Joe this is madness with a touch of suicide bomber in it.

"If they keep going the way they're going, the bottom is a long way down. I hope they do, because it's probably the fastest way to get America back on its feet, and headed on a smarter course."

If you think about it a bit, I am sure that you will come to the conclusion that is an insult to what you actually believe as far as what you want for the country.

If it was flippant, it was not funny.

As far as Steele is concerned, I agree with what he said about the creeping complacency coming over the party and the fact that they some how are counting all the seats they are going to win in September.

Right now I would bet on the Dems, no matter what polls say, because they have Obama, we have 22 percent of the population that considers themselves Republican.

The Pyrrhic victory here may well be in the minds of Republicans who are now counting their 2010 election gains long before they hatch.

BTW, this is the first intelligent thing I have seen Steele utter. The fact that it offended congressional republicans only frightens me more.

the Swagger we are seeing now from Republicans in congress is really odd to me since they are getting their asses kicked on a regular basis and seem to have no leverage other than shutting down the congress by gumming up the works. There will be a price to pay for
politically for that, but no one seems to want to take their heads out of the sand and gauge what effect that will have during the next election.

ther may be some give back in the border states in the west, but if there is no movement in New England and the mid West it looks to me like a tw steps forward, one step back win for the Dems. Ad a 2012 run against a ticket headed by a charismatic Obama and another of his ilk running for V>P, as the annointed successor.

This is the picture the GOP should have in their minds. They are losers until they prove they can win.

The great danger for the Democrats when they assumed control of both Congress and POTUS was overreach, the temptation to pander to their special interests rather than tending to the needs of the nation. Unfortunately for them, the sheer number of "sweeteners"/bribes included in the health care bill, not to mention the whole mishmash of bailout programs which haven't yielded tangible relief as far as the average voter sees, have given the GOP a huge number of issues to go after, if they are competent enough to do so. Obama needed to assume control and prevent the usual pork-ladeling from happening, but it seems as though he has held himself aloof from the whole process, allowing Pelosi and Reid to set the tone and the agenda.

As Noonan says, the best thing that could happen for Obama's 2012 election odds is for the GOP to resume control of Congress, which would give him political cover for taking the more moderate and pragmatic approach that he campaigned on. Considering how long it will take for the health care bill to start helping (or hurting) the average American, it is unlikely it will impact his '12 chances much. The big factors will probably be how well the economy has rebounded by then, and how the voters think he's doing on the "keep the nation safe" measure. Charisma is necessary but not sufficient.

I sometimes think that both parties have gotten so skilled at operating as the opposition that they've forgotten how to get out of that mode once they're actually at the controls. Both are quite competent at criticism and counterpunching and using the media to get that message out, but not so good at managing (or even understanding) the ever-more-complex systems which they find themselves in charge of running or regulating.

In one of Noonan's essays she said that she feared that this will be remembered as an age where our leaders weren't quite of a caliber to meet the challenges facing them. As we pong from one party to the other being in charge without significant improvements or reforms, I think she may be proven correct. There's a large opening for a populist message of changing business-as-usual, and Obama's failures to deliver on his promises to be that leader will be the hardest thing for him to deal with in 2012.

The great danger for the Democrats when they assumed control of both Congress and POTUS was overreach

Well, maybe. I left the Democrats because they were corrupt, dishonest, and more than a bit stupid. Now that they have lied their way into power they are screwing up due to the corruption and stupidity. The great danger for the Democrats was sitting in the front row.

toc, I was not joking. It's better for the Democrats to keep pushing what they really believe, and have the voters learn and understand what that actually means and entails, for them personally and for the nation.

The country has big and difficult decisions coming. Clarity is best.

At present, more clarity regarding their current courses benefits neither party. But the country is not the same as the parties, and will benefit.

The Democrats have a very defined agenda; domestically, it entails massive transfers to a political class and its dependents at home, by hook or (vid. UAW) by theft, a monetary policy that enriches its cronies on Wall Street, and government control over much of the economy. QED. So, I say, let that agenda continue to be as obvious as it is.

The GOP's problem is the reverse. It does NOT have clarity. Which is part of the reason it doesn't project a clear sense of what it's about beyond opposition, even though it does have coherent counter-proposals on major issues. Its coalition has come unglued, but is still moving in the same direction on the basis of residual momentum and external pushes.

Until the GOP fixes that and becomes a coherent party again, even a Democratic Party agenda that produces widespread revulsion won't really benefit them in a sustained way. Which is pretty much exactly what polls are showing. And what Noonan is saying.

As far as the GOP, I think its critical to embrace the truth that conservative principles simply cannot survive long contact with the Beltway. There is simply to much money flowing about, too much corruption, too much rent seeking for even the most steadfast conservative to live by their principles.

