Posted on 12/28/2011 6:03:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I’ve made a disturbing discovery: I am a member of the conservative “establishment.” I feel like Michael Douglas at the end of Falling Down: “I’m the bad guy?”
Largely in response to the real and perceived excesses of the Bush years and the overreach of the Obama administration, the base has become more populist. In particular, the rank and file of the GOP and the conservative movement have become deeply disenchanted with what they see as the rubber-spined, foot-dragging quislings drinking from a trough of Chablis at some Georgetown party. The term “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) has become an epithet of ideological enforcement, spit out in much the same way Mao cursed “running dog capitalists.”
In 2010, the tea parties and the conservative base (not always synonymous terms) tried to cull as many RINOs from the herd as they could in the primaries. They were extremely successful, with only a few stumbles.
Things are messier this time around. And to some extent this is to be expected. Presidential primaries rely on much larger pools of voters than primaries in midterms. Moreover, rather than a single Tea Party candidate challenging a worn-out incumbent, the field has had lots of candidates seeking the Tea Party or “true conservative” mantle.
Each of them has tried to play the populist card, not just against the liberal media establishment but also against the so-called conservative establishment. “I believe it is a deliberate attempt to damage me because I am not, quote unquote, the establishment choice,” explained Herman Cain when asked about his troubles.
Though he never intended any of this, Mitt Romney is largely to blame for the anti-establishment tumult. Somehow, he has managed to become the Arlen Specter of the 2012 field. (Specter is conservative-speak for “demon RINO from hell.” You’re supposed to spit on the ground after you say “Arlen Specter.” Ptooey.)
In 2008, Romney was the conservative alternative to John McCain, earning endorsements not just from National Review but from many titans of right-wing talk radio — Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham. Now Limbaugh insists that support for Romney proves that “the Republican establishment does not want a conservative getting the nomination.” Erick Erickson, a CNN contributor and editor of the conservative site RedState, says that if Romney is the nominee, “Conservatism dies and Barack Obama wins.”
Recently, after National Review issued a stinging anti–Newt Gingrich editorial, many of the same voices insisted that the magazine (where I work, though I didn’t write the editorial) has, in the words of one right-wing blogger, lived long enough “to become the villain.” Fox News, Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and even pro-Romney columnist Ann Coulter are routinely denounced as part of some RINO cabal.
It’s difficult to catalogue all of the oddities. Hugely successful, powerful, and rich conservatives are lambasting the establishment as if they are in no way part of it. Gingrich has gone from being too establishment to being too anti-establishment faster than you can say “Freddie Mac.” And you can only wonder how befuddled Romney is, given that he’s moved even further rightward since 2008.
Frankly, I can’t blame anyone for being underwhelmed by Romney, or begrudge anyone their frustration with the field. What’s harder to understand is how nobody has noticed that the conservative establishment, which includes many of my friends denouncing it, has become vastly more conservative over the last two decades. It’s more pro-life, more pro–Second Amendment, more opposed to tax increases.
The political corpses of RINOs litter the roadside of this great migration. Rockefeller Republicans went out with 8-track tapes, leisure suits, and Kevin Phillips. And yet people talk about the conservative establishment as if David Gergen is calling the shots.
The mere fact that there’s something one can meaningfully describe as a conservative establishment today is a victory, never mind that it is more conservative than it has ever been. But a conservative establishment is useless if it doesn’t bring the nation with it. The frustration on the right stems from the fact that none of the candidates seems up to that task.
— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
What a glib POS article by Goldberg, he’s trying to cover up his own squishiness. A better read about the prg tool Lowrey @ NR is @ American Spectator by Jeffrey Lord, http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/27/the-case-for-a-conservative
pResident Hussein is and AINO (American in Name Only).
Sorry about the extra "d" tacked on to "an".
Not that I'm accusing you of it but that simply isn't true, that's been the rationale of Mittbotts from day one. Mitt ran for Governor as a liberal and governed as a liberal.
Massachusetts liberals didn't make him do it, he did it willingly, he was never a "conservative" and he is not one now.
This is an altogether embarrassing piece from Jonah that displays his complete lack of understanding or genuine representation of the conservative movement in the US—even after the tea party elections of 2010.
Romney was the “at least we don’t absolutely know that he’s as much of a liberal traitor as McCain” candidate, after tepidly conservative Fred not only failed in his campaign but also revealed himself as a likely McCain plant (a la Cain and Bachmann for Romney in 2012).
The National Review really is a lost-at-too-many-sea-cruises has-been institution at this point.
Imo you left out the point, at which RINOs started their zombie-like groupthink turn to the dumb side:
When the establishment as one, shunned patriot, pro-American trade, rock ribbed conservative Duncan Hunter.
It’s been downhill since that day.
It wasn’t just the Establishment that shunned Hunter, he got no traction at all. But you’re right, he was a true conservative option (besides the wackadoodle Keyes).
All that frustration and he blew right over Ron Paul? Perhaps a Constitutional refresher course would help Jonah.
Duncan D (his son) might be a very strong VP pick for someone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_D._Hunter
And a trip down memory lane to what might have been, for those unfamiliar with who, is being referred to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_hunter
No, I know it’s tough in CA, but like his dad he needs more than to be a congressman with military experience. Gotta reach the guv or US senate level and/or have some private sector executive experience.
“deeply disenchanted with what they see as the rubber-spined, foot-dragging quislings drinking from a trough of Chablis at some Georgetown party.”
Precisely.
I got to recheck my facts. I’m not a Mittbot, because I want Rick Santorum to ‘Occupy White House’.
Ridiculous. Mitt is barely a Republican, let alone, a conservative. He's a left-leaning Moderate, at best.
The following was posted this morning by “Diogenesis”, concerning Mitt’s governance of Massachusetts:
MITT ROMNEY - THE PROVEN BAD GOVERNOR
“As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts’ anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
“Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents,” professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush’s $726 billion tax-cut proposal.”
[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America’s Governors, 2004.]
5 posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:44:26 AM by Diogenesis (”Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. “ Pres. Ronald Reagan)
Ok... Thanks for helping me with the facts. I thought I was right about Mitt, but I am guessing that he is a bad as his dad was. George was a LIBERAL, IIRC.
The following was posted this morning by “Diogenesis”, concerning Mitt’s governance of Massachusetts:
MITT ROMNEY - THE PROVEN BAD GOVERNOR
“As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
Wow...was it because of him, thou, or was it because of the liberals?
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
hmm...that is amazing...
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts’ anemic 1.9 percent pace.
Where's the Massachusetts Miracle?
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years. “Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents,” professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
WOW...they really are a showcase for liberalism!!
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush’s $726 billion tax-cut proposal.” [Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America’s Governors, 2004.]
Ok.. he is wrong for America. No, I won't endorse him. Rick Santorum/Rick Perry are my choices.
5 posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:44:26 AM by Diogenesis (”Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. “ Pres. Ronald Reagan)
thanks for the help!!
How so? BTW, Mitt would only get my vote in November, not in the primary.
HIs move left is more of an attitudinal thing - his total reluctance to confront Obama - some comments on global warming - his lack of emphasis on a strong counter to the most lefitst of Obama’s moves.
And I would never vote for him in this primary. I did favor him over McCain in 08, but that’s a very low bar. To me, McCain is the worst Republican (crowded field, yes I know).
And our primary didn’t matter so I never did vote in it.
Thanks for jarring my memory. He pandered Iowans with ethanol subsidies during this campaign, IIRC.
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.