference at the moment. I will not vote for a socialist, even if he or she has an R after the name.

[Kenny Bunk]

People have to remember, that after Republicans lost the House, it took 40 years and a leader like Newt Gingrich to get it back.

Apropos Coulter's article on "Spineless GOP," posted by Kelly, I must (cynically the old guy said) point out an inconvenient fact of professional Republican life. (as opposed to us believers).

IMHO, the Republican movers and shakers were out of power for so long, they learned to love it. They got used to sitting on the minority side, and very, very good at making sweetheart deals with the Democrats, especially on corporate taxes and other bread-and-butter corporate issues.

I was involved in Republican politics for many years, and believe me the last thing the GOP hierarchy of bosses in my area wanted was to win an election. (I actually did, with NO organization support, and actually had the state GOP offer me a position in a Democratic State government to withdraw!) What they wanted, and what they got in backroom deals with the Democrats, were judgeships and other appointments.

Sorry gang, but I am getting the same bad smell from our GOP leadership right now. I am afraid they are afixin' to leave town and go back to making deals, in their favored role as the loyal opposition... minority back-benchers with safe suburban seats.

Actual leadership has proven too time-consuming and arduous for the RNC. The attitude is "If we win, well OK! If we lose, c'est la vie, let's make a deal." The main marketing thrust is, "Vote for us, better the screw-ups you know, rather than those darned Democrats who are soft on terrorism, and much worse than we are."

We have been here before, when Republicans squandered their vote on H. Ross Perot ... twice. "To send the GOP a message."

Our job? Turn out. Re-elect the SOBs and make them do their jobs. And take a stay-at-home with you. One of the oddest political choices a people has ever had to make!

[swain_forkbeard]

You seem to have a lot to say about Peggy Noonan, but not about the substance of her argument.

[mountainfolk]

Lets see---4 years of the first Pres Bush didn't suit conservatives. Then The 8 years of Clinton didn't measure up. Now 6 1/2 years of Pres George Bush is not what conservatives wanted. Conservatives must focus on the senate and house to accomplish what they are after. A liberal congress will not help any president deliver conservative agendas. Even a saint could not deliver all that conservatives want without the legislators to pass the bills. Even today, as we type, Pres Bush has to settle for a 2 year extension of tax cuts because the congress cannot/will not make them permanent. What voters say they want and how they vote are not always consistent with their choice of representatives to congress.

[Fishrrman]

We barely have the time, do we have the will?

NathanBedford, your posts are right on target (as was your namesake), but, sadly, I think the answer to your question above is, "no".

The Republicans are going to get a shellackin' this election, and, frankly, they DESERVE to get exactly that.

Will they will be shocked back to reality (and to the conservative side of the aisle) in time to prevent an even worse defeat in 2006?

- John

[el_texicano]

No, you are not simple minded. That is entirely accurate. The primaries are where we have to make changes. Democrats are not an option - no way. RINO's are not much better.

But, with the average Joe-Six-Pack out there, what options are we giving them if we put up the same limp-wristed, lame, backstabbing bunch? Oh I will vote in November for the Republican ticket, but I have a lot of concern about many people who are not as committed in their minds.

Conservatism works everywhere it is tried and if we don't offer positive ideas, an aggressive agenda on those principles, I fear we are in for a wake up call we don't want.

[cbkaty]

A liberal congress will not help any president deliver conservative agendas.

We must remind ourselves that President Bush is the head of the party and he has the bully pulpit....why has he not used it....is my question?

He must be held responsible....for leadership.

[Rokke]

"This is an inside the Beltway column. A wake-up call if you will."

Published in a nationally syndicated column? I think Peggy has more direct means of addressing inside the beltway folks.

"Can you deny that as a class in these Republicans have become deaf to their conservative constituents?"

You said the key word here. "Constituents." Congress people serve their constituents. All of them. Like it or not, conservatives do not form a majority. They can't even form a party. That is a sad fact, but true. The closest thing to a conservative party is the republican party. But do you think JD Hayworth could when a race in Maine? And do you think Olympia Snow could win an election in Arizona? If congressmen served only their conservative constituents, they would be serving a minority of their constituents, and that is NOT how our system works.