That being the case- giving the country a Mea Culpa for the last 10 years of spending would go a long way. Then, calling for a constitutional convention to put forward amendments for term limits as the centerpiece party plank going forward. The GOPs main thrust should be the removal and banishment of the political class as a permanent fixture in Washington (followed by a war against the entrenched bureaucracy and government class).

Sadly the GOP leadership is invested in exactly this class, and unlikely to rock the boat.

Joe, this here does not appear obvious to me.

The Democrats have a very defined agenda; domestically, it entails massive transfers to a political class and its dependents at home, by hook or (vid. UAW) by theft, a monetary policy that enriches its cronies on Wall Street, and government control over much of the economy. QED. So, I say, let that agenda continue to be as obvious as it is.

I'm not sure what you mean by "massive transfers to a political class" and I'm less clear how you think there might be a difference between the parties in this regard.

Monetary policy that enriches its cronies on Wall Street? My perception as a simple voter is that the excesses on Wall Street in the last 20 years have a lot to do with a hands off approach to regulation and oversight. Wall Street money of course has benefited by reductions in capital gains taxes and reduction in the top tax bracketes. My perception is that this has been a largely Republican enterprise.

When I think of cronyism and taking care of your buddies Abramaoff comes to mind, the excessive politization of administration jobs comes to mind, an overly cozy relationship wtih certain sectors of big business come to mind. What are you thinking of? I don't view this as a problem of one party over the other.

The two big domestic issues Congress has worked on this past year are health care reform and job creation. Are these appropriate things to work on, of course. Is the health care legislation better or worse for having zero Republian support or engagement? Worse, I think. Is that good or bad for the country? Bad I think. As to job creation, my perception is that there is a concensus among economists that stimulous in at least the amounts we are spending are necessary despite the risks posed by the increased debt this entails. People certainly disagree about where and how to apply it. Again, my sense is the Republicans have engaged in this policy debate more with a view to making electoral gains than with the good of the country at heart. There has been too much grandstanding and demagoguing. That's bad I think.

Mark's comment about too much money compromising the integrity of elected representatives is correct. Of course this is not a problem of one party more than the other.

As to Mark's exhortation for term limits and declaring war on government, I think this is not productive. Term limits is proving a real problem in California. It's main effect is to shift power from the elected officials to unelected staffers and lobbyists. We have accomplished a lot as a country with sound government regulation in the past seventy years. This has been an enterprise of both political parties. There is much to be proud of. The challenge moving forward is to keep making it better (not bigger). This may mean leaner and more efficient government, it does not mean declaring "war on the government class." We need the best people we can find to run government efficiently and we need to support them so they can do their job well with integrity.

We should leave the Machiavellian task of party strategizing to the Noonans and Carvilles of the world. We voters should focus on what's good for the country, not what's good for political parties.

Roland, it's obvious to many of your fellow voters. But if you're still wondering "what you mean by "massive transfers to a political class", you might start here:

I Left My Wallet in San Francisco

With respect to "and I'm less clear how you think there might be a difference between the parties in this regard," you might start with the massive funding the public sector unions give the Democratic Party, in order to maintain and exacerbate these situations. And, as Armed Liberal explains:

"Who gets screwed in this?

Well, the taxpayers, obviously. That's why we're having tea parties, and why the independent cube-dwelling middle class is so pissed off. The roads are falling apart, the schools are overcrowded and in disrepair, the water systems are failing - and yet the high taxes they pay aren't ever enough and we need to borrow and tax more.

And - especially galling for me - the poor and dependent, who really should be getting services, who really do need libraries and transit services and good social services.

And that's what pisses me off. Because what we're doing is essentially stealing from the defenseless; and worse what we're doing is discrediting al government spending - making it impossible for even necessary and legitimate government services to argue for funds."

Roland adds:

"My perception as a simple voter is that the excesses on Wall Street in the last 20 years have a lot to do with a hands off approach to regulation and oversight. Wall Street money of course has benefited by reductions in capital gains taxes and reduction in the top tax bracketes. My perception is that this has been a largely Republican enterprise. "

Your perception is wrong. It has far more to do with monetary policy, under both Clinton and George W. Bush. And right now, a Wall Street group that gives millions more in funding to the Democrats, and began doing this before Obama took office, is taking the Fed's near-0% interest rates and guaranteed bailouts as the basis of a "carry trade" that invests and speculates with it outside of mainstream lending. Risk and leverage remain high, while choking lending to businesses that drive the economy, especially smaller businesses.

Even with the tens and tens of millions they gave the Democrats, the ROI on that one is fantastic.

"Mark's comment about too much money compromising the integrity of elected representatives is correct. Of course this is not a problem of one party more than the other."

It is an universal problem. On the other hand, the people doing it are often a problem of one party or the other. Which is why the Democrats cannot fix key issues like education. If a specific "donor captured" issue becomes important, the parties will have different abilities to respond.

