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.
Romney won the nominations because CONSERVATIVES gave Romney the nomination on a platter.
We can't circle the wagons and agree on ANYONE can we?
There are Freepers who hate Gingrich.
There are Freepers who hate Santorum.
There are Freepers who did not want to support Herman Cain.
I supported all three of the above, each when they had a chance.
But? The “purist” and holier than thou types in our own Conservative movement gave us Romney.
Many of us then did our best to help Romney, but those who would NOT agree to any Conservative before the nomination, now want to blame it on the “GOP e” when they SHOULD be looking in the mirror!
We are often our own worst enemy.
Well... This guy Chait is clearly a Democrat scumbag, but if you ignore the snide tone he does a nice job here.
Pretty accurate analysis, IMO.
If the GOPe sells out conservatives by agreeing to pour even more tax dollars down the government toilet, then those leaders must be flushed down the toilet of history.
Every additional penny of taxes that gets flushed down the government toilet is an additional penny for the rats to spend buying the votes of their party base of moochers, bums, deadbeats, and parasites. Money is fungible. Any argument that claims “new revenues” will be used to (reduce the deficit / pay down the debt / fund the military / whatever) is lying horse manure.
That is the case.
The enemy divides us, the GOP divides us and we divide ourselves.
We ain’t going anywhere anytime soon.
Yup. More “moderate” crap. I want my politicians to be gun-toting, non-pc right-wingers.
I want to see that happen. In the meantime my great desire is to see many thousands protesting at White House passionately demanding our troops be brought home NOW not another man die in Afghanistan because this CIC is making them stay there for a date of ending and there is no mission. A Seal was killed today, the other day a 25 year old marine. Why did they give their lives, Obama answer what great mission have you engaged them in worthy of the sacrifice? We must demand it stop.. I’m too old. Can some great body of patriots plan a protest?
No they didn't. They merely settled for Romney after the GOP establishment elite spent months force-feeding him down the throats of casual Republican voters and leaners, a task that was made easy for them thanks to the lazy rat newsrooms who remembered Romney from last time and followed went their meme.
You really think that all along the "conservatives" wanted the liberal Massachusetts governor and father of the original version of commie-care as the standard bearer for the GOP? Get a grip.
In other words, not Rubio.
I am sure I meant that the Pied Piper comes to mind when a liberal rag such as the New Yorker tells you to hail the creature.
Your comment is pretty accurate......I still think our issue is that no one is laying out the message about capitalism and taxes and spending in an easily understood sound bite that is digestible by the masses. The candidate that does this for the conservative cause will be the next conservative nominee....imho...looks like Rubio for now......
Clue; the republican party is well on its way to “WeekEnd at Bernies”..
Its quite dead you know..
Boehner and McConnell are holding it up by its arms..
It may even be smoking a joint..
As did I. I had reservations, but would have gladly voted for any of the three.
The problem is that the CINOs actions reinforced Romney’s lifetime of stupidity and two full campaigns/tens of millions of dollars worth of lying and corruptly trashing his opposition, by running around FR and elsewhere praising his ‘conservatism as if he were Obama at the Greek Pillars and condemning anyone not on board as ‘traitors to their country’. We were called ‘purists’ and condemned for sticking to conservative ideals and beliefs. Since the opposite of purity is corruption, I wear the badge proudly.
None of the above CINO BS is remotely conservative. People who did so are not remotely conservative. They are the enemy every bit as much ‘our’ problem as a person openly supporting the bullshit of Bohner and the GOP.
Words mean things whether CINOs want them to or not. “Conservative’ requires conservative actions, not feel-good words. And by their actions, determining truly conservative people is not hard to do.
If people are either too stupid or too willfully ignorant to tell the difference, then Conservatism is dead and lets just embrace the greater evil.
No way would I go with Rubio!!!
Careful, you’ll have half his fanbase calling you a traitor to your country too.
The DREAM acts stuff is pure conservatism you see...And that pesky parent birth thing is OK since Obama did it.
That’s conservative too.
What? Lib scaremongering not calming down post-election . . . ? Gotta find the next Emmanuel Goldstein to set up as the straw man for the two-minute hate?
“Careful, you’ll have half his fanbase calling you a traitor to your country too”
I’ll wear the tag proudly!
You sure they’re conservatives? Name ‘em and let’s see who exactly is conservative out of the bunch. Let’s be honest, indeed.
Purists didn’t give us Romney. The GOP-e gave us Romney since they wanted the naive to believe he was the only one who had a chance against Obama and some people were foolish enough to believe them.
I’ve known for years that there was no way any socialist republican like Romney could ever beat the democrats because they are democrats. Romney proved that beyond a shadow of anyone’s doubt. He didn’t engage our enemy because our enemy is his friend.
As for Rubio, even he knows he’s not NBC but he’s hoping against hope that the same idiots who fell for that Romney baloney will be just as naive about his situation.
Hopefully we’ll have to take up a collection. You seee, we are rapidly running out of those tags and need to get more printed up.
Notice that since the election, and Bohner’s BS, people are finally OPENLY saying it’s all been a lie? And notice how on EVERY thread like this, the people who bestowed those tags on us are getting shriller? I could name names, but I think they are obvious enough to all.
THIS is how ‘change’ happens. Now we just have to let the lurkers know that they aren’t alone and that it’s not them, but the CINOs and their supporters that deserve the mockery.
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.