Just a tip for those who post their comment before realizing they aren’t loggend in: When this happens, don’t do a ‘renew’ of the comment page! Instead, use the right click mouse menu and chose ‘back’. There’s your comment. Now, change to the main TMV browser window (or tab) and log in. Back to the comment page and ’send’. Voila!

Kim: I really like his problem-solving ability, which is much more attractive than emphasising polarizing ideological points, like Nutty Newt.

Which is what I meant when I said that I can understand why Arnold’s quote appeals more to centrists.

Rambie: Hmm.. Something about a Goose. This is the same kind of internal-only rhetoric that many in the GOP accuse the Democrats of using.

Well Rambie, I do believe that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I would fully expect Democratic leaders to speak to their parties about their beliefs in liberal/progressive ideas, and to criticize Democrats who try to embrace ideas that aren’t consistent with that ideology. You see that happening recently with foreign policy. The hawks in the Democratic party are being criticized, Lieberman is persona non grata, etc. I think it’s perfectly normal for parties to enforce some consistency in their policy. I certainly think that this can be taken too far at times, but to criticize party leaders for wanting their party to actually stand for something is silly and counterproductive IMO. In order for centrism to thrive, it needs to be the balancing force between two strong ideologies. Otherwise you end up with all gray and no black and white.

Gray said:
CS;”Instead though, both parties have tended to craft policy for the sake of staying in power, in essence by buying votes from various interest groups.â€?
Hmm, isn’t this more nicely called ‘delivering to the voters’ and is really the backbone of democracy? You’re advocating that parties should implement policies their voters don’t want?

First, Gray, I have to reiterate something I mentioned in another thread recently: the US is not a pure democracy, and for good reason. Our founding fathers recognized that sometimes people will vote for things that really aren’t for the common good. And look at it this way: when conservatives are elected, generally their consituents want them to craft legislation that is friendly to business because they feel that excessive govt regulation strangles economic growth, and this isn’t good policy. However, that doesn’t mean that the conservative leaders should refuse to regulate at all; they should find a balance between excessive regulation and unchecked capitalism. If they instead use their ‘mandate’ as an excuse to allow corporations to exploit workers, harm the environment, etc. then these leaders are “buying votes from various interest groups”. The same could be said of certain liberal policies in terms of pushing agendas of special interest groups, whose interests are not always in agreement with the majority and will not always promote the common good.

Sam: Bush has increased spending and lowered taxes, he shot from the hip in starting a war with Iraq instead of thinking it through, he’s had Big Oil and Enron over for dinner to help draft his “Energy Policy�, he’s blown off the whole world when we should be making stronger ties with it so we can get things done without resorting to war. All of these things have had predictable results, but none of it is his fault. Whatever.

Sam, I fail to see where either I or Newt has disagreed with you on these points. I’d agree that Newt is putting all the blame for what ails the GOP on the failure to uphold conservative principles (when actually there’s also corruption to blame, and at times a misapplication of conservative principles- in those cases where policies were conservative, but not well applied conservatism.) So yes, he should also acknowledge other areas of failure…but still, just because he didn’t mention them doesn’t mean that he agrees with Bush’s policies in these cases, and even more to the point, just because I feel you guys are misinterpreting Newt’s quote certainly doesn’t mean that I agree with Newt 100% of the time. I think he is missing a big part of the picture (more likely he sees these other things but doesn’t want to publicly admit them) but I still think that he’s right about his major point: the GOP has strayed from its conservative ideals.

Jim S: Well, yes, Newt does mean that conservative ideas are the panacea for all problems. It’s what his party believes and CS supports them virtually all the time.

Jim, this really gets old. Every time I make a positive point about anything relating to conservatism, the free markets, or the GOP, instead of addressing my points you make an ad hominem attack. I guess I could do the same to you- how about every time you mention a criticism of free markets, I’ll say that everyone should ignore you because you’re obviously a socialist? Of course I wouldn’t actually do that because it’s not true (I recognize that you can point out the failings of a pure laissez faire economic policy without being an advocate of pure socialism). I realize that everything doesn’t have to be black and white…can you please do the same?

And of course Newt believes that conservative ideas are a panacea. That’s why he is…a conservative. If he didn’t believe these things, then that would be a problem, wouldn’t it? But Newt or any other conservative is just one voice among many, and that’s how our system works and that’s the beauty of it.

Kevin H:
CS said: “In other words, I don’t think there’s anything wrong on the face of it… ”

I actually would put it the other way around. On the surface, it is very wrong, inflammatory, and counter productive. Deep down he might agree with what you have put forth, but I can’t see much to support that. Maybe one of our frightfully few conservative commentors has a link to a good speech by Newt?