"As to Mark's exhortation for term limits and declaring war on government, I think this is not productive. Term limits is proving a real problem in California. It's main effect is to shift power from the elected officials to unelected staffers and lobbyists."

This is true.

"We have accomplished a lot as a country with sound government regulation in the past seventy years."

Yes. We have also screwed up a lot of things with unsound and burdensome government regulation, of which California is exhibit #1. Unless someone can acknowledge BOTH sides of this coin, it's hard to take them seriously.

"We need the best people we can find to run government efficiently and we need to support them so they can do their job well with integrity."

We need the best people creating value and growing the economy.

In government, we need dedicated people who remember their mission. And we do need to ensure that they can do their job with integrity.

We also need to limit them. No less than any private enterprise, these individuals and their organizations will seek to do what's best for them as priority #1, rather than any abstract notion of "service to the public." Of which teacher's unions are Exhibit A, and probably a few more exhibits besides. They are not alone, however, vid. Public Choice Theory and its whole body of work.

Again, failure to recognize this is the recipe and explanation for the massive failures in American governments and budgets.

"We should leave the Machiavellian task of party strategizing to the Noonans and Carvilles of the world. We voters should focus on what's good for the country, not what's good for political parties."

Generally, that's true. However, an unfit political party limits our options as a country. If the GOP is not a coherent party, that leaves a 2-party country with a problem as it pertains to choices and governance. So, in cases where one party or the other loses coherence, it becomes in the national interest for it to regain that coherence. Preferably on a sound footing, but coherence is preferable to soundness since the voter can always decide.

At present, the GOP is not a coherent party.

For anyone interested in following up on the "I left My Wallet in San Francisco" story, the Forum program on KQED radio did a program with the authors of the article and about the question whether San Franisco is the worst run city. One of the points raised there is that comparing total city budgets and dividng by population to get per capita spending is tricky because different cities have different things in their budget. For example, S.F. includes the airport and the Muni, and health care services in its budgets. Other cities have separate airport authorities, municipa transportation authorities and health authorities. Apparently on an apples to apples basis, Sand Francisco's per capita spending is similar to other major North American cities. Which, of course, is not to say that there isn't a lot of wasteful spending and much that everyone could do better.

Regarding monetary policy, this was run by Greenspan and the Bush administration for the past decade. One of the criticisisms of Greenspan has been that he fueled the housing bubble by keeping interest rates too low. Are you advocating higher interest rates right now? Why? We could have a thread on that.

Taxes were lowered significantly under Bush and that predominantly benefited the moneyed classes and increased disparities in wealth. If you disagree, someone could start a reasoned thread on that.

I don't think public choice theory helps in making distinctions between the parties because it applies equally to all. The fact that government officials will tend to act in their self-interest and empire build is a fact of life. The remedy is to shed lots of light in order to keep everyone as disciplined and honest as possible. By its very nature that is an ongoing struggle. To think that if we just get the right party (Tea Party?) in power our problems will be solved misses the point of public choice theory.

We should focus less on party and more on individual policies.

"Taxes were lowered significantly under Bush and that predominantly benefited the moneyed classes and increased disparities in wealth"

So? Is disparity of wealth an issue in itself? If I could increase every Americans absolute wealth by 5%, but Bill Gates would have to get 500%, wouldn't you take the deal?

The idea that absolute wealth has been stagnant over the last 20 years is false. You can't simply look at take home pay, you have to look at what that pay can buy you. Think about how people's quality of life has increased. What percentage of people have a cell phone and (practically) infinite minutes to communicate on them compared to 20 years ago. How do you put a price tag on that? Or personal computers that have plummeted in price, or big screen tvs, etc.

If life were about the accumulation of as much cash as possible, the class warriors might have a point. But if life is about having a good life, Americans have benefited hugely over the last 20 years. All the 'smarts' may hate Walmart, but neither do they want to pay $25 for a t-shirt either.

And as to which party is more in bed with big business, I think the answer clearly is 'whichever party is currently in power'.

Just look at the various Chris Dodds scandals for an amazing overview of the rent seeking and reckless deregulation of the past 10 years. Friends of Jerry certainly came from both parties, and the repeal of Glass-Stiegall happened under Clinton's pen. Or better yet, look no further than our Secretary of Treasury. The Dems lack for nothing in embracing big business along with their trial lawyers and union bed partners (not that the republicans are any better).

"Yes. We have also screwed up a lot of things with unsound and burdensome government regulation, of which California is exhibit #1. Unless someone can acknowledge BOTH sides of this coin, it's hard to take them seriously."

