Peggy Noonan: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

The Wall Street Journal ^ | January 25, 2008 | Peggy Noonan

[Aristotelian]

Declarations: The primary campaign is tearing the Democrats apart. President Bush already did that to the Republicans.

We begin, as one always must now, again, with Bill Clinton. The past week he has traveled South Carolina, leaving discord in his wake. Barack Obama, that "fairytale," is low, sneaky. "He put out a hit job on me." The press is cruelly carrying Mr. Obama's counter-jabs. "You live for it."

(snip)

As for the Republicans, their slow civil war continues. . . . The rage is due to many things. A world is ending, the old world of conservative meaning, and ascendancy. Loss leads to resentment. (See Clinton, Bill.)

(snip)

It will all come down to: Whom do Republicans believe? Mr. Romney in spite of his past and now-disavowed liberal positions? Or Mr. McCain in spite of his forays, the past 10 years, into a kind of establishment mindset that has suggested that The Establishment Knows Best?

Do conservatives take inspiration from Mr. Romney's newness? Or do they take comfort and security from Mr. McCain's rugged ability to endure, and to remind?

It is along those lines the big decision will be made.

[tarheelswamprat]

Rather than asking the SC to decide in favor of DC, or an individual in a narrow sense, the DOJ is asking for a broad decision with national scope.

With respect, bbirdman, it is evident from your comments that you simply do not understand this case or the nature of the DOJ's amicus brief. They are NOT asking for a "decision with national scope". Supreme Court decisions are by definition of national scope.

What they are actually asking is for the Court to set a so-called "lesser standard" for the rights of individuals. You know, those "unalienable" rights "endowed by their creator"? In plain language, what the government is asking is that the Court make a meaningless, lip-service acknowledgement that yes, there is an "individual right", but it is subject to "reasonable" restrictions. And guess, what, the government gets to say what is "reasonable".

They want the Court to affirm the right, and then define it into meaninglessness. In other words, no right at all...

[PGalt]

Good article by Peggy Noonan. Thanks for posting. I do not agree with her about George Bush destroying the Republican Party. The Republican Party is not destroyed and will win this year. The rest of the article is very good.

(Interesting thread bump!)

[RKBA Democrat]

With respect to Peggy Noonan, she happens to be wrong on this. President Bush is not the underlying problem; he’s simply an expression of it.

The GOP has been lurching to the left since the mid 80’s. The GOP remains and probably always will be the political party for merchants. In my view, it never truly was a “conservative” political party. It simply adopted the mantle of conservatism for a time in order to achieve political power. We should not be surprised when the GOP acts to support it’s core merchant constituency over the interests of conservatives, be it through relaxed immigration policies or corporate welfare.

Conservatives are and remain the battered wives of American politics. For years conservatives have done the heavy lifting for the GOP. And a brief look at what the GOP has done in the last 10 years while conservatism was ascendant gives a pretty good idea of what the GOP plans for the future.

Conservatives are now in a tragic situation from the point of view of partisan politics. It’s obvious to even the most casual observer that the GOP is not interested in conservatism. The country has shifted somewhat to the left and conservatism is no longer as attractive as it once was to the public at large. From the GOP’s perspective, conservatives have exhausted their usefulness.

[CMAC51]

We best remember this when it comes to picking this year's candidate. Another non-conservative GOPer would be disastrous.

Pointless advice since there is no true conservative left in the race. The GOP will nominate a non-conservative. Now what?

[rtbwood]

On the issue of spending during the Reagan years, you forgot he repeatedly asked for a line item veto because he knew the Democrat congress’s spending was wasteful and excessive. He wanted to veto certain wasteful pet projects contained in the spending bills. Yet they were included in the bills he received and for the greater good, he reluctantly signed them. Yes, he could have vetoed them, and probably should have. That would caused a lot of confrontations with congress. Along comes Clinton with a Republican congress who constantly pushed him for a balanced budget amendment and he fought it every step of the way. IN SPITE of Clinton’s antagonisms, spending was held in check by a Republican congress, and now Clinton takes all the credit for their balanced budgets. Clinton had NOTHING to do with the restraint in spending, yet signed the bills presented to him by the Republican congress. It’s a shame memories are so short!

[PGalt]

Interesting analysis RKBA Democrat. Conservatives will continue to do the heavy lifting for the country while the liberal/socialists will continue to plunder.

