I can’t say I’m jealous of the situation the Republican party is in right now with regard to this power struggle it’s having to deal with between the RNC and congressional leaders and the Rush Limbaugh followers.
The fact that the head of your party is in a public tit-for-tat with the new de facto leader of the conservative movement at a time when you’re coming off two massive losses and should be presenting a united front is just brutal right now for Republicans.
First, RNC Chair Steele on Limbaugh:
“No he’s not. I’m the de facto leader of the Republican party,” Steele said. The RNC chief went on to call Limbaugh, who that very day delivered the keynote address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, a mere “entertainer” whose show is “incendiary” and “ugly.”
Today, Limbaugh fired back:
Now, Mr. Steele, if it is your position as the chairman of the Republican National Committee that you want a left wing Democrat president and a left wing Democrat Congress to succeed in advancing their agenda, if it’s your position that you want President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid to succeed with their massive spending and taxing and nationalization plans, I think you have some explaining to do.
Why are you running the Republican Party? Why do you claim you lead the Republican Party when you seem obsessed with seeing to it that President Obama succeeds? I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda…
I don’t understand why you’re asking Republicans to donate to the Republican National Committee if their money is going to be spent furthering the agenda of Barack Obama? If we don’t want Obama and Reid and Pelosi to fail, then why does the RNC exist, Mr. Steele? Why are you even raising money?…
So what are the RNC and congressional Republicans to do, infuriate the base and disavow Limbaugh or alienate moderates and embrace him? Curious to hear from some of the conservatives in the crowd, especially any who consider themselves more “moderate”.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and sons Carter and Colton.
Looks like Aryan purity is rearing its ugly head.
Alienate moderates it is! Steele called reporters this afternoon to back off his earlier criticism of Limbaugh:
…or his leadership. Questions anyone?
Yes. I’ve asked this of you and asked this of people on the other side. As a member and supporter of one I hope you’ll finally answer:
How specificaly do political parties differ from high school cliques, and why in God’s name would I trust members of either with my taxpayer dollars?
You’re a party guy, you should be able to help me out here.
Thanks.
From CNN.com this morning (as of 9:42am):
Who has more influence in the Republican Party?
Rush Limbaugh 82% 67359
Michael Steele 18% 14785
Total Votes: 82144
Perception is everything, Steele. Tread carefully.
It’s an example of the politics of uncivility (if that’s a word) that has been killing us all since the 90′s. It used to be you were an American first. But now we’ve put all sorts of ethnic groups or religious or political ideologies ahead of being Americans. Both major parties have forgotten how to be “The Loyal Opposition” and now the game is played with scorched-earth, both sides essentially saying “If I can’t win, I’m at least going to make sure you lose.” It’s actually become more acceptable to people to destroy America if they can’t reshape it in their image than it is to work to make it better, or at least lessen the harm they see their opponents doing.
The media is just as bad, with Ann Coulter and Rachel Maddow casting their snarl and snark across the scene.
So far Obama has been turning out to be better than I expected, notable exceptions to this are a couple of his really dopey cabinet selections, such as Treasury; one of the biggest tasks ahead of him is going to be dealing with the nursery over on Capitol Hill. I’m still not satisfied I can trust him, but he’s gaining ground with me on that.
But nothing he does is going to matter so long as we keep thinking “an eye for an eye” and “I’ll do unto you like you did unto me” and putting personal political ideologies ahead of America. And I’m not merely thinking about Senators and Representatives. I’m talking about us.
“Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force; too often we excuse those who build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others…” It’s still true, unfortunately, today.
Back in the day I was a political junkie, even talked with Pat Lucey once about helping me make a run for the Assembly. But when the dope gets bad enough, even the junkies will wean themselves away from it.
I’d love to blame the culture shift on my political enemies (“It’s all THEIR fault!”) but Pogo was right: We have met the enemy and he is us.
The trouble with a democracy is that people get the government they deserve, not the government they need. The only real solution to that is for us to deserve better. We need to ignore the rabble-rousers on both sides, let them sink into the mud of their own making. We need to realize we’re all in this together, and while I may not get every thing I want, and you may not get everything you want, working together just maybe we can get what we as a nation need. We need to have fewer demands and more requests. We need to insist to our reps on both sides of the aisle, that if they aren’t willing to work together, we’ll toss them all out and find some who will. Period.