Looking to California for good government is problematic in itself. I think there are smart ways to limit the power of lobbyists and lifers just as easily as term limiting politicians. It would be simple enough to 'term limit' congressional staffers, and lobbyists would seem to have much more power and influence over professional politicians than short termers.

Our first issue is the sheer scope and weight of government. Taking a long needed axe to the budget is a good first step in limiting the power of the professional government class. If nothing else there is plenty of sheer redundancy and anachronism we should have weeded out long ago.

Regarding how someone might complain aobut the inequity of the poor doubling the wealth but he rich increasing 100 fold . . .

Here are two models of public infrastructure development that shed some light on this for me.

1. Erie Canal. This was developed by the State of New York with public funds. It was a huge success. It reduced the cost of transporting farm produce from the Midwest to the Atlantic Seaboard, and transporting manufactured goods across the Allegheny Mountains by 90 percent. It employed many immigrant workers from Europe who earned much more than they could haver earned back home. The state paid for the $7 million construction by collecting tolls. In all, the state collected $122 million in tolls over a 60 year period. The profit on the project was available for various public works sponsored by the State of New York.

2. Compare the Transcontinental Railroad. Congress could not find the resolve the follow the Erie example because the country was divided by Civil War. So instead they chartered two private railroad companies to build the project. Congress gave 200 million acres of land to the railroads and paid $50,000/mile of track laid, which by some estimates was twice the cost of construction. This was brought about by widespread bribes of Congress members and their families. The actual construction of the rail lines was built by minimally compensated labor many of whom paid for the project with their life and limb. The public largesse continues to create tremndous wealth for the real estate empire spin offs from these railroads today.

There is no doubt that the immigrants working on the railroad earned more money with this project than they would have if it had not been built. The railroad owners who successfully bribed Congress and continue to profit from this transfer of wealth to this day profited hugely, and are continuing to do so to this day.

Wealth inequalities do not happen in a vacum.

" the bottom is a long way down. I hope they do,"

It is not the politics, Joe. It is the suicide bomber attitude, the cut your nose off to spite your face posture.

I think you have caught an insidious virus. I will erode your principles if not treated. As I see it, it has begun to do so already.

If we clean up or own house and stand by or principles, we will win. If we continue to spend our energies wishing ill on our opponentws and the country. NO ONE WINS!!!

It is good to see some criticism of the GOP from some of the people here who defend it. I never understand the carping about what the Dems do.

Who cares. Political contests are not won by scoring points but from the hard work of formulating a philosophy and then getting it out to the body politic.

All I have seen from the GOP is the former and none of the latter.

Now all of a sudden, we hear talk of taking back the congress, etc. 10 months before an election. This is madness. Sure, the democrats have been screwing things up on a massive scale, but tell me, please, where the Republicans have improved.

The Party lacks a vision and a philosophy. It is increasingly becoming party without a moral base (see above, where we all recognize that it is now part of a politcal class that is to be bought and sold by the highest bidder.) or a clear intellectual leader, whether that be a group or an individual.

Sure, the Democrats are in disarray. So what's new? Do you really want to go into an election without a strong vision? Our intellectual underpinnings now are coming from the Tea Partiers, which, I believe is dangerous to the party because it looks to me more like a splinter group than a base of support.

How do things look to me? I will restate what I said above:

"The Swagger we are seeing now from Republicans in Congress is really odd to me since they are getting their asses kicked on a regular basis and seem to have no leverage other than shutting down the Congress by gumming up the works.

There will be a price to pay for
politically for that, but no one seems to want to take their heads out of the sand and gauge what effect that will have during the next election. Trust me, it will be huge.

There may be some give back in the border states and in the West, but if there is no movement in New England and the mid West it looks to me like a two steps forward, one step back win for the Dems. Add to that a 2012 run against a ticket headed by a charismatic Obama and another of his ilk running for VP, as the annointed successor.

This is the picture the GOP should have clearly fixed in their minds, not visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads.

Our first issue is the sheer scope and weight of government. Taking a long needed axe to the budget is a good first step in limiting the power of the professional government class. If nothing else there is plenty of sheer redundancy and anachronism we should have weeded out long ago.

There's the touchstone. Every serving or would-be Republican officeholder or party official should asked, publicly and repeatedly: "What will you do to reduce the size and power of government?" at the level to which they aspire. If there's no answer, or nothing but weasel words, then primary them, vote them out, get rid of them.

Obama and his cronies are giving the country a belly full of statism, and here in California we've got Exhibit A of where it's taking us. The way back for the Rs is to respond to the Democrat overreach. But that can't be done if all you've got to offer is a slower road to slavery, or a social agenda that equally requires the exertion of state power to accomplish.

Roland, good discussions here. Thanks.

