The Path to Republican Revival

Commentary Magazine ^ | August 17th 2009 | Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson

[Jbny]

At some point about five years ago, America became a “One-Party Country”—and the party in question was the GOP. Such, at least, was the conclusion of Los Angeles Times reporters Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten in the book they wrote under that title following the 2004 presidential election. Bizarre as their claim may sound today, it stood on solid ground. In November 2004, George W. Bush had won re-election with the largest number of votes up to that point in American history while racking up the seventh Republican win in the previous 10 races for the White House. Republicans, moreover, were in control of the Senate by a margin of 10 seats, and of the House by a margin of 30. To complete the sweep, they also boasted a majority of the nation’s governorships and a plurality of state legislatures.

[MNJohnnie]

GOP all ready did present a Health Care bill months ago. Problem is no one pays attention to the GOP since they have no votes to do anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/house.health.care/index.html

[MNJohnnie]

As usual, your posts is completely divorced from all fact.

After 2004, GW immediately pushed for serious Social Security reform which all the gutless wonder in the Congress immediately turn and ran from. 1st serious attempt to reform an Entitlement program since the 1930s and instead of backing him, all the Neo Isolationist clowns in the Conservative Media immediately spent all their time whining that he was not ideological pure enough for them.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

It does no good now to look over our shoulder, but the Bush years in which he allowed the infiltration into this country of so many illegal immigrants have probably spelled the eclipse of the Republican Party for decades.

Agree.

In the meantime, some really fine minds must undertake to turn the demographics around by devising a true message for Hispanics and women, especially single women.

I don't deny the possibility of a miracle, but I have read the Spanish language papers in Houston. Without pushing amnesty (which I think the majority of US voters oppose, but if it passes now it will be amnesty again and again) and "sharing the wealth" as Obama said, what is that message to Hispanics? Yes, many of them are pro-life, but I don't think that will do it.

[CharacterCounts]

All that said, the Republicans lost Congress, at least in large part, when many voters realized that the Congress they voted for was not the Congress they got.

Obama faces the same future. The President people voted for is radically different than the President they got.

In my lifetime, I have seen pundits predict the demise of both parties several times. Never seems to quite happen though.

[myself6]

Id rather have a a marxist POS in office radicalizing the conservatives to the point we have the will and momentum to take back our g-d DAMN FREEDOM than have another sniveling POS socialist republican putting all the conservatives to sleep again.

Im tired of that f-—ing game and im not going to play it any more. I dont give a flying f-— what the “moderates”, liberals, and clinically insane think. I do not care about recruiting them to “our ranks” I just want to be done with them. Forever... The only way for that to happen is to radicalize conservatives to the point they just wont take any more.

No more bullsh— incrementalism that never increments. No more bullsh— “future gains” that never materialize. No more waiting around as slaves for someone to decree that we have a little more freedom. We want our FREEDOM and we want it NOW!

Welcome to the revolution...

[sickoflibs]

RE :”a republican president has to communicate often with the american people. to not do so, results in the mess we’re in now.”

Exactly, communicate often and effectively. Bush had very little skills at that. Even a conservative president with no communication skills is destructive.

[faucetman]

Give me Libertarian Conservatism or give me DEATH

[Kenny Bunk]

The best model is the Reagan model where all three wings of conservatism, social, fiscal, and military, get what is most important to each group and each group allows the other groups to get what they want

Add two concepts: Patriotism, and Communications.

It was clear that Reagan was a patriot. And, he could talk. Neither Bush could, and when they tried, you got Bill Clinton, and then Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., after McCain's nonsensical utterings on God knows what.

[MNJohnnie]

(The surge seemed to repudiate the GWB messages that everything was on track prior.)

No, as anyone who paid attention KNEW the Iraq war was "on track" from start to finish. What happened was a lot of supposed Conservatives, joined in with the Leftist media, whining "why is this all taking so long, we are bored with the war".

Where the Bush admin went wrong was assuming the Iraqis could be a stand alone force sooner rather then later and refusing to get out there and shoot back at the absolute reckless demagoguery spewed out by both the Neo Isolationists on the Right and the Appeasement Now crowd on the Left. All the Surge did was marry up a American battalion as a stiffening force to each Iraq brigade to speed up the on the job training and speed up the process that was all ready in place to Iraqize the war.