OK, fair enough point on the emphasis, Kevin. I didn’t really mean it the way it sounded; I agree that the inflammatory tone is counterproductive. On your query about a good speech by Newt, I think Paul himself posted one a few weeks ago, didn’t he? It was a speech where Newt was putting forth specific policy proposals so in that way he was defining the conservative position without criticizing the liberal one. I would agree that we need more of that (from both sides).

I think that was the dichotomy that Paul was attempting to present. Schwarzenegger seems to be a Republican who is concious that his words are heard by people other than “the insiders� and who actively wants to interact with them. Newt seems to be stuck in the ‘us vs them’ meme. I think if there is any positive to our obsessive 24-hour MSM, it is that it damages any attempt to talk only to your own people and forces you to craft messages which are palatable to diverse views.

Well, this is an interesting observation, Kevin, and I think something we have to be careful of. It’s one thing to say that politicians should be more aware that there words reach mulitple audiences, so that they shouldn’t cross certain lines that would cause offense. For example, I don’t like when Democrats say that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are war criminals, and I don’t like when Republicans say that opponents of the war are traitors. But, I think it’s important for Democrats to be able to speak to their internal audience about their opposition to the war, and I think it’s important for Republicans to be able to speak to their internal audience about opposition to the Democrats’ opposition to the war, without parsing every word. It’s a matter of degree; don’t cross certain lines with the rhetoric, but still, reserve the right to criticize policies of the opposition party with which you disagree.

Kim: I really like his problem-solving ability, which is much more attractive than emphasising polarizing ideological points, like Nutty Newt.

Which is what I meant when I said that I can understand why Arnold’s quote appeals more to centrists. What I’m asking though, is for you guys to recognize that all centrism wouldn’t be any healthier for our system in the long run than one party rule by either side. Each side has to stay strong in order to hold up the middle.

Rambie: Hmm.. Something about a Goose. This is the same kind of internal-only rhetoric that many in the GOP accuse the Democrats of using.

Well Rambie, I do believe that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I would fully expect Democratic leaders to speak to their party about their beliefs in liberal/progressive ideas, and to criticize Democrats who try to embrace ideas that aren’t consistent with that ideology. You see that happening recently with foreign policy. The hawks in the Democratic party are being criticized, Lieberman is persona non grata, etc. I think it’s perfectly normal for parties to enforce some consistency in their policy. I certainly think that this can be taken too far at times, but to criticize party leaders for wanting their party to actually stand for something is silly and counterproductive IMO. In order for centrism to thrive, it needs to be the balancing force between two strong ideologies. Otherwise you end up with all gray and no black and white.

Gray said:
CS;”Instead though, both parties have tended to craft policy for the sake of staying in power, in essence by buying votes from various interest groups.â€?
Hmm, isn’t this more nicely called ‘delivering to the voters’ and is really the backbone of democracy? You’re advocating that parties should implement policies their voters don’t want?

First, Gray, I have to reiterate something I mentioned in another thread recently: the US is not a pure democracy, and for good reason. Our founding fathers recognized that sometimes people will vote for things that really aren’t for the common good. And look at it this way: when conservatives are elected, generally their consituents want them to craft legislation that is friendly to business because they feel that excessive govt regulation strangles economic growth, and this isn’t good policy. However, that doesn’t mean that the conservative leaders should refuse to regulate at all; they should find a balance between excessive regulation and unchecked capitalism. If they instead use their ‘mandate’ as an excuse to allow corporations to exploit workers, harm the environment, etc. then these leaders are “buying votes from various interest groups”. The same could be said of certain liberal policies in terms of pushing agendas of special interest groups, whose interests are not always in agreement with the majority and will not always promote the common good.

Sam: Bush has increased spending and lowered taxes, he shot from the hip in starting a war with Iraq instead of thinking it through, he’s had Big Oil and Enron over for dinner to help draft his “Energy Policy�, he’s blown off the whole world when we should be making stronger ties with it so we can get things done without resorting to war. All of these things have had predictable results, but none of it is his fault. Whatever.

Sam, I fail to see where either I or Newt has disagreed with you on these points. I’d agree that Newt is putting all the blame for what ails the GOP on the failure to uphold conservative principles (when actually there’s also corruption to blame, and at times a misapplication of conservative principles- in those cases where policies were conservative, but not well applied conservatism.) So yes, he should also acknowledge other areas of failure…but still, just because he didn’t mention them doesn’t mean that he agrees with Bush’s policies in these cases, and even more to the point, just because I feel you guys are misinterpreting Newt’s quote certainly doesn’t mean that I agree with Newt 100% of the time. I think he is missing a big part of the picture (more likely he sees these other things but doesn’t want to publicly admit them) but I still think that he’s right about his major point: the GOP has strayed from its conservative ideals.