America isn’t political theory, it’s a real place, where lives depend on decisions that are made. We need to stop acting like it’s some sort of video game where we can just hit reset and bail out untouched if things get bad.
Hmm, Aryan purity and CNN polls. Quite a compelling combination. Disagreeing with a black man hardly makes you a white supremacist. I wonder how many conservatives watch CNN or have those spider web tattoos. I doubt many, in either case.
Moderates brought us John McCain, who had no real base among any group. Moderates are not really a base. They can flip flop at a moments notice, having no real foundational beliefs outside of compromise. Barack Obama was the result of allowing moderate Republicans to run things.
The Republicans party needs to take back the conservative high ground. Thoughtful conservative candidates win elections. Americans are fond of the ideas of personal responsibility, fiscally responsible government, strong defense and national security, freedom of religion, less intrusive government, and the core values that the framers of our constitution wisely crafted.
Mr. Steele is hardly a moderate. He wrote in his Blueprint for Tomorrow: “Moderates in our party, and liberal elements outside it, have tried to steer this debate toward the suggestion that we need to change our core views, desert our convictions and give up our conservative philosophy. This is nonsense” Amen. Throw the bums out.
Arlen, I hate to pick on you, but you exemplified the moderate kumbaya stance. There are two sides in a fight(for example, abort or not). The Democrats understand that and are moving swiftly ahead with their politics of “Shock and Awe”. Moderates asking us to agree to what we don’t want in order to end discord? Rubbish.
Golda Meir said ““To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don’t be.” She was right. I choose to be.
@GC: I don’t get the high school clique analogy, sorry.
Family guy: So you’re saying the problem with the Republican party over the last 8 years isn’t that it wasn’t conservative enough? You betcha.
Bush was hardly a conservative President. Congress was full of “spend like Ted Kennedy” Republicans, and Bush never did find that veto pen that Reagan left him. State Republicans could not get up the gumption to pass a tax payer bill of rights, and I doubt most of them have checked the “Conservative Handbook” out of the library recently. We ran a limp noodle of a conservative for president, and he could not get the base fired up till the Sarah Palin pick.
If your base stays home and sits on it’s wallet, then you get an Obama in the White House with a mere 52% of the vote. There can be no argument that McCain is the poster boy for moderates. He lost with a whimper. Let’s try it the other way, it couldn’t turn out worse, now could it.
So the guy who all the sudden wasn’t a “real” conservative but who won twice is the real problem for conservatives, and the ticket with an extreme conservative on it 4 months ago is the future.
In all seriousness, the GOP base didn’t stay home in 2008, and trying to say that Obama won with a “mere” 52% is a silly statement..
And just to make sure we’re using the correct numbers, it was Obama with 52.9% of the vote and McCain with 45.7%. That’s not “MERELY” a win my friend, nor is it like he just squeeked by winning traditional GOP states like North Carolina and Indiana, and won the popular vote by 10 million votes.
So lets put that to rest.
As for the moderate/extremist point. Polling indicates that after the initial buzz wore off with Palin, moderates and independents turned away from that ticket. So you had a “moderate” candidate in McCain who was doing well with moderates until he picked an ultra-conservative Limbaugh approved running mate. And they tanked after that.
I think it kind of proves my point, no?
Long time reader, first time commenter..
First off, I’m a moderate Republican who lives in Tosa. I didn’t vote for you when you ran, but I have voted for Democracts, mostly on the conservative side in the past.
Having said that, I think this whole spat is a disaster for my party. You have the national chair on TV apologizing for saying what the moderate wing of his party knows to be true! I think Steele was a terrible choice for or party chair, and this only reconfirms that opinion.
The GOP is making it hard for people like me to remain active members, and it’s by their own choice. They’re so intent on conforming and not pissing off the ultra conservatives – many of whom aren’t even Republicans but Liberatarians – that they’re alienating anyone who doesn’t think their kids should be home schooled and we should all be walking around with guns hunting down anyone who doesn’t look, talk, or act like “us real Americans”.
There’s very little room anymore in the party for fiscal conservatives who don’t just cave in to the social conservatives dogma.