[HiramQuick]

i hear you 100% ... and I TOTALLY Agree with you. It is easier to name the 10 or 15 CONSERVATIVE republicans in BOTH the senate and the house than name the libearl RINO’s that populate those dens of iniquity.

The bad thing .. of the hand full of conservatives there may only be a few with a spine and NONE with leadership capacity.

Rock and a hard spot. People are fed up. Time to take the power from both these worthless groups. If that means abandoning the “r” party so be it.

I am NO longer a Republican ... I am a CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE.

Let the flames fly. Enuff’s enuff

[nathanbedford]

I could not disagree more with the import of your reply.

Republicans lost the Congress in 2006 and 2008 as a result of their own corruption and arrogance, as you pointed out. But that does not mean that the Democrats will lose the house or senate for committing the same sins. There is virtually nothing, no leftward lurch, the Democrats could do which would result in them losing black districts. That is also true for our metropolitan centers such as New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles. Since these metropolitan centers dominate the state, the Senate in many states is virtually impervious. There is no reciprocity across the board for Democrats who overreach. Many of them, like Ted Kennedy, are virtually immune.

So the Democrats can lose a lot of seats and perhaps even for a time control the House or Senate but the overall trend is not to be altered by finding better policies or more charismatic candidates.

It is always risky to assert that "this time it is different" but sometimes, for example in America in the 1850s if you were warning the Whigs, it would be right to say, "this time it is different." This is precisely what James Carville and the authors of the piece are asserting because of the demographics. I agree with them. That is why issues alone are unlikely-although not impossible-to restore Republicans, even temporarily, to power.

It is also necessary to understand that, although in our lifetime though no political party has died, the Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party which was staunchly opposed to integration was absolutely killed off and died in the 1960s/70s. So the Democrat party survived but the entire southern section of the party as it was then constituted simply disappeared. It is likely that we are experiencing the same fate for the conservative philosophy in the northeastern section of the Republican Party. Sure, the Republican Party will endure, the name at least will endure, but what of the animating party philosophy?

In the case of the northeastern Republican Party today, its existence is threatened not for the want of persuasive and sound political philosophy, as was the case with the Dixiecrat's, but by the irresistible glacier like movements of population.

[kabar]

Ensuring Compensation for Injured Patients and Quality Care for All

No health care plan is complete until it ends the lawsuit abuse that affects virtually everyone. Medical lawsuits and excessive verdicts increase health care costs and result in reduced access to care. Unfortunately, terrible, indefensible mistakes do happen in the healthcare field. When they do, patients should have the right to fair legal representation and fair compensation. However, our current medical tort litigation system often serves the interest of lawyers while driving up costs and delaying justice. The crisis has two components.

The first component is the financial burden on health care providers. Instead of offering you lower prices for their services, American doctors pay as much as $126 billion to protect themselves from lawsuits49 while only 17 percent of lawsuits filed involve actual physician negligence.50 Defensive medicine adds another $70 billion to health care costs.51

The second component is the negative effect on patients. The costs doctors must pay to purchase medical malpractice insurance drives up the cost of care for patients. Furthermore, doctors perform unnecessary medical tests, not for the patient’s benefit, but for the doctors’ benefit to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. The high costs of “defensive medicine” and litigation cause patient care to suffer. When the cost of insurance becomes too high, many doctors relocate or retire prematurely, thereby reducing patients’ access to care. One national study released in 2007 found that America wastes $589 billion on excessive tort litigation.

Additionally, this study indicates that by reforming the civil justice system, 2.4 to 4.3 million more Americans would have access to affordable health insurance coverage. 52 States have attempted numerous solutions to this problem with varying levels of success. The solution traditionally offered to this crisis is some form of cap on patient damages. This was the approach taken by California in the 1970s and it has created a stable medical‐legal environment within the state. States have also begun to explore other options that are just as capable, if not more so, of addressing the second component of this problem—adequately compensating patient injury and improving patient care.

The crucial challenge of medical liability reform calls for innovative, results‐oriented solutions in the form of specialized health courts or other state‐designed options. This is the best way to limit lawsuit abuse without limiting legal justice.

