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

[FairOpinion]

The Republicans talk about cutting spending, but they increase it--a lot. They stand for making government smaller, but they keep making it bigger. They say they're concerned about our borders, but they're not securing them. And they seem to think we're slobs for worrying. Republicans used to be sober and tough about foreign policy, but now they're sort of romantic and full of emotionalism. They talk about cutting taxes, and they have, but the cuts are provisional, temporary. Beyond that, there's something creepy about increasing spending so much and not paying the price right away but instead rolling it over and on to our kids, and their kids.

So, the normal voter might think, maybe the Democrats. But Democrats are big spenders, Democrats are big government, Democrats will roll the cost onto our kids, and on foreign affairs they're--what? Cynical? Confused? In a constant daily cringe about how their own base will portray them? All of the above.

Where does such a voter go, and what does such a voter do? It is odd to live in the age of options, when everyone's exhausted by choice, and feel your options for securing political progress are so limited. One party has beliefs it doesn't act on. The other doesn't seem to have beliefs, only impulses.

What's a voter to do? Maybe stay home, have the neighbors over for some barbecue, and then answer the phone when a pollster calls asking for a few minutes to answer some questions. When they get to the part about whether America is on the right track or the wrong track, boy, the voter knows the answer.

[Lazamataz]

I am deeply disappointed in Peggy having joined the "cut off your nose to spite your face crowd".

I am deeply disappointed in the GOP having joined the "how can we scam those stupid conservatives again crowd".

[Nonstatist]

Do we really want to hand control of Congress over to the Dems for another 40 years?

Thats what it will probably take to get control of spending and secure the border. If they cant convince their base otherwise, theyre cooked.

I tend to think Peggy is right on, here.

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

Good work.

And great TagLine.

[rock58seg]

if they keep on repeating history, as though they knew the future.

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to making the same mistakes. Then there is, the greatest sign of dementia is repeating the same actions expecting a different outcome.

Hence the Republicans better change their disregard of the base, or risk losing it all.

[goldstategop]

I'm staying home this November because I don't see any reason to vote for a party that doesn't believe in its own philosophy, ignores our demands for secure borders and tries to buy us off with our own money on gas prices. I don't want the Republican Party to lose but given the way they're behaving, I think they need a swift kick in the pants to bring them back to earth.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[seanmerc]

It's not whining to stand on principle. That takes integrity, and that's in short supply in DC these days.

The process is not about going along to get along, or preserving power. It's about leadership. The people will respond to genuine leadership. That's in even shorter supply than integrity. The ends do not justify the means.

[nathanbedford]

I agree.

The aching tragedy of all this is that neither the risk nor the pain were necessary. Today, we're faced with the specter of losing one or both houses of Congress largely because the conservative base is utterly eroded and it is evaporating from under Bush's feet largely because of the immigration issue. If Bush had only undertaken, in furtherance of his oath to faithfully execute the laws, to quietly seal off the border and in a systematic, but low-key way, prosecute employers who hire illegals, this whole situation would need have occurred.

The same observation could be drawn with respect to his profligacy and unwillingness to restrain spending. Really, it would've taken only a couple of vetoes to bring Congress of short on issues like the farm bill and other spending and Bush would have earned a reputation as a fiscal conservative instead of a man with a morbid fear of a veto pen.

Finally, his inexplicable failure to fight his corner and come out swinging on behalf of conservative principles and conservative candidates has confused and demoralized the conservative base. It has also cost him the uncommitted middle who do not live and breathe politics like we do and so naturally conclude that when charges against the President go unanswered, they were not answered because they could not be answered. Eventually the president, his administration and the conservatives in Congress who support him, are simply swamped by the cumulative effect of all the bullshit

[seanmerc]

I don't think she wants "our side" to be defeated. I think she wants "our side" to do the right things, things Republicans are supposed to do.

[rock58seg]

She's been in this defeatist mode since Bush was inaugurated to a second term.

Except for tax cuts, the WOT, and Scotus, (with one corrected misstep)she has perhaps been correct.

[seanmerc]

Hear, hear!

AWESOME POST! Thanks.

[seanmerc]

As long as it takes...

[seanmerc]

Why wait until 08? They are supposedly running the House, Senate and White House right now. When will the timing and circumstances ever be better?

[rock58seg]

so that the GOP knows it faces certain defeat in 08 if it does not nominate someone good on conservative issues. so that the GOP knows it faces certain defeat in 08 if it does not nominate someone good on conservative issues.

Just heard this morning the Wash Post is attributing base (conservative) unrest due to spending. If our elected officials read this, and they believe it, they will not realize unrest results from several factors. Trying to get it through their knuckleheads, that the WOT is not the problem, but Borders, the ROP myth, and spending are the big three.

[seanmerc]

And who'da thunk the Republicans would be the ones to go soft on enforcing our borders and national sovereignty?

[finnman69]

A well written version of the Apocolyptic 2006 end of the GOP. Better than most. I don't think it's too late, but time is a'wastin'.

[KC_Conspirator]

This is a great article. Ist a wakeup and smell the coffee article.

[tacticalogic]

A well written version of the Apocolyptic 2006 end of the GOP. Better than most. I don't think it's too late, but time is a'wastin'.

Well if it's going to take a defeat in November to get them to straighten up we're probably doomed. If they don't win in November it will be TEOTWAWKI.

[JasonC]

No. It isn't a mystery. The issues on which they are out of step with the party are known to everyone. They consist of places where 80% of the population - let alone of the party - want one thing, and they do the opposite. Presumably because lobbyists or cocktail party hostesses want them to, or maybe just because they are so insulated from reality they don't get it.

[nathanbedford]

Well, here it comes, the Senate, evidently, is going in the opposite direction, and to our destruction:

Deal Reached to Revive Immigration Bill in Senate (Dems and RINOs unite)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1630506/posts

May God spare the Republic.

[nosofar]

The only option is the better of two evils or a third party which has little if any chance of success.

It doesn't have to be Republican or third party. That's a false choice. What is more reasonable is a third party that 1) does NOT put forth it's own candidates except in primaries and 2) votes as a block. Just as there are organized factions vying for control of the U.S. government (Democrats and Republicans) there can be organized factions vying for control of each of the parties. The emphasis is on *organized*; a political party in all but putting forth candidates of its own in the general election.