Moderates vs. Conservatives – time to bury the hatchet
By Brian Schoeneman | Saturday, December 11th, 2010 | Policy, PoliticsAs any of my good friends can tell you, my political hero is Theodore Roosevelt. A two term GOP President, he brought the nation into the 20th century, championed reform of the civil service, established our credentials as a world power, was a prolific writer and political thinker, and helped shape the modern presidency. Those are the good things. He also led the largest schism in the history of the Republican Party, creating a third party that helped split GOP votes and return the Democrats to the White House for the first time in sixteen years. He took on Republican nominee and his former protege, William Howard Taft, who had the support of the conservatives within the party.
Fortunately, the schism didn’t last long, and within eight years we would return to the White House for the better part of two decades spanning three presidencies. The Progressive Party – Roosevelt’s ‘Bull Moose’ Party – was the most viable third party in American history, and his winning of 6 states, 88 electoral votes and 27% of the popular vote has been the high water mark of third party presidential hopes in American political history. If Theodore Roosevelt – probably the most well-known and popular man in the world in the years after he left the White House – couldn’t win at the head of a third party ticket, no one can.
Roosevelt has been on my mind lately, as I’ve been reading the third and final volume of Edmund Morris’s Theodore Roosevelt biography series, Colonel Roosevelt.
I couldn’t help but be reminded of what happened in 1912 when I read a story in today’s Politico about the Minnesota Republican Party expelling 18 prominent party members – including two former governors and one former U.S. Senator – over their support for a third party candidate in this year’s gubernatorial election there. The Minnesota GOP believes that support for the third-party candidate cost the Republican the race. The members who were expelled were considered more moderate, and Politico characterized the loss as similar to killing off an endangered species in one of its few remaining natural habitats. And as anyone who has read my stuff knows, I am closer to the center of our party.
That being said, I agree with what the Minnesota GOP did. Both the middle of the GOP, guys like me, and the right of the GOP need to stop with the bickering. It’s time to bury the hatchet and stop trying to fight for control of the party. We must learn to work together. If we don’t, we risk splitting the party like we did in 1912 – and that virtually hands the Democrats control. I’m a firm believer in the Republican party and in the democratic process. If moderates run and lose, I say support the nominee. If conservatives run and lose, I will still say support the nominee. I was upset when Mike Castle lost the nomination in Delaware, but I said we should support O’Donnell as our nominee. I was upset when Joe Miller beat Lisa Murkowski in the primary, but I still said support the nominee. I was unhappy when Pat Herrity lost to Keith Fimian, but on election day, I was standing in front of a polling place – as I always do – handing out sample ballots for Fimian and freezing my butt off. I believe in party loyalty. Every individual is different, but our party and our loyalty to that party is one the thread that ties us all together. I know that when I meet another Republican, he is going to agree with me on more issues than when I meet a Democrat. If you like sports analogies, here’s one – I may hate the Yankees with every fiber of my being, but I’ll be rooting for them in the World Series, because I’m an American League fan.
I am tired of seeing candidates who lose in a primary leave the party and keep running. It is divisive and it is unnecessary, even when they win. I’m sure many Republicans, like me, were happy when Joe Lieberman ran against Ned Lamont and won. But part of me always disliked him for doing that. No one was more critical of Arlen Spector when he switched parties than I was (although I understood why he did it). And I have to admit that I am not devastated to see Joe Miller lose in Alaska. But I stand by my condemnation of Lisa Murkowski for her write-in candidacy. Party primaries and conventions have to mean something. At the very least, we must all be able to agree to that much.
Now, these views have garnered me a lot of acrimony from a lot of folks on both sides of the aisle. Democrats say I should care more about the person running than their party – an easy thing to say when you want to get the other side to vote for your guy. Tea Partiers say that I have no principles and only care about winning elections – again, an easy thing to say. But I don’t simply believe in winning elections, I also care about governing. And governance means incremental change. It means compromise. It means striking the right balance between reform and the status quo. And when you have divided government – as we have in Virginia and will soon have again in Washington – it means not letting perfect be the enemy of good enough. It takes more than one man to govern effectively. It takes voting majorities. It takes groups willing to work together, and you can’t get those alone. It takes a party. And that’s why if we want center/right principles to win the day and be the foundation for policy, we need the strongest Republican Party we can find.