Under this Act, the federal government would financially assist states in establishing solutions to medical tort litigation. These alternatives will offer injured patients the opportunity to receive compensation quickly and fairly—without ultimately losing their access to traditional court systems. At the same time, this Act will help states ensure the accessibility of care for everyone by stopping the rising costs of medical malpractice litigation in this country. Each alternative is entirely run by the state, not the federal government, enabling each state to tailor its solution to its own needs. States may not preclude any party to a dispute from having legal representation at any point in any of the alternatives. Specific solutions include:

Establishing an Expert Panel to Resolve Medical Disputes

Medical malpractice trials often become a “battle of the experts.” Each party hires an expert to testify, and the most convincing expert gains the trust of the jury. Under this Act, states will ensure that experts continue to play a pivotal role in malpractice cases. Instead of the opposing parties picking their own experts, however, the head of the state agency responsible for health will appoint a panel of six independent experts to review each case. Three of the experts will be attorneys, who can bring an understanding of the law relating to the injuries alleged in each dispute. The other three experts will be medical professionals who are particularly qualified to evaluate the type of alleged injury.

The expert panel will reach a determination about whether a health care provider is responsible for a patient’s injury, and if so, what penalty is appropriate. If both the health care provider and patient are satisfied with the decision, they can accept it and end the dispute. Such a swift resolution stands in stark contrast to the months or even years of hearings, trials, and appeals that are currently necessary for a patient to receive compensation for their injuries.

Establishing Independent Health Courts with Qualified Judges for Dispute Resolution States may elect to establish a State Administrative Health Care Tribunal, or “health court” under this alternative. Each health court will be presided over by a judge with health care expertise, who can commission experts and make the same binding rulings that a state court can make. The health court makes a final, binding determination as to liability and compensation using the same legal standard that would otherwise be used in a state court of competent jurisdiction. Even at this point in the process, the parties will receive a much swifter resolution than if they had pursued their case in state court.

Nonetheless, if either party is not satisfied with the health court’s decision, this Act explicitly provides that the states receiving federal funds must allow parties to have access to state courts to appeal the decision. Combination of an Expert Panel and a Health Court The final alternative is a combination of the expert panel and health court systems above. The requirements are the same as the individual models, but this alternative requires a claim to proceed in two steps.

First, the parties must present their case to an expert panel in accordance with the above requirements.

Second, if either party is not satisfied, they must then present their case to the health court. If the parties proceed to the health court, they forfeit any award made by the expert panel.

Finally, if either party is still not satisfied with the result after these two steps, that party may file a claim in state court.

The three solutions to lawsuit abuse would create a fair and efficient system. To encourage parties to rely on these alternatives, parties that appeal to state courts; but are not satisfied with the state court’s decision; forfeit the ability to receive compensation previously awarded by the alternative system. In addition, the Act clarifies that any state that may already have an alternative to litigation in place for a specific category of disease may retain its current system for that category. However, the state must also elect one of the four models in this Act for all other diseases in order to take advantage of the funding opportunity

From the comprehensive version of the Patient's Choice Act. If you want the entire text of the bill, go to Coburn's or Ryan's website. This is a very good bill.

[MNJohnnie]

perhaps a few blue dog democrats

Oh you mean a Democrat who lies daily about being "Conservative" then once elected goes to DC and immediately does exactly what all his Party masters tell him to do? That sort of "Blue Dog" Democrat?

So instead of a fool you are instead an intellectual fraud. A Democrat too gutless to actually admit you buy all the absurd neo Socialist nonsense your party now stands for.

[MNJohnnie]

Wake up and think for a change instead of mindlessly letting these Leftist clowns like Parsy spin you with their fraudulent talking points. Actually try standing for something once instead of knee jerk falling for the latest Democrat talking point.

[MNJohnnie]

Interesting food for thought as usual NB. I will have to ponder your post for a while.

[myself6]

At this point the federal government doesn’t even matter to “conservatives”. ALL of our energy and focus should be on state governments of specific states already well suited and attuned to freedom.

Those who council that we need to market ourselves to the “moderates” and idiot populations of this nation to win control of the federal government are right, BUT that strategy is NOT compatible with regaining freedom in our lifetimes, if ever. There are simply too many people in this nation willing to submit to slavery to the government for us to overwhelm that. The only option is to work at a level that increases the ratio of us / them, and that is at the state level. Not all the states, but enough to make a strong stand in.