Jim S: Well, yes, Newt does mean that conservative ideas are the panacea for all problems. It’s what his party believes and CS supports them virtually all the time.

Jim, this really gets old. Every time I make a positive point about anything relating to conservatism, the free markets, or the GOP, instead of addressing my points you make an ad hominem attack. I guess I could do the same to you- how about every time you mention a criticism of free markets, I’ll say that everyone should ignore you because you’re obviously a socialist? Of course I wouldn’t actually do that because it’s not true (I recognize that you can point out the failings of a pure laissez faire economic policy without being an advocate of pure socialism). I realize that everything doesn’t have to be black and white…can you please do the same?

And of course Newt believes that conservative ideas are a panacea. That’s why he is…a conservative. If he didn’t believe these things, then that would be a problem, wouldn’t it? But Newt or any other conservative is just one voice among many, and that’s how our system works and that’s the beauty of it.

Kevin H:
CS said: “In other words, I don’t think there’s anything wrong on the face of it… ”

I actually would put it the other way around. On the surface, it is very wrong, inflammatory, and counter productive. Deep down he might agree with what you have put forth, but I can’t see much to support that. Maybe one of our frightfully few conservative commentors has a link to a good speech by Newt?

OK, fair enough point on the emphasis, Kevin. I didn’t really mean it the way it sounded; I agree that the inflammatory tone is counterproductive. On your query about reference to a good speech by Newt, I think Paul himself posted something a few weeks ago, didn’t he? It was a speech where Newt was listing specific policy ideas that were based on conservative ideology, but he was strictly doing it in a positive way and not criticizing liberal ideas in order to define the conservative principles. I would agree that we need more of that kind of rhetoric, for each side to define itself in a positive way. There’s some room for each side to define itself as “not the other guy”, to distinguish itself by saying what it is not, but when you do this all the time you are simply attacking others instead of defining the positives about yourself.

I think that was the dichotomy that Paul was attempting to present. Schwarzenegger seems to be a Republican who is concious that his words are heard by people other than “the insiders� and who actively wants to interact with them. Newt seems to be stuck in the ‘us vs them’ meme. I think if there is any positive to our obsessive 24-hour MSM, it is that it damages any attempt to talk only to your own people and forces you to craft messages which are palatable to diverse views.

Well, this is an interesting observation, Kevin, and I think something we have to be careful of. It’s one thing to say that politicians should be more aware that there words reach mulitple audiences, so that they shouldn’t cross certain lines that would cause offense. For example, I don’t like when Democrats say that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are war criminals, and I don’t like when Republicans say that opponents of the war are traitors. But, I think it’s important for Democrats to be able to speak to their internal audience about their opposition to the war, and I think it’s important for Republicans to be able to speak to their internal audience about opposition to the Democrats’ opposition to the war, without parsing every word. It’s a matter of degree; don’t cross certain lines with the rhetoric, but still, reserve the right to criticize policies of the opposition party with which you disagree. In other words, each party should be able to criticize the policies of the other and as long as they aren’t incendiary in their tone, this should be acceptable.

In other words, I don’t think there’s anything wrong on the face of it…

I actually would put it the other way around. On the surface, it is very wrong, inflammatory, and counter productive. Deep down he might agree with what you have put forth, but I can’t see much to support that. Maybe one of our frightfully few conservative commentors has a link to a good speech by Newt?

It seemed to me that his purpose was to speak to his own party.

I think that was the dichotomy that Paul was attempting to present. Schwarzenegger seems to be a Republican who is concious that his words are heard by people other than “the insiders” and who actively wants to interact with them. Newt seems to be stuck in the ‘us vs them’ meme. I think if there is any positive to our obsessive 24-hour MSM, it is that it damages any attempt to talk only to your own people and forces you to craft messages which are palatable to diverse views.

She also says “That doesn’t mean that the GOP should once again dominate Congress and the White House, or that conservative ideas are the panacea for all problems.”. Well, yes, Newt does mean that conservative ideas are the panacea for all problems. It’s what his party believes and CS supports them virtually all the time.

Hmm, isn’t this more nicely called ‘delivering to the voters’ and is really the backbone of democracy? You’re advocating that parties should implement policies their voters don’t want?

