The Hydration of the G.O.P.

The Republican Party is trying to establish a set of policy objectives that conservatives, moderates and others can coalesce around for the next election. Having leaned heavily to the left with John McCain, the Party knows the road to electoral victory is not down the “centrist” path.

People are voicing their visions of where and how the country should go in the coming years. One of these voices is Rush Limbaugh.

“Limbaugh who has never been elected to any office”

Limbaugh is elected in effect every day to a $100 million per year position merely for giving his opinion. He has a national podium, instant access to every politician and can influence any piece of legislation or election through his commentary. Short of being an ill-paid President, what position would you trade his for?

Gingrich has the intelligence that the media tries to claim Obama has. How embarrassed would the Democrats be at a debate between the two? Without a teleprompter, Obama would stumble and fumble his way through with a tortured collection of um’s and ah’s. Gingrich took down the left before, and he may just do it again.

Dick Cheney stopped Obama in his tracks on national security matters. By calling for the release of documents, Cheney exposed Obama as a fraud and a liar concerning the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation. Obama’s reversal on Iraq, Gitmo and escalation of the Afghan War were all in response to Cheney’s comments. Cheney’s popularity is going up while Obama’s continue to fall.

No Tony, this is not a Greek tragedy. Liberal advice on how to rebuild the GOP is more like an Italian Farce.

Jwest,
Democrats LOVE that Limbaugh, Gingrich and Cheney are the face of the Republican party now. If things remain this way, it guarantees that Democrats will continue to gain seats in the next election cycle. Please carry on. DO NOT put any reasonable, thoughtful people out in front.
Thank you.

"the three-headed hydra of the G.O.P"

This is a really funny image. Bravo, Mr. Campbell. Old, grumpy, snearing, male, white three-headed hydra.

Oh jwest, I disagree with your Rush comments. Of course, if you want to have a former addict who constantly berates women on his show as your voice, so be it. Let's not forget his less than graceful exit from his short stint at ESPN.. it's only a matter of time before he lets loose another doozy and you don't want him to be your voice when that happens! His views are far to radical for mainstream.. as evidence by his listening audience. You say he has a national platform but really, his listening audience is such a small percentage of the population that it's a mistake to pin hopes on him.
I'd like to see the GOP return to what it was in the 60's prior to Nixon. That was a party of ideas and actually stuck it the philosophy of responsible spending. Still waiting for that party and I'll be first in line to vote for it again when that happens.

@jwest

You're right to point out the potentially backwards logic of taking liberal advice to rebuild a conservative brand, but you then take that and make a completely illogical jump into saying that these people are attempting to build an electoral coalition with a chance of taking back the majority and putting people in the white house... Here... this is from a solidly centrist perspective... you're bonkers man.

"The Republican Party is trying to establish a set of policy objectives that conservatives, moderates and others can coalesce around for the next election. Having leaned heavily to the left with John McCain, the Party knows the road to electoral victory is not down the “centrist” path."

First of all, I was a McCain fan and have been since 2000, when I was slated to be one of his campus organizers had his campaign made it to my home state of Nebraska, where I was a FT college student. He lost me when he started hedging towards people like Limbaugh, not only because I'm a moderate, but also because it made me doubt what he actually believed and what he said he believed was the same thing, which was always one of his main draws for so many of us.

Secondly, if the Democrat had not been Obama, John McCain would have almost assuredly won the election ad any other candidate would have been trounced by even worse than McCain. Obama is one of those candidates you don't see very often, that comes just at the right time and has charisma in spades. McCain lost the election when he lost the center, and he lost the center because the right didn't let him fight for it. If McCain had been fighting for the center from the end of the Republican primary on he may have managed to keep enough of it to win, or at least keep it closer.

Lastly, I would like you to find some support for your statement that "The Republican Party is trying to establish a set of policy objectives that conservatives, moderates and others can coalesce around for the next election." What specific policy objectives have been laid out so far that have attracted moderates? If this is the case, why are moderates streaming out of the party and why are voices of moderating within the feeling even more pressure to either conform or leave? In fact, what is happening is more akin to ideological cleansing, with only the most stereotypical right wing to Republican base fiscal AND social conservative getting the bully pulpit within the party.

The best I've seen out of the right on this is waiting for Obama to fail, so they can then say "Look, I told you! Now come waaaaay over here to my side!" This has worked in the past, but is working less and less as people leave both major parties in disgust. If Obama does crash and burn, which he is bound to do on some issues eventually (although I doubt he'll do so in general), then people are more likely to join the ranks of the independents rather than Republicans. If people are willing to follow Obama, they're just too far from where the center of gravity is in the Republican party... they'll either whine from within the party or go Indie.