If the Tea Party decides to run off and form its own party, they will learn what the Progressives learned in 1912, the same lesson the Reformers learned in 1992. At best, we can split our base votes and hand election after election to the Democrats. And, in the end, we’ll be worse off for it. Contrary to what seems to be a mantra amongst some on the far right, a moderate Republican is NOT worse for governing than a liberal Democrat. Not by a long shot. While Clinton wasn’t the worst Democratic president we’ve ever had, I think another 4 years for George H.W. Bush would have been even better. And for my moderate colleagues who can’t stand conservatives like Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell, I will say the same thing – you’re not going to be able to split off and recreate the Whig Party and win. Those people who say they are “scared” of Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell can rest assured that the American system of governance is strong enough to withstand a weak executive or a bad legislator. We survived James Buchanan, Taft and Warren Harding in the White House and Huey Long, John C. Calhoun and Eugene McCarthy in the Senate – we could have survived an O’Donnell term in the Senate and we can still survive a Palin Administration. Our system is stronger than any one man, and those who are scared – even of Obama, Reid, Pelosi and others – should not allow their dislike to overcome their faith in our institutions. They have withstood time, war, famine and economic disaster. They will still be here long after we are all gone.
At the end of the day, we all have two choices – Republican or Democrat. Picking a third way is a waste and a cop-out, the easy choice of people unwilling to decide or defend their beliefs when challenged by others. It’s easy to say “I hate both sides” or “I’m independent” – it takes guts to pick and side and try and fix the problems you see from the inside rather throwing up your hands and going outside. Roosevelt did that and he was wrong. These 18 moderates in Minnesota did that and they were wrong. Third parties are not viable. They are a waste of time, a waste of resources and a wasted vote.
Both sides of our party need to recognize that we need the other. If you don’t believe that, take a look at what is happening inside the Democratic party right now. Modern day “progressives” (who are far closer to the Socialists of Eugene Debs in 1912 than Roosevelt’s Progressive Party) are livid with President Obama for recognizing that he can’t win everything he wants and compromising with us on extending the current tax rates for all Americans. They are as mad at Obama right now as the Tea Party is with George W. Bush and guys like me. These liberals laud guys like Bernie Sanders – a self-proclaimed socialist – and heap scorn on the man they all voted for and were proclaiming as the most transformational political figure in history just two years ago. If things keep going the way they are, all the comparisons between President Obama and Clinton, or Obama and Carter, are going to start turning into Obama and William Howard Taft – cut off at the knees by his more popular predecessor. The President should be fortunate that the 22nd Amendment bars Clinton from doing exactly what Roosevelt did to Taft.
As we prepare to move into the 2011 election season here in Virginia, I hope that both sides of our party can recognize that maintaining our control and expanding it in the House of Delegates, and winning back control of the Senate are our top priorities. To win, we are going to need moderates and conservatives, “RINOs” and Tea Partiers, working alike and across the state to elect Republicans to office. I firmly believe that we share far more similarities than differences, and even where the differences are more apparent, the are nothing compared to the differences we have with the folks on the other side of the aisle.
Roosevelt made a bad decision when he walked out of the Republican convention in June of 1912. Those moderates in Minnesota made a bad decision when they backed a third-party candidate for governor. I hope we can learn from these mistakes and move forward together. There’s too much at stake to make those same mistakes.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
A veteran political professional, a long-time Republican party activist and new attorney, Brian W. Schoeneman has been offering his opinions at Bearing Drift since 2010. He serves on the Board of Virginia Line Media, LLC, which operates Bearing Drift and spends his days representing the U.S. Merchant Marine in Washington, D.C. He hails from Fairfax County, Virginia, where he lives with his wife and son.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
67 Responses to "Moderates vs. Conservatives – time to bury the hatchet"
Well, there was one third party that began in the 1850′s that still seems to be doing pretty well for itself.
To your larger point, I think folks just need to learn when to pick their battles. Why does it have to be on EVERY issue?
By that point, we were the dominate second party. The Whigs had imploded and the Know-Nothings were a sectional joke.
I think picking battles is definitely key, but I wish we’d pick our battles with the Democrats, not with each other.
Great article Brian. Still not going to support Allen.
LOL, that’s why I love you Turbo.
No one circles their wagons and shoots inward better than the GOP.