Bush has increased spending and lowered taxes, he shot from the hip in starting a war with Iraq instead of thinking it through, he’s had Big Oil and Enron over for dinner to help draft his “Energy Policy”, he’s blown off the whole world when we should be making stronger ties with it so we can get things done without resorting to war. All of these things have had predictable results, but none of it is his fault. Whatever.

Hmm.. Something about a Goose. This is the same kind of internal-only rhetoric that many in the GOP accuse the Democrats of using.

His messages have sounded more conciliatory in the recent past, so my guess is that he’s gunning for the presidency. He knows that if GOP primary voters voice dissatisfaction with Giuliani, McCain and Romney, he can fill the “conservative” niche and cash in. The message about the failed welfare state and getting government off everyone’s backs is a lot easier to spout off about when you aren’t currently in power.

BTW- over on the MSNBC site, Joe Scarborough actually blames Newt for not staying true to the conservative vision, and says that he and other conservative congressmen drove him out of power because of that failing. He talked the talk, but couldn’t walk the walk.

Ahhnold, otoh, seems to have found a new political identity by choosing pragmatism over ideology. It seems to be working well for him and his state; I’m sure many conservatives are horrified at the sight of him working side-by-side with Al Gore. In any case, he’s transformed himself and is transforming his state successfully. I really like his problem-solving ability, which is much more attractive than emphasising polarizing ideological points, like Nutty Newt.

Speaking of two parties working together to solve issues in a sane and rational way, do you think that divisive commentary is the best way to open a dialog?

No, but I do understand that party leaders sometimes speak one way to their internal audience and a different way to outside audiences. In other words, what made you conclude that this was supposed to be an attempt by Gingrich to open dialogue? It seemed to me that his purpose was to speak to his own party. Again, I wish that everyone would tone down the rhetoric even when they are speaking to their own side, but I recognize the reality that some speeches or writings are for one’s own party’s consumption while others are meant for general discussion. And as a general rule, I don’t think it’s wrong for a party leader to criticize the opposition party’s policies in order to define the position that he thinks his own party should exemplify. I think from there he should go on to speak more positively about what kinds of conservative solutions he feels would be more effective; otherwise if you just criticize the other side without offering alternatives you are only attacking.

CS, I completely agree with that statement. I also agree that two healthy parties is a good thing for this country, but I do not believe that either party is really healthy.

I still believe you’re trying to give Newt a too much credit. He is a smart man, if he wanted to chastise this fellow Republicans he wouldn’t have to use innuendo. It’s reads as “passing-the-buck” politics that the Democrats were guilty of for so many years.

Speaking of two parties working together to solve issues in a sane and rational way, do you think that divisive commentary is the best way to open a dialog?

I also agree that he could have worded it much better…

Come on C.S.: it was very deliberate. He put the blame mainly on the shoulders of the Democrats. Yes, he’s also in favor of implementing more fiscal conservative policies and he’s opposed to some of the programs / policies of the Bush administration, but he puts the majority of the blame, not on Bush, but on the Democrats.

But look at that statement. He’s criticizing the idea that the Republicans took over the Democrats’ policies. Yes, he uses inflammatory tone to describe those policies, but think about it. If the Democrats tried to implement conservative policies because it was politically expedient for them to do so, and in doing so they botched it, wouldn’t you expect a Democratic strategists to say exactly the kind of thing that Newt said in reverse? In other words, I don’t think there’s anything wrong on the face of it, for a leader in a party to try to define his/her party ideology and to criticize current members of the party for veering from it for the sake of getting votes. Either we believe in these types of policies or we don’t. And I don’t see anything wrong with each party representing a different approach to problem solving as long as they work with the opposition party so that each party’s solutions can be melded into policies that really work. Instead though, both parties have tended to craft policy for the sake of staying in power, in essence by buying votes from various interest groups.

CS, I have to disagree. From the above quote it sounds like he’s trying to blame the Democrats as a whole. Also, his liberal use of “liberal welfare state” in an obvious negative connotation seems to prove my point.

“…It is our challenge to focus on the big choices, the big truths and the big contrasts…”

I think he missed a few, the “big contributors” and “big corporations”.

Once again the fingerpointing to previous administrations as the source of all the problems generated by this one.

I think Newt’s statements are being misinterpreted. It isn’t that he’s blaming previous administrations, he’s blaming this one for not being true to fiscal conservatism. It’s pretty widely known that paleoconservatives want to take the party back, and most people who fear the influence of the religious right and the neocons should welcome that. That doesn’t mean that the GOP should once again dominate Congress and the White House, or that conservative ideas are the panacea for all problems. But his point, I think, is that the GOP sold out on what it stands for and instead bought into liberal ideas of big government, except that they held onto the tax cuts so that we now have a big deficit problem as well.