Irony alert! The tax cheat boss of the Treasury Department declares war on tax cheats.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iv5RvenEJnrWvRkseVS8Hq0LwQJQD96MN08G1
Dan and all other left of the aisle commentors: George Bush was not a conservative, especially a fiscal conservative. Just because you give tax cuts doesn’t make you a conservative. He along with many other Republicans in the House and Senate were spending money right along with their Democrats “buddies”. He never looked to cut spending or reduce the size of Government, and in turn helped spearhead a deficit that at one time I didn’t think could get significantly bigger…but I was wrong. To think that George Bush held to conservative values is as incorrect as saying that Joe Lieberman toed the Democratic war line. I’m not bashing the man, as a whole, but to say the last 8 years was conservative is just not correct.
I feel like I must be out of touch with reality after reading the comments to this post. People from the left are calling Bush a conservative, yet he governed the largest increase in the size of the federal government in recent history, doubled federal control of public schools, took over ownership stakes in failing corporations(!), etc. And then “moderate Republicans” are saying the GOP is too right-wing. What is going on here? Am I the only one who thinks there is no longer any noticeable difference between a Democrat and a Republican, other than they’re intent on fighting with each other no matter what the issue is? It’s all a bit silly and childish.
@Steve:
“[The GOP is] so intent on conforming and not pissing off the ultra conservatives – many of whom aren’t even Republicans but Liberatarians – that they’re alienating anyone who doesn’t think their kids should be home schooled and we should all be walking around with guns hunting down anyone who doesn’t look, talk, or act like ‘us real Americans’.”
One of the two things you say above can’t be true. If it is true that these ultra-conservatives are Libertarians, then it cannot be true that they want everyone to be home schooled and whatever that second comment is supposed to mean. The whole point of Libertarianism, whether you agree or disagree with it, is that you can do whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn’t reduce my liberty. To say that Libertarians want to force you to home school your child makes absolutely no sense.
“There’s very little room anymore in the party for fiscal conservatives who don’t just cave in to the social conservatives dogma.”
Again, libertarian Republicans certainly do not relate to social conservatives. Social conservatives believe the government — usually the FEDERAL government — should legislate morality. Find me a libertarian who agrees with that, and I’ll give you a nickel.
I have never understood why social conservatives aligned themselves with the Republicans. Their ideals do not agree with limited government and maximized individual liberty. But neither do the ideals of the left (although they don’t seem to recognize it), since their increased entitlement programs necessarily mean a reduction in freedom, and NOT just for the individuals paying for it with their tax dollars. You need only look at the recent bailouts for proof of that; the winners of those bailouts have numerous restrictions placed on them, because as soon as the public gives you free money, the public (ie, the government) believes it has the right to dictate your behavior. Always.
The real truth is that there is no one representing freedom anymore, except fringe movements like the Campaign for Liberty. We have 2 parties, and neither one cares about liberty; that does not make me feel warm and fuzzy about the future.
@Sean: But he was a social conservative, right? Again, this is the point I’m making! The “your guy isn’t our kind of conservative and our guy isn’t your kind of conservative” seems to be the #1 problem with the Republicans right now.
This whole presidential campaign was based on a moderate candidate. A very moderate one, if it is possible for a moderate to be very anything. The moderate and “beloved” John McCain lost states the hated fascist George Bush managed to take. Many Senate and House Republican moderates lost their seats as well. Moderatism is a dismal failure
So we tried it, and the Moderate Old Party was wiped out. Now, some would tell us that we need to be more moderate to win. Laughably, those people are the Democrats who ran a fierce left leaning, far from moderate campaign and are now governing with the gusto of the Mongol Horde.
Give me a break.
@Dan, that’s because the monolithic political party is a myth. If you need evidence, take a look at the various factions within the Democratic party who aren’t pleased with Obama’s more moderate and conservative actions. There are not two sets of ideas in this country. The only reason we end up in a duality is because it creates a more powerful position for those in power. It’s also why the discourse is not about the value of ideas, but rather the value of who proposed them. It is not a “my guy” vs “your guy” thing. These people are supposed to be taking our ideas into Washington, and if they fail to do that, whether they have an ‘R’ or a ‘D’ next to their name, they must be criticized.
TFG: Interesting point, but if you think either major party in this Country can win without the moderates, you’re wrong.