Lets get our “Beachhead” first and secure it, then consider how to go about freeing the rest of people who still crave freedom and liberty.

[Paul Ross]

After 2004, GW immediately pushed for serious Social Security reform which all the gutless wonder in the Congress immediately turn and ran from.

Gutless was on both sides. He "pushed" Not very hard and not very convincingly. He failed to promise to VETO every thing until they got it done. He was not a Conservative leader, just a "suggester". And fiscal prudence just wasn't that big a deal to him...either ideologically or politically.

His lack of vetos until late into his 2nd term was almost over is legendary in telegraphing the weakness on the allegedly conservative principles he had intimated to have...

W had no stomach for a fight...except for trashing the middle class with his illegal alien amnesty, his outsourcing defenses, his Law of the Sea Treason, his flooding money into the real estate market bubble, his trashing conservatives as being sexist and imposing a glass ceiling on his Harriet Meiers appointment, his trying to accomodate Saudi/UAE financial plans over U.S. port security, and then his spectaculorly anti-conservative Bank Bailouts.

And then you go mouthing off about "neo's" in the Conservative Media trashing Bush as impure.... actually...the "neo's", i.e., the ex-democrats...were the ones...like you...DEFENDING W.

And conservatism is more than simple fiscal frugality and small government, albeit its a start. It also is founded on preserving our liberty, whereas W had clear notions that were in conflict with that, encroaching with Federalism over States, and his continuing "don't ask, don't tell" military policy on gays that Klinton had started. His Federalising education. His Drugs for Seniors. His berating Americans as bigots on his Amnesty scam, his refusal to get the Fence that was REQUIRED BY LAW to be built, and the clearly Executive-Ordered prosecution of Ramos and Campeon spoke volumes to every American...and especially any legitimate conservative.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”lot of supposed Conservatives, joined in with the Leftist media, whining “why is this all taking so long, we are bored with the war”

No it was not boredom, it was tiring of 1) watching news reports of soldier after soldier killed or wounded by IEDs or ambushes ,suicide bombers 2) reports of suicide bombings and deteriorating conditions in Iraq as dems talked about civil war, 3) Oil prices skyrocketing when Cheney promised Iraq Oil would pay for reconstruction, and 4) increasing debt.

Americans want to win as the 1970 G.C. Scott Patton movie says, not watch their children be sent as human landmine detectors that appear to be in the middle of a civil war.

There is another argument that real conservatives dont invade nations to do nation building.

RE :"All the Surge did was marry up a American battalion as a stiffening force to each Iraq brigade to speed up the on the job training and speed up the process that was all ready in place to Iraqize the war."

Bush had to go to a NEW democrat congress and ask for more money and more troops for the surge. It's a huge irony that he asked the treasonous democrats 2007 for something he couldn't get, or ask for, from a republican congress 2006.

[parsifal]

First, let us define anarcho-capitalism:

Definitions of Anarcho-capitalism on the Web:

Anarcho-capitalism (a form of free-market anarchism), is an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Sorry, but I believe in limiterd gov’t not NO gov’t.

The problem with the anarcho’s is that every darn thing the gov’t does is wrong. Including, minwages, child labor laws, wage and hour laws, regulations of financial markets, and yes worker’s comp.

When the GOP embraces this lunacy, or representatives who embrace this lunacy, then normal, everyday Americans tend to see it for what it is, LUNACY.

And, FWIW, having regulations and laws do not mean UNLIMITED gov’t control. It depends on the laws. The problem with the anarcho’s is about 99% of all laws are bad.

You should read the article behind this thread. You should study it. There is no excuse for anyone to be ignorant with the internet and search engines.

parsy, who reiterates, do your homework

[parsifal]

Lakeshark, you’re still here! Missed you.

Get thee hence to the internet and start reading. I don’t know if uyou are an anarcho, or libertarian, or just un-tutored, but I proclaim this National Research Month. Google some stuff live “conservatism vs. libertarianism” and try to understand the difference. It will be hard. You will get tired. But once you emrge from it, I feel sure you will rush back to FR and tell me how sorry you are that you called me bad names.

parsy, who don’t take it personal