Next to the railroad, put projects like Boston's infamous modern "Big Dig" program. It's not the size of the project, or who executes it, so much as it's a question of the value that infrastructure brings to the national/ local economy. The canal is a gold standard for a public works project. The railroads, much as one may quarrel legitimately about how they were built, more than paid themselves back from the country's point of view. This is not true for all projects, of course, and political payoffs are a big part of the reason why.

toc3. I get your point. But I don't see the Democrats advocating what they already believe, and acting on it, to be a bad thing. The country voted for this. If the country doesn't like the results, new voting opportunities come every 2 years. To make the most of them, clarity is best. short-term, that may be painful. Longer-term, it's best for the system.

Until then, they have the right to govern, as best they can muster the votes. Things would be far, far worse in a Parliamentary system, I assure you, where a majority party can govern autocratically.

Recessions suck, too. Doesn't mean that endless Fed-blown financial bubbles should be preferred, because they avoid short term pain. The same thinking operates for me in the political sphere: This is who they really are. Let them be forthright in pursuing it, and may the voters decide.

"Wealth inequalities do not happen in a vacum."

Certainly true, but does it matter? Maybe Bill Gates got a good public school education that allowed him to invent Microsoft. Does his fortune owe a debt to the state? Its certainly going to PAY a debt to the state (which it should of course), but does that equate to a morale license to take whatever amount the state deems necessary?

Even if it did (which it does not), put aside who 'deserves' what for a second and consider what grows the pie the fastest and benefits everyone in the end. Confiscatory taxation in the name of reducing income equality for its own sake is a flat out terrible idea, both morally (as I believe) and pragmatically.

The need to divest the successful of their success makes everyone poorer. The reward of society for creating a successful individual isn't access to whatever share of their fortune the state desires, its a fair portion keeping in mind the enormous wealth generation that fortune can and will produce going forward with an efficiency the government is demonstrably incapable of 99 times out of 100. For every Erie Canal their are a hundred Big Digs. And for every Transcontinental Railroad, there are a hundred Googles.

#16 from Tim Oren | January 12, 2010 4:53 PM

"If there's no answer, or nothing but weasel words, then primary them, vote them out, get rid of them."

On an emotional level, these are exactly my feelings. I am completely fed up with the party.

When I settle down, I am afraid that retribution will make things worse and I am not willing to hand the party over to a bunch of self destructive, mindless reactionaries, which is how I feel about, the Dixiecrat strain that appears to be taking over the party. The people who are now called the base..

Hence, the need for a coherent and clear statement of philosophy by the party. These guys ought not get our votes if they cannot state their principles clearly and intelligently.

No party leader has called for anything like this. And, unfortunately, if it is not forthcoming, I do not have a lot of faith in a resurgence in the near future, some victories here and there, but no chance of getting out of the minority role. The more I see of Congressional Republicans the less I like them. All of them appear to be bought or gutless.

I am not sure if you are in despair, or just a moby. You don't trust what you identify as the base, you don't like the Congressional Republicans, nor anything you do or don't hear from the nominal leadership. You're resigned to a permanent minority status, at the same time the D's statist agenda is taking a drubbing in the polls. So I've gotta ask: Is that a forecast, or a wish?

I have little use for the theocrat program, but the evidence is against your proposition that it must dominate. Huckabee didn't exactly burn up the place in 2008, and in a year of weak candidates, that might have been a high water mark. Again, is this a reality, or something you'd like to taken as a reality? Maybe moby much?

Meanwhile, I've got books on my shelf titled "Leave Us Alone", "Nanny State" and "Liberal Fascism". Their existence suggests that might just be other schools of thought out there to be tapped by the party, that the natives are growing restless under statism. With Obama and Congress overreaching by the day, there are a lot of swing voters and states that are ready to hear that message. Some of them might even be willing to help turn around the R party structure from the bottom up.

... the Dixiecrat strain that appears to be taking over the party.

You know, in every single post you start complaining about Dixiecrats. What the hell are you talking about?

Please give one single, solitary example of a person who is a "Dixiecrat". (Since you claim these people are taking over, it would help your case if you could name somebody WHO HASN'T BEEN DEAD FOR FORTY YEARS.)

I know that Andrew Sullivan waxes paranoid about "Dixiecrats", in between vaginas and more vaginas, but Andrew Sullivan is a freaking poltroon.

Here's an article on point at American Thinker. Anecdotal, but gives some color to the disconnect between current and potential Republican voters and the 'leadership'. Snarky punch line: 'It turns out that the majority of Americans do want "hope and change." We just want it to start with the GOP.'

If the Republican Party was dominated, or even largely leaning southern social conservative, one might wonder how John McCain won the nomination followed by Massachusetts Mitt Romney and New Yorks Rudi Giuliani. Not exactly the Sons of the Confederate Revolution.

Even the party apparatus is less social conservative than plain good ol boys network. The Congressional Leadership, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John Kyl, Eric Cantor... hardly the Jerry Fallwells of the nation (hell, Cantor is jewish).