"I for one believe that Bush and our elected representatives have presumed too much on the base"

I believe you over estimate your position as "the base". "The base" of the Republican Party is not right wing conservative (near Libertarian) voters. If it is, than the Republican Party has the most fickle base on the planet, because every election, it is those voters that stomp their feet and threaten not to vote unless their favorite issue is handled as they want it to be handled. To give an anology, Rush Limbaugh represents the base. Micheal Savage does not.

"I think the difference between us is that I believe the only way to save the party is the frankly discuss these issues"

I agree with that. But I completely disagree with Noonans contention that to loss the House or Senate would be helpful. That is defeatist. It is surrender.

[Rokke]

"The Republicans are going to take a beating this November, the likes they haven't seen since 1976, and it's going to be its own damn fault, I'm afraid."

So are you voting democrat?

[cbkaty]

Those that vote will still vote the party line...

My concern and that concern is great, is that a significant number of those that simply "need an excuse" to be lazy and not vote will have a very convenient excuse.....

[Rokke]

"Oh, so the GOP Congress has done a good job of reigning in the size of the federal government and cutting spending....."

You must really think the Democrats will do a better job. Go ahead and surrender. The French do it all the time, and they're still around.

[Rokke]

"you are a thoughtful and fact oriented person capable of careful analysis and never prone to making baseless, personal attacks."

Actually, what I said is based on careful analysis and is not a "baseless" attack. I actually read her columns and have for years. She has become predictable and boring. Most of her columns are little more than bitchfests. She has largely become irrelevant. You (and she) may not like those statements, but they are every bit as valid as her opinion pieces.

[Always Right]

You must really think the Democrats will do a better job. Go ahead and surrender.

Actually, yes I think it would have been better. Not because they would have cut spending, but Bush may have actually used the veto. Considering the hard work it took to get a GOP Congress and a GOP President, the job they did with spending has been an absolute embarrassment. This was a huge missed opportunity that we may never see again in our lifetimes. I fully support the war on terror and all that, but reigning in the size government should have been a real high priority.

[Uncle Vlad]

Certainly not! But I absolutely refuse to vote for a party that refuses to do anything about illegal immigration. They are ceding our national sovereignty to a Third-World country and will turn us into one. Will the Democrats do any better? Of course not. But the RNC and the GOP has only itself to blame. It cannot lay the blame for their refusal to uphold the law and give the electorate what it wants at the feet of the electorate. To do so would be as groundless as an alcoholic telling his family, "It's your fault that I drink."

[LexBaird]

People have to remember, that after Republicans lost the House, it took 40 years and a leader like Newt Gingrich to get it back. Do we really want to hand control of Congress over to the Dems for another 40 years?

No, we want the Republicans who "control" Congress now to show some Newt-like balls and leadership without having to wait through 40 more years. Balls and leadership enough to support and IMPLEMENT core Republican values, such as fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

The Dems got swept out by Newt because they were mired in petty business as usual corruption and were more dedicated to holding on to their power, perks and turf than they were in using that power to implement Democrat policy. It became each individual Dem doing what was best to keep his own perpetual re-election safe, with policy set by mutual backscratching aimed to achieve that goal.

As a result, their base became indifferent to or disgusted by them. When the Contract with America offered a promise to govern from ideals instead of pork barrel vote buying, the Dems got swept.

The Republicans are devolving into the position and attitudes the Dems were in: it doesn't matter what you do with the power, just maintain it. They had better hope the Dems aren't smart enough to put together a campaign platform with even marginally broad appeal, because the Republicans are doing little to address the values of the party at a broad, cohesive policy level.

[Old_Mil]

Amazing how the same crowd that gets its underwear in a wad when RINOs are criticized are front and center when it comes to hurling invectives at conservatives. We may have a problem with democratic infiltration here, but perhaps the problem isn't the one that the namecalling crowd identifies.