"People are voicing their visions of where and how the country should go in the coming years. One of these voices is Rush Limbaugh."

There are two ways I could take this... one is Limbaugh is just one voice of many spouting their own opinions. If that is what you mean, then well duh, of course he is. If you mean he is one of the people who is speaking to what 'the people', as in the core of the American electorate that is necessary for building winning electoral coalitions, then you are clearly off base. This isn't a personal judgement call, look at the polling done on Limbaugh... people see him for what he is, a right wing quack. He doesn't speak to 'the people', he speaks to 'the choir', and if you don't see that you're deluding yourself.

So, if 10% of Republicans identifying Limbaugh as the main speaker for the Republicans portends trouble for Republicans, what does 33% of Democrats (same poll) looking to someone other than Obama as the main speaker of the Democrats portend?

Yet another "the Republican sky is falling" article. This is the second in today's TMV. Enough, already. Is anybody else as sick of this drumbeat as I am? Why not do some critical thinking and analysis of the underlying theses of Republican thinking, say from moderate to ultra-right, instead of the same old....very same old... retread articles? How many times do you have to get hit in the face with a pie before it isn't entertaining anymore?

Chenslin,

“His views are far to radical for mainstream.. as evidence by his listening audience.”

Pew Research has determined that Limbaugh’s audience is the most informed, and second most affluent and educated (next to U.S. News and World Reports). Not exactly the Klan following hayseeds you pictured, are they?

Limbaugh resigned from ESPN because he didn’t need the aggravation of the controversy over Donovan McNabb. Since he makes more money than all of the on-air talent at ESPN, NBC and MSNBC combined, he certainly didn’t need the position. Here is an article from the liberal Slate magazine concerning this event.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2089193&


Solomon,

The Republican’s mistake in the last election was splitting the primary vote and allowing a moderate (McCain) to win the nomination.

Republicans win when they run a conservative and loose with a moderate. That will never change.

“What specific policy objectives have been laid out so far that have attracted moderates?” Moderates are followers by definition. When a solidly conservative platform of smaller government, lower taxes, individual responsibility and national defense are laid out, the moderates will follow.

Remember, in 1979 only 21% of the people identified themselves as Republican. We won the next year with 44 states. In 1992 we lost the White House and were written off as irrelevant, only to come back in a space of 8 weeks in ’94 to capture both houses. The introspection ongoing on the left about the travails of the right is a comedy of misperception and ignorance.

Obama is a charismatic person who came along at the right time to win an election. The left naturally interpreted it as a sign the entire country had lost their common sense and turned liberal. Don’t make that mistake yourself.

1. Limbaugh-phobia and -hatred here and elsewhere only exposes the practitioners as sludge (to be overly kind).

2.

"Having leaned heavily to the left with John McCain, the Party knows the road to electoral victory is not down the 'centrist' path."

This upsets the liberal children to no end, because they want no heresy, no apostasy when it comes to sacred lefty and big-government principles as much as or even more than they worship Obama to still-cult-like status. As I wrote several weeks ago, what the liberal children (which constitute so many liberals -- not only unrealistic idealism but tantrum-throwing and ill will) want is for the GOP to be a token, "comic book" watered-down kind of Democratic Party. ("Hydration," indeed.)

Jwest - No need to insult moderates...."followers by definition". Actually many are moderate because they have a nuanced, principled and practical approach to government, and a fervent distaste for the extremists of both parties. The real "followers" are the the ideologues whether they be Obamamaniacs or Limbaugh Dittoheads.

Instead of constantly defending Limbaugh, can you give an example of a significant issue on which you disagree with him. If you can, good for you and your ability to think for yourself. If you cannot, please cease and desist from calling others followers.

"Obama is a charismatic person who came along at the right time to win an election."

He's very, very good in the role he is playing, which begins as the Dem's ultimate figure-head and goes far beyond that.

"The left naturally interpreted it as a sign the entire country had lost their common sense and turned liberal. Don’t make that mistake yourself."

Not all of us will do that. Of course, the real question is now many (or still now few) on the Left will not do that.

2008 was an extension of 2006, a rejection of the GOP (which, yes, had strayed to the left and aped the Dems from time to time), and a dissatisfaction with not only the GOP but with conservatism among the political class, largely because of the lack of it and any serious, positive alternative to the Dems' age-old (1930s-onward, bloated in the 1960s) status quo. Even though George W. proved to be a dud, his brother is strong by default. That's how pitiful and confusing the state of the GOP is in right now. The commentators (including the object of so much diseased behavior by the Left, and success-envy, namely Limbaugh) seem to have more coherence and sensibility right now than the politicians do.