I too would like to see some evidence of a 'dixiecrat' takeover of the party. There are enough problems with flat our corrupt careerists cum lobbyists to be going on with.

Neither side can achieve a majority with only the base, whatever you consider the base. The Republicans have an innate advantage of a center right leaning nation... but its can be a disadvantage when the leadership is corrupted by Washington and takes to becoming Democrat Lite instead of standing on principle. Republicans succeed when they are strong in states and bring in strong crops of governors etc. I don't think there is any doubt that the next great conservative leader is going to come out of the states and not DC. Republicans have a tent plenty big enough for both libertarians and social conservatives- when the have a strong conservative to back. If they don't they tend to infighting or simply walking away from the party.

Meanwhile, I've got books on my shelf titled "Leave Us Alone", "Nanny State" and "Liberal Fascism". Their existence suggests that might just be other schools of thought out there to be tapped by the party, that the natives are growing restless under statism.

Maybe the cynics are right. Maybe it's like comparing GM and Ford for their sincerity in promoting bicycling.

Republicans and Democrats are both thoroughly modern political parties. They have both been captured by the state. They exist to make more state.

It's just what they do.

toc3,

We may agree more than we thought. I'm not 100% in sync with your diagnosis, but I do agree there is a problem, that waiting for Democrats to implode won't solve it, and that unless the GOP can find a set of core principles that makes a coalition stand up and say "yup, that's us!" again, even Democratic attempts at seppuku will leave the status quo intact.

Democratic clarity is helpful to that process, by causing people to think about where they really stand. But it's going to take something positive as well on the GOP side, in order to turn that into a solid political alternative for the voters and stop running 3rd to the mythical "Tea Party".

The most positive news i've heard in 8 years comes from my friend and sometime sparring opponent in ideas, Jack Wheeler, who relays this from a high level GOP staffer on the Hill:

"The Republicans are happy about all of this, of course - but the happiness is superficial. It wasn't that long ago when they had the whole enchilada - the White House, Senate, and House under Bush - and that ended poorly.

My friend and I agreed -- Hubris teaches you the lessons of life the hard way.

And we agreed - "Hubris is what we have got to most avoid once the Dems implode," he said. "We've all read Peggy Noonan's ‘The Risk of Catastrophic Victory.' We've got to be, as she says, ‘worthy of victory.' I'm spending a lot of time thinking how we can be. All of us here are."

Best news i've heard in a long time. Think hard, folks. Then start reaching out, backing groups like the Young Guns, and building networks and transmission belts that will mainline key new constituencies and ideas (esp. from the younger generation coming out of military service) into the party. You won't be worthy immediately. But if you make it a focus, one day soon, you might be.

Republicans have a tent plenty big enough for both libertarians and social conservatives- when the have a strong conservative to back. If they don't they tend to infighting or simply walking away from the party.

Sounds right. But it certainly doesn't help when people like toc simply dimiss us as "theocrats," "dixicrats," etc., instead of listening to us and engaging us. Toc, you might try reading Robert George, Alvin Plantinga, or First Things if you are interested in exploring what intelligent social conservatives actually think rather than dismissing a stereotype created out of your own bigotry.

toc3 -

I guess this means I don't get my Dixiecrat, unless I'm going to get him by slow process of elimination. For example, I take it that Lindsay Graham (R, SC) is not a "Dixiecrat" in your estimation, even though he hails from the dark heart of Secession itself.

So I can cross him off the list, which clarifies nothing since I can't see what you have against your anonymous Dixiecrats, other than the fact that they're southerners.

Republicans outside of the south are becoming rare as hens teeth and those in the south appear to me to be of the same strain as the democrats in the 50s and early 60's.

Even if you define "the south" as "everywhere except Massachusetts" your first premise is pretty shaky, but what have you got against Democrats of the 50s and early 60s? Most of my favorite Democrats came from that era: Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Estes Kefauver, and the two good Kennedys. I prefer even Lyndon Johnson to all that post-Kennedy detritus: George McGovern, George Wallace, the bad Kennedy, the Daleys, the Clintons, the Weather Underground, etc.

Maybe you prefer pre-50s Democrats? Those would include ... well, the Dixiecrats. Also the Copperheads, assorted slave-owners and traitors, the psychopathic Andrew Jackson, and for comic relief, Woodrow Wilson. See anything you like?

Again, much of this speculation would be dispelled if you could name one person who is a modern Dixiecrat.

Glen

I am not going to get into a long and tedious exchange that adds up to nothing more than scoring points. If you want to believe that what I am talking about has to do with the Copperheads or whatever sophomoric ridicule you want to sling my way, be my guest, if it makes you feel better.
I would suggest though you might spend some time looking at electoral losses on a national level everywhere but the south.