Again, I don’t understand the logic… If it were true, then Republicans in their own primaries would have selected a more “conservative” candidate. The “moderate” – in your opinion – won among conservatives. Let’s take November out of the equation for a moment. If the “conservatives” of the party were as strong as they claim, then Huckabee or Romney should have been the nominee of the party, and yet the “moderate” McCain came out of it.
What gives?
What gives, Dan, is that Huckabee and Romney knocked each other off, and McC was left standing. Moreover, if it was so important for a candidate to appear moderate, how did the most liberal member of the Senate win the election? The fact is that today’s liberals and moderates are more liberal than, say, those of the JFK era. The left has been more successful in the recent years in shifting the center by appealing to class envy, entitlement, and – as Mr Schmitz demonstrates – race-baiting. If our response is just to follow the left over to the left, then freedom, capitalism, family values and the other foundations of conservatism haven’t got a prayer. Our strategy needs to be one of principled leadership – maybe it won’t work in the short term, but if Obama keeps up with the path he’s on, maybe it will.
JD, what an utter load of BS. There isn’t an accurate sentence in you entire post, starting with your claim that “Huckabee and Romney knocked each other off”. It only gets worse from there.
Seriously – conservatism is on the ropes because people like you live in such utter denial of reality that the rest of America can only shake their heads in disbelief over your lunacy.
(And before you start the inevitable flame war, please be advised that the only thing I’m interested in hearing from you is a complete retraction of your fantasy-laden post)
Couple things JD: The “MOST LIBERAL!” applies to whoever is currently running as the Democratic nominee is really just an opinion. I would say that the Country as a whole is more “liberal” than they were 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or 150 years ago.
That isn’t just Americans, it’s society as a whole that’s getting more liberal and less conservative as time marches on, and it will continue to do so well after we’re gone.
Lastly: freedom, capitalism and family values aren’t the sole property of the Republican party of the conservative movement.
@Steve: thanks for the comments!
David V,
As usual, your insight is impecable, and your tolerance of other people’s opinions is unbeliveably open and progressive. I often look forward to your comments! Thanks for contributing and enforcing my opinion that there are some people that just like to spout dogma, talking points and blind idealogy instead of actually having productive dialogue.
Dan,
To not admit that Barak Obama, as a Senator, was not “the most liberal” or at least one of the most liberal politicians is disconcerting. Also, I don’t necessarily agree that America will get less conservative/more liberal “well after we’re gone”. Our country’s electorate, typically and historically, are a fickle group; so to say that the U.S. is going to continue to become more liberal well after we’re gone I think is a bit premature (to say the least)….
Who cares if Obama was the most liberal Senator? If you are right and he was, he has clearly “seen the light” and become much more moderate. The guy can’t get through a speech without saying that we need to put ideologies aside and stick to solutions supported by hard data, whether that’s a government solution or a market solution. Look at the health summit speech from yesterday, where he pointed out that “bleeding-heart liberals” (his words) are probably going to be a little disappointed, because we can’t just give current health care coverage to every American without first addressing the cost issue. He also can’t get through a speech without mentioning how the federal government has become addicted to printing money and that needs to stop. Does this sound like a far-left liberal to you?
It has only been a few months, so I am trying to hold back any kind of conclusion that this guy might actually turn out to be a great president. But I have been hoping for a politician who can “put ideologies aside” for as long as I can remember, and all I could ever do is dismiss it for being unrealistic. We’ll see what happens, but I can definitely say I like the way he has talked post-election than during his campaign.
Sean,
Let’s define “conservative” for the purpose of this conversation, please. There’s not just one conservative, it seems to me a lot of conversation in these comments runs around the social vs. fiscal conservative confusion.
I’ll assume that Dan meant that America isn’t going to get any more socially conservative as time goes on. I mean, barring a full-scale civil war or the Rapture, whichever comes first. Barring either of those to for the foreseeable future, it seems highly unlikely that we’re all going to start having the women wear pioneer dresses, stopping work en masse, stone people for having extramarital sex, and put the gays back in the closet.
BTW, I think this is part of the problem the conservatives are having. At the core, it’s identity confusion. “The base” did not get fired up about Sarah Palin because she was a fiscal conservative. And in the end, the base couldn’t deliver. By pushing the party further toward the right, they (the base) are tearing it apart.