[slowhandluke]

True, so now what?

From the Alinsky point of view, the worse the better.

Having Hillary or Obama to rally against is better than trying to be supportive but disapproving while McCain walks the same path Hillary would have. We'll get more Republicans in Congress to oppose Hillary than to oppose McCain.

At this point, it might be better to have a RINO lose, than a Dem win. We then have the chance to rebuild the conservative coalition.

It's risky. If Hillary wins, she'll have McCain in the Senate to help her undercut the Republican party by tightening down on the CFR laws. It's something he'd relish, to punish the faithless who didn't put him into office.

[CMAC51]

It's a false choice--I can imagine conservatives, like me, holding our nose and voting for Romney, but can't imagine conservatives voting for McCain for any other reason than "Not Hillary".

McCain would be worse than Hillary. The Republicans would at least unify and oppose what Hillary attempts to impose. McCain will make deals that allow Democrats to get what they want while the Republicans get the blame when it bombs. I will not vote for McCain under any circustances.

[Space Moose]

I don’t regret voting for GWB for one sec.

He’s not perfect but compared to the alternatives he’s far superior.

Do you really want Hillary to appoint the next 3 or 4 Supreme Court Justices? If that happens it’s all over. A lot of the leftist on the court have stubbornly refused to retire because the wanted to out wait Bush. The moment Hillary is in they will retire.

Romney was not my first choice, and he’s not perfect. But getting him in is very important.

Okay, you could screw up a perfectly good thread with your good sense and logic.

[listenhillary]

I keep asking this and not getting much of an answer. If Barry Goldwater were running today, would he have a chance of winning the presidential election?

What does it tell us that the Democrats, while hiding their plans behind populist rhetoric can run their most left leaning candidates? (Kucinich the exception)While Republicans most steady conservative candidates never break 10% in polling.

The media, newly minted jack in the box 501C organizations issuing bogus press releases seem to think they should be the ones deciding the final candidates the peons get to vote for.

I keep hearing that conservatives can take back the Republican party and kick out the moderates who may only be social or economic conservatives and not both. When the presidential elections are pretty much split at 50%, how is this a winning strategy? Do we need to run stealth candidates? That say one thing and do another? Mouthing populist words, but governing as a conservative when elected?

I don’t see any easy answers.

[Texas Federalist]

Exactly what I’ve been saying for about 5 years now. George Bush’s Presidency was a disaster for this country because he destroyed the Reagan Coalition.

[Texas Federalist]

I keep hearing that conservatives can take back the Republican party and kick out the moderates who may only be social or economic conservatives and not both. When the presidential elections are pretty much split at 50%, how is this a winning strategy?

You are under the false assumption that moderation wins votes.

[sodpoodle]

Precisely!

Newt saved Clinton from hisself! And we watched the MSM destroy Newt. Then they persecuted George Bush.

And we will see another GOP POTUS lead this nation to stand silently at his crucifixion......

We suk!

[Aristotelian]

I once saw a TV interview with Goldwater, in which he explained that he didn’t expect to win in 1964 and therefore decided to run a principles-based campaign. The reason for his negativity: Internal polls showed that the American public wasn’t ready for a third president in less than a year.

[Aristotelian]

A brokered convention, perhaps?

[Aristotelian]

If only Reagan hadn’t picked Bush as his VP....

[listenhillary]

We are not the same country that gave Reagan a landslide victory.

[BobS]

The only difference between McCain and the Clintons is that McCain will be the first to do anything the democrats want.

[CDHart]

Calm down - you'll have a heart attack! But you are right - That brief that was filed was the last nail in the coffin.

Carolyn

[mimaw]

Whose to blame for that. Everyone here blames W but I ask where are the conservative candidates with enough fire in their bellies to run for the job? Thompson was a flop as a candidate as was Hunter. Tancredo was a johnny one note. You can’t even blame the press they will cover candidates that attract a lot of attention. I’m not saying they would be kind to a true conservative but they were not able to ignore Reagan. Candidates are chosen in primaries by people who care enough to vote the person who gains most votes win. I think conservatives have to ask themselves why their best don’t run for office or why the ones that do are ineffectual. Conservative values are certainly superior but the message needs a bit of tweaking we need to appeal to the next generation whose everyday realty is different to the realities of the last century.