And, you might be best served by you own suggestion:

"I guess this means I don't get my Dixiecrat, unless I'm going to get him by slow process of elimination."

You might also, if you are indeed interested in the ties between the copperheads and and the present day political makeup of the U.S. and the deeper ties back to the Covenanters, the Glorious Revolution, et al, I suggest

The "Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, And The Triumph Of Anglo-America by Kevin Phillips"

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_13?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=the+cousin's+wars&sprefix=the+cousin's+

While you are at it, you might also pick up Phillips'

http://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Republican-Majority-Kevin-Phillips/dp/0870000586/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_10

Which is the bedrock of the what became the Reagan Revolution. You can get it used there for $ 90.00

When you are up to speed, we can talk again. Meanwhile, keep in mind that I don't play pinball.

Glen,
While you are at it you might look at Phillips' page at Amazon, all excellent stuff.

http://www.amazon.com/Kevin-P.-Phillips/e/B001H6GNW0/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

toc3,

We give you well-thought-out stuff like the American Thinker article Tim linked to, and you respond with ... .... Kevin Phillips? Sorry, not buying that.

Meanwhile, if you aren't actually a moby, and don't want to be thought of as one, then I suggest you drop 'theocrat' and any similarly preposterous, offensive stuff from your vocabulary, and let's have a discussion without all the ad-hominem junk, ok?

Wait. Do you think I am defending the RNC? It is a good article and certainly points out what has become of the party, in as you put it, in anecdotal terms.

But it begs the question, "Where's the Beef". Were is a cohesive and winning Philosophical statement, like the Contract with America, Reagan's vision?

As far as the Kevin Phillips books, they are excellent popular political histories and as far as the political pedigree of any number of politial blocs in the country including the Dixiecrats and the present southern wing of the party, it is as good as anything I have come across. If you have something better, let me know.

I have no idea what a moby is and I don't see anything wrong with the term theocrat. It means to me, those of the political bent that want to blur a sacrosanct line drawn in the Constitution dealing with the separation of Church and State. If you feel like giving me another term. Please feel free and I will consider it.

toc3 -

So, by way of explaining yourself, you throw Kevin Phillips at me?

I would suggest though you might spend some time looking at electoral losses on a national level everywhere but the south.

How far do you want to go with this? Since the Democrats bid farewell to the "Solid South" in the sixties, Republicans have won 6 out of 10 elections, carrying every state in the union at one time or another - including two 49-state blowouts.

It is the Democratic Party that has not been able to rely on a solid foothold anywhere, not even New England. To see some sinister pattern in these tea leaves is nothing but Democratic wishful thinking transformed into Republican fatalism.

To harbor inchoate suspicions about southerners and "overly religious people" (which ones?) is likewise nothing but asking conservatism to put on the long face of liberal bigotry and condescension.

Fears of theocracy and Confederate atavism are plain and simple stupidity, and always have been. It is the banal evil of secular statism that breathes down our necks, boys and girls.

Get it straight: My great-great-grandfather fought in the Civil War, on the side that WON, and my all-time favorite Americans are Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and William T. Sherman. I'm about as southern as the Aurora Borealis, and my historical sympathy for the Confederacy (and the politics that fostered it) are nil. But that war was fought to unite and reconcile Americans, as was the fight for civil rights. To taint the South with all the sins of the past is to second the lazy thinking of the other side, and conservatism needs that about as much as it needs Kevin Phillips.

toc,

GIGF. But in the interest of saving you a bit of time:

moby

Also, you might want to spend some of your own time googling 'theocrat' and 'theocracy', as the people you're disparaging aren't anything of the kind. (Yes, yes, I know, there are 6 or 7 real theocrats in the US, like these guys, but figuring out that they aren't the same as the conservative wing of the Republican Party is left as an exercise for the reader.)

And sure, the charge of moby is a serious one, and I don't suggest it lightly. But given the way you throw around 'theocracy' about those you should/could/might be making common cause with, is certainly troubling. And if you don't know that the term is highly offensive to those social conservatives who aren't in fact Reconstructionists or the like, maybe you shouldn't be using it in the first place.

Oops, sorry, that's supposed to be GIYF. (Google is your friend.)

My response to that as someone who identifies as "conservative" but not "social conservative" (and not libertine capital ell Libertarian either) is twofold: a) yeah, statism effing sucks, and b) depends on what you mean by "secular".

Well, by secular I mean "irrespective of any religion", i.e., not a theocracy.

Theocracy requires a dominant religion and a clerical class that exercises power. As ubiquitous as religion is, theocracy is extremely rare. It could be applied only to Saudi Arabia and Iran, and even there only with qualifications.