The Dems in Washington seem to be making that mistake. As with Hitler's attack on Russia before completing matters on the western front in World War II, not only Obama but the Dems in Congress are starting to rush to try to create a vast new public health care apparatus without the recession being ended yet, and with the finances of the federal government put into far worse shape by the Dems than Bush ever managed to achieve (in fact, dwarfing what Bush did wrong), while failing to successfully conclude the financial sector intervention and still proceeding to engage in a horrible takeover of the Detroit dinosaurs for largely political reasons not only to pay off the UAW (in effect, an extension of Democratic Washington -- sickening as well as obsolescent from the very start) while dreaming idiotic, unrealistic environmentalist dreams (and seeking a "cap and trade" scam in which to engage in still more wrongful, sickening meddling). But they'll send the ground troops, just like during the Obama campaign, to continue exploiting the personality cult throughout the USA among the many susceptible...

Tidbits,

Rush has mentioned that he is pro-life, where I am most definitely pro-abortion. I have listened to his show for nearly 20 years and I’ve heard him mention he believes in god, which differs from my being an atheist. There may be other areas of difference on the subject of religion, but Limbaugh rarely mentions anything about it so I don’t know what they would be.

Rush agrees with my positions on most domestic and foreign policy. If there are any differences outside of the social aspects, they are so minor I don’t remember them.

On the subject of “insulting” moderates, it wasn’t meant that way.

One of the things Rush and agree on is the absence of “Great Moderates In History”. The whole point to politics is to present a vision and convince people to follow so that the vision can be achieved. Moderates tend to seek the middle ground where no great answers are found, only squishy compromise.

I’ve found that most people that deride Limbaugh have never actually listened to him. After seeing some of his comments so mischaracterized by this and other sites, I’ve made the decision to correct the record whenever someone tries to distort the facts.

tidbits, the idea that a "moderate" could initiate/lead a political movement on its own merits would be a very interesting topic.......something you would think truly "moderate" authors would be discussing all the time here as opposed to always building articles off of what the more dedicated partisans have to say.....but, they don't. They apparently define "moderate" as them not agreeing with something/someone. Ergo, I seem some truth in jwest's "follower" theory.

Since the "literati of moderation" authors here have repeatedly failed for years to produce, perhaps you could step in as a guest voice. Believe me, you could not fail to be a breath of fresh spring air compared to the line up of Stickings, Dewind, Mullen and Kattenburg.

Jwest - Thank you. I accept that you do indeed think for yourself and respect that. In the future, I will keep this in mind when you defend Limbaugh. As for "Great Moderates in History" I would suggest the following, understanding that you might dispute that they were either moderate or great: Pope John Paul II, Dwight Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Anwar Sadat. the list might be longer if I were willing to spend some time on it. As an addition to this thought, I would postulate that the "Most Despicable of History" would largely be comprised of extremist ideologues, except of course for those who were simply ammoral megalomaniacs.

CO - The opportunity to "guest voice" would be interesting. Should Joe ever extend an invitation, the chance to annoy those of all political stripes would be too tempting to resist. Joe - if you're reading (after I dissed your article earlier today) I'm trying to invite myself to dinner at CO's suggestion.

@casualobserver

"So, if 10% of Republicans identifying Limbaugh as the main speaker for the Republicans portends trouble for Republicans, what does 33% of Democrats (same poll) looking to someone other than Obama as the main speaker of the Democrats portend?"

The problem is more that moderates and independents take the caricature that is Rush Limbaugh and see that the Republican party cowtows to him and assumes that the party is all as nuts as he is. You can disagree with whether he is nuts or not, but the vast majority of people think he is, and hence its terrible for the Republican party. Its GOOD that only 10% see him that way from within the party, now the other 90% should find a better spokesperson for them that might lead them towards what Frum and company are pushing for at NewMajority.

Is 33% bad that are looking for a leader other than Obama within the Democratic party? I'd guess its near historic averages and would account for some hold out Clintonistas, as well as far lefties who don't think Obama is liberal enough. Also... was there a single Republican presidential candidate who would have gotten better? I think we can agree that the answer to that is no.

As much as people on the right would like to portray his supporters as thinking otherwise, the vast majority of Obama supporters do not see him as a messiah. Alot of us think he's going overboard with the deficit, isn't trying hard enough to tighten the belt of government, and this mess with the war funding that has some Dems and Reps both finding reasons to vote against the war funding is another mistake. Overall though, his general support stays high because most people think the good he has been doing outweighs the bad.



@tidbits

"Yet another "the Republican sky is falling" article... How many times do you have to get hit in the face with a pie before it isn't entertaining anymore?"

