Posted on 12/10/2012 10:18:24 PM PST by nickcarraway
In the immediate wake of the election, Republicans felt so stunned — in no small part because they had deluded themselves into expecting victory — that it seemed momentarily possible that the party’s long march to the right may halt or even reverse. But the future of the party is already taking shape, and that future will be, in some form or fashion, a conservative reaction against the Republican leadership that has sold them out. The smarter Republicans have already shaken off the trauma of electoral defeat and begun positioning themselves to capitalize.
One important indication comes from National Review Washington editor Robert Costa, who writes today about Tom Price. You may not have heard of Price, but the conservative House member is conferring with Grover Norquist and right-wing members of the House, and setting himself up to challenge John Boehner in the event of a budget deal. Boehner earlier this year offered Price a leadership position on the condition that he offer full support to Boehner, a condition Price tellingly rejected. Costa quotes a Price ally, who hilariously tells him Price “is hoping for the best, hoping taxes don’t go up with any fiscal-cliff deal.” This is hilarious because this is tantamount to saying Price is hopeful the sun won’t rise tomorrow morning, but if it does, he may have to challenge Boehner.
But the truest indicator of the future of the party is Marco Rubio. The most unabashed of the 2016 candidates, Rubio is extremely skilled at discerning what his party wants and positioning himself as the man to give it to them. Last week, Rubio spoke at a party event in New York Washington, a speech that prompted New York Times columnists David Brooks and Ross Douthat, whose defining trait is to always see a Republican moderate around the corner that never arrives, confidently predicted a Republican moderation yet again. Each cited Rubio’s speech, a paean to the party’s future as the shining beacon of hope for Latinos, the poor, and other problematic constituencies.
As always, there were caveats. Both columnists noted in passing that the great new moderation they foresaw was as yet entirely confined to rhetoric. (Douthat: “The speech didn’t offer the kinds of policy breakthroughs the party ultimately requires.” Brooks: “Some of the policies he mentioned were pretty conventional.”)
Well, yes, the fact that Rubio was merely wrapping party dogma in pleasant-sounding rhetoric is a wee problem in the analysis. And over the last few days, Rubio’s approach has grown more clear. On the budget, Rubio delivered the Republican weekly radio address, and his message was more of the old-timey religion: We must get the national debt under control. Tax increases will not solve our $16 trillion debt. Only economic growth and a reform of entitlement programs will help control the debt.
This is the classic Republican metaphysical dodge, which not only argues for keeping taxes as low as possible but refuses to acknowledge that revenue bears any relationship at all to deficits. Deficits equal spending! Two legs bad, Reagan good! On immigration, meanwhile, Rubio is carefully positioning himself to oppose any potential deal. He is not coming out and immediately throwing his body in front of the legislative train. Rather, he pleads that we must not try to do everything at once and should instead try to reform immigration “step by step.” Of course, “step by step” is exactly the catchphrase Republicans used to oppose health-care reform. It’s a way of associating yourself with the broadly popular goal of reform while giving yourself cover to oppose any particular bill that has a chance to pass. You’re not against reform, you’re against this reform. It’s too much, too fast.
It’s not coincidental that Rubio is speaking out on these two issues. They’re the two most plausible issue areas where President Obama is likely to sign major bills — and, as a result, the two areas where conservatives are nearly certain to conclude that their party’s leadership betrayed them. The anger of the base may or may not be strong enough to prevent Republicans in Congress from striking a deal. But it will surely be strong enough to shape the party’s internal decisions — no Republican who acquiesces on the budget or immigration will be eligible to lead the party in the future. Price and Rubio see that already, and others will surely follow.
Cool - let’s start the new party with an open borders nut as our leader.
What could possibly go wrong with that? :)
On the other hand let us start with such stalwart conservatives as:
Alan West
Joe Miller
Doug Hoffman
Sharron Angle
Christine O’Donell
Ken Buck
JD Hayworth
George Allen
Richard Mourdock
Todd Akin
What a bunch of bull.
Rubio is about as “conservative” as John Boehner. Forget the GOP.
Why does the Pied Piper come to mind?
Rubio is already promoting the “Republican” DREAM Act.
Give him a few more weeks, he'll cave on the budget, too.
for the f...ing nteenth time. Rubio is not a natural born citizen, he cannot run for president.
Because it appears in the New Yorker.
Oh, and because it’s about Marco Rubio, that UN loving, photo op loving, honey trap naive, stupid poopey head who is about as conservative as Romney.
I was thinking the latter. I don’t care what the New Yorker thinks.
Give up. You are trying to talk sense to people who actively promoted an arch liberal as the GOP standard bearer and called anyone who disagreed ‘traitors to their country’.
In other words, the willfully ignorant (to put it nicely).
Let’s start the list of rinos with Mitt Romney losing the presidency , in an election that republicans couldn’t lose.
I guess you prefer Crist over Rubio, and Trey Grayson over Paul, Arlen Specter over Toomey and wanted Dewhurst in Texas instead of Ted Cruz, and support the party leadership when they come out against the republican primary winners in Senate races, as they did with Miller, Odonnell, Akin, and others.
Conservatives made 2010 a history making victory, and in 2012 as the rinos were destroying the party with the failed Massachusetts governor, Palin gave us Ted Cruz and Deb Fischer.
Compared to Romney and the crew of idiots currently known as the GOP???
In a New York freakung minuet!
I’m with Sarah.
When I see a conservative do conservative things, then I might give a ****.
Until such time, I do not give a ****.
I haven’t seen Marco Rubio do anything at all.
So you agree that opening the borders and letting everyone and anyone who wants in is a “conservative value” eh?
No wonder we have Obama in office....
Two Words—Sarah Palin. She must lead us! The revolt can only come from proven conservatives. I say its time for a Movement to form—It may take over the bones of the GOP or strike out with a new Party—NOW is the time for this! If Sarah said, leave the Republicans and join another party—I would do it. Now is the time for a re-vitalized Tea Party—The Liberty Party—a new Sons of Liberty! People need to be burned in effegie! New protest songs need to be written, a new Newspaper/Magazine started NOW! New symbols made-—Instead of the Rattlesnake flag—we use the flag of the Whiskey Rebellion—or the Bonnie Blue. The time for talk is almost done.
“Two Words—Sarah Palin.”
She would be a great choice/leader.
The problem is that until actual conservatives who follow the actual ideals of conservatism get rid of all the GOP sycophants and ‘he she it is conservative cuz I say so’ types, there is no chance of ANYONE leading the collective ‘us’.
This very thread shows several examples of the exact type I mean.
Right now, this is a one-party nation. The good old GOP, may they RIP! They will never get my support again. One month out of the election and they’re already jockeying for positions. The red state governors with balanced state budgets would be a good place to start putting together a base. Let’s get tough and not pay New York and California’s bills!
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.