The Tea Party supported the main stream Repubs but the main stream Repubs didn’t support the Tea Partiers. They did everything they could to undercut them, not only in Alaska and Delaware but elsewhere such as Nevada. Trent Lott and presumably McConnell lurking behind him said the Tea Partiers were dangerous and had to be co-opted or else. I do give credit to Boehner and Cantor. They have been more inclusive and accepting. So the question is whether the main stream Repubs can get over their hissy fit and also their socialism lite proclivities. I hope for the best but I’m skeptical. We already have Repubs like Grassley rushing to add unrelated pork barrel spending to the tax rate bill. The king of pork is now head of Appropriations. If the Tea Party bolts the Repubs may become the third party.
Valentinus, that’s just not true. Most Republicans backed our nominees. The idea that “everything was done to undercut them” is paranoiac nonsense. It’s that kind of thinking that we need to get beyond. O’Donnell, Miller, and Angle all lost because they ran bad campaigns. O’Donnell was never credible, Miller couldn’t stop with the Thomas Dewey routine and Angle’s campaign was hopelessly inept. They have no one to blame for their losses but themselves. That all of them got at least 40% means they got the bulk of Republican votes.
Grassley is Grassley, and its important to recognize that being head of Appropriations in the Senate is being like Chairman of the Rules Committee. A big deal in the House, not a big deal in the Senate. And its weird to think of him as the “King of Pork,” but I guess Stevens and Byrd are both gone.
If the Tea Party bolts, they will – as history has always proven – end up marginalized and gone within a decade.
I Was referring to Rogers in the House Appropriations but left off the modifier. I cited Grassley only in the adding of extraneous pork after an election based on a revolt by Republicans against such behavior. Did I hear McConnell criticize him for doing it?
I did not say that the Tea Party candidates mentioned were strong candidates or lost primarily because of the backbiting – simply that the establishment Republicans undercut them in ways that the Tea Partiers did Not do with the establishment candidates who got nominated. Would you like to google the statements of Republican officials against the Tea Party in general and these candidates in particular? The Republican Senate committee did not distinguish itself either. I gave credit where credit was due so I don’t understand the blanket attack. I hope for the best – I hope Republicans realize they must return to Constitutional limited government and Reaganism. Is there really a need for two parties advocating socialism and brontosaurus government?
Of course, majorities are only worthwhile if something is accomplished.
And the flip side to all of this is that, for those maintaining these massive coalitions we call political parties, is to ensure that everyone gets a little slice of the pie.
Too often, it’s the moderates and establishment types that hold on to power for its own sake, while leaving both the fiscal and social conservatives out in the cold. The betrayal of the base is no way to apply mortar to the building blocks of what makes the GOP great.
Truth be told, the GOP was always better in the opposition. There’s nothing wrong with taking little steps to the right until the box of conversation hovers around the true issues the conservative movement wishes to discuss — rather than haggling over the $1 billion tax hike or the $3 billion tax hike…
Just random thoughts.
Rogers isn’t close to being the king of pork in the house, and Jerry Lewis getting the job would have been a signal that it was business as usual in the House. It’s not.
The Tea Party has got to stop with the “everyone is out to get us” routine. So what if some Senate Republicans didn’t get behind them? Those guys don’t vote in the elections we lost. Endorsements don’t matter in the long run. I am really sick of the blame game. Its about the voters, not the elected officials. McConnell could have gone door to door in Nevada and Angle would still a have lost.
We don’t need to return to anything. We need to move forward. We should use the past as a guide, but we cannot go backwards.
…and just to be certain, “bury the hatchet” usually means that conservatives must give up on their principles, rather than moderates sucking it in and taking the hard gut-check votes.
I don’t mind the “bury the hatchet” talk, because I understand that coalitions win elections. It’s a tightrope, to be sure…
Yes, What Shaun said …. The Republicans rose from the political dead from the energy of the Tea Party. The Republicans earned that support by steadfast opposition to the Dems’ major policy initiatives – not by tweaking them. Let’s hope they remember that. And let’s hope they learn better how to bend the Dems rather than getting bent themselves.
Brian said “The Tea Party has got to stop with the “everyone is out to get us” routine.”
Until the republican party leadership stops acting like democrats in drag the tea party will march on with ot without the gop. It is expected to see dems voting for more pork and engorged government and that is one reason why tea folk harp on republicans.. Even tea party blue dog dems bleed conservative red white & blue moreso than the rinos who defend earmarks