Even if the constitution were burned tomorrow, the United States lacks both requirements for theocracy. Great Britain has both requirements, and an imaginary constitution, and yet has avoided theocracy for 95% of its historical existence.

The idea of America as a theocracy is not informed by history, but mainly by 2 cents-per-word science fiction, which tends to assume (falsely and unscientifically) that theocracy is the natural condition of mankind.

I'd personally like to see some kind of modus vivendi between the sane moderate libertarians ... and the social conservatives ...

The only reaction I have seen is more of the same dixicrat/ theocratic nonsense which I think is lethal to the Party.
...
As far as swing voters are concerned, I do not think that independents will be attracted to the theocratic social engineering ideas that are beginning to show up on the far right.
...
Rovian politics and Neo conservatism have proved to be a disaster...

And rereading your #29 makes me ask, just what was so funny about Fred's comment? The folks he refers to are real people, real thinkers, of some influence, and (in the case of First Things at least) former D's-gone-R that haven't the slightest whiff of Dixiecrat or even Southernness about them.

This PPP poll of Mass is shocking (quite aside from the senate race. 55% of likely voters in Massachusetts have an unfavorable view of democrats in congress? 53% find them too liberal? That's the identical percentage that find Republicans too conservative. This is the bluest state in the union. link

Aside from all the sound and fury, Americans by and large find our political system to polarized above anything else. Republicans ran as fiscal conservatives and ruled as social conservative big-business kleptocrats. Democrats ran as moderate and fiscally disciplined (spinning some ludicrous tale of free lunches that shockingly ended up being impossible to produce) and are governing as liberal big-business kleptocrats. What this DOESN'T mean as the the ruling party produces radical agendas and the other party should toss a couple of token RINOs or DINOs to provide bipartisan cover. That aint compromise.

The Dems are trying to run hard left and finding that even their base isn't ok with that. The base ISNT the extreme, not for either party, that's the mistake. Most Dems, rank and file, want to insure more Americans. That doesn't mean that they, like their political masters, want any monstrosity that can be slapped together and called progress.

As far as the Republican part goes- this idea that its a 'southern' party doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bush won reelection with 31 states and 51% of the electorate just 6 years ago. McCain won 22 states and 46% despite all the disadvantages specific to that election.

The only way you can really make that claim is giving inordinate power to California and NY, as though the flyover states aren't important. You could just as easily make the argument that the Dems are a regional party of LA and NYC every year aside from the Obama hurricane. Every state that went from red to blue between 04 and 08 is still hotly contested, if not firmly back in the red camp after the last year. Add to that some seriously pissed off folks in the steel belt and you can make a pretty good argument that its the Dems that are running a regional party and rolling their eyes as 'main street' America between the coasts.

As far as the Republican part goes- this idea that its a 'southern' party doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bush won reelection with 31 states and 51% of the electorate just 6 years ago. McCain won 22 states and 46% despite all the disadvantages specific to that election.

Not to mention that the south has grown like kudzu since the Democrats dominated it. Texas is now bigger than New York, Florida is now bigger than Pennsylvania, and Georgia is bigger than Massachusetts. New England, on the other hand, has gone from 142 electoral votes in 1968 to 117, and is about to shrink again.

No wonder the folks who dwelleth under bridges are so worried ...

Funny, last time I heard, elections were won on electoral votes. Care to take a look at the electoral maps from 2004 and 2008

-Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico - Gone
-The West Coast solidly Democratic
-Iowa, Indiana, Ohio - Gone Midwest solidly Democratic
-Virginia, North Carolina and Florida - gone

The GOP got 100 votes from the south and only 73 in the rest of the county. Looks like a regional party to me.

Worse, Obama pulled 55 votes out of the South. So, the regional party is having trouble in its region.

The national level also includes the House and Senate. I doubt that anyone is unaware what happened in the last 2 election cycles.

"The only way you can really make that claim is giving inordinate power to California and NY, as though the flyover states aren't important"

The flyover states are worth exactly what their population dictates on a national level, save for the 2 representative state equalizer that shows up in the Senate which is carried over into the electoral college, nothing more nothing less. The Republican Party has alienated large parts of the country. Many of you don't want to face that.

Fine, but it does not change the voting in the last 2 elections, 2006 and 2008. Nor, that the GOP has become a regional party and I do not want them continuing the agenda that got them there.

The agenda being Rovian politics and the divisive, uncompromising positions that sprang from it and are now rife within the party.

(The term RINO is particularly offensive, being as it is expressly forbidden by the 11th Commandment.)

And, of course, the brainless NeoCon Cancer that was allowed to eclipse a brilliant Post-War Republican Foreign Policy that devised Containment, Detente, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We are now less than ten months away from an election. Can anyone give me an idea of what the Party is going to run on aside from we are not the democrats. Has any vision been elucidated by the Leaders of the Party, whomever they might be?