I'll agree with you... I usually skip them, but I sometimes come in to see what the comments are like. Just like newspapers though, people will keep writing them because people keep reading them (and commenting on them here).



@jwest

"“His views are far to radical for mainstream.. as evidence by his listening audience.”

Pew Research has determined that Limbaugh’s audience is the most informed, and second most affluent and educated (next to U.S. News and World Reports). Not exactly the Klan following hayseeds you pictured, are they?"

Pathetic straw man. Chenslin said nothing to insinuate the education level or affluence of Limbaugh's audience is low, he said it is far from the mainstream and a small percentage of the population at large, which are both true.


"The Republican’s mistake in the last election was splitting the primary vote and allowing a moderate (McCain) to win the nomination.

Republicans win when they run a conservative and loose with a moderate. That will never change."

What would never change? We haven't had a seriously conservative Republican president since maybe Taft. Lets see here... Theodore Roosevelt was obviously a progressive Republican, Hoover was certainly a moderate fiscally with his public works programs and I assume I don't have to go into Eisenhower's moderate Republicanism. Non conservative movement types would point out a litany of things that Reagon did that weren't boilerplate consvervative, and I doubt you'd argue that daddy Bush wasn't a moderate (and he would have won easily had Perot not jumped in). Hell McCain was beating Obama for a while, until the economy tanked and McCain chose Palin(please tell me you're a fan of Palin, that would make me so happy).

I'll even be generous and assume you mean something other than you say that used to be true. It used to be the best way to win was by rallying the base, but the base of either party is no longer big enough to win if the other candidate rallies his base some and then goes after moderates and mainstream independents. Crack the numbers jwest, show me how losing more independents, which is what would have happened had any other candidate but McCain been Obama's opponent, manifested millions more votes out of thin air to defeat Obama?


"“What specific policy objectives have been laid out so far that have attracted moderates?” Moderates are followers by definition. When a solidly conservative platform of smaller government, lower taxes, individual responsibility and national defense are laid out, the moderates will follow."

Wow, you must have done to the Howard Wolfson school of spin. C'mon coward, show me some proof. That kind of weak spin doesn't work around here, and you're surrounded by moderates who aren't followers. If we were followers, how do you explain us leaving the two major parties in droves?


"Remember, in 1979 only 21% of the people identified themselves as Republican. We won the next year with 44 states."

Yeah, because Jimmy Carter was a terrible president and Reagon was that generation's phenom, like the Roosevelts, Kennedy and now Obama. And again, he's not quite the conservative paragon you might think he was.


"In 1992 we lost the White House and were written off as irrelevant, only to come back in a space of 8 weeks in ’94 to capture both houses. The introspection ongoing on the left about the travails of the right is a comedy of misperception and ignorance."

Of course it is, just like the right was certain that it would have control of Washington as far as the eye could see in the late 90's. Do you seriously think this myopia isn't endemic in both parties?


"The whole point to politics is to present a vision and convince people to follow so that the vision can be achieved. Moderates tend to seek the middle ground where no great answers are found, only squishy compromise."

This is more straw man garbage. SOME ideological purists think that only straight ideology can come up with worthwhile policy innovation, while the majority of people can see that the principles that underlie all the major political ideologies hold valuable insights. Moderates are not followers by definition, and I think you know where I think you can shove that comment, but we are in fact people who recognize wisdom in more than one package of philosophical beliefs and tries to use all the options they have available to them and piece together something that usually doesn't end up matching with policy any of the ideologies would come up with on their own. It is a innacurate caricature to pretend all moderates are are people who believe in watered down versions of libertarian, conservative, liberal and socialistic thought.

"please tell me you're a fan of Palin, that would make me so happy"

I like her looks, certainly. Does that count? It's at a Dem kind of level (particularly with Obama).

jwest said: "Pew Research has determined that Limbaugh’s audience is the most informed, and second most affluent and educated (next to U.S. News and World Reports). Not exactly the Klan following hayseeds you pictured, are they?"

No... The PEW study does NOT say that... According to “The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press”

What Americans Know: 1989-2007 Report

Knowledge Levels by News Source

................Knowledge levels.... Hi M Lo
Daily Show/Colbert Report.... 54 25 21
Major newspaper websites... 54 26 20
News Hour with Jim Lehrer... 53 19 28
O’Reilly Factor.......................... 51 32 17
National Public Radio............. 51 27 22
Rush Limbaugh....................... 50 29 21
CNN............................................ 41 30 29
Fox News Channel.................. 35 30 35
Network morning shows........ 34 36 30

And if you think you’re more news-savvy than the average American here's your chance to find out who's fooling who... Here's a link to the latest: Pew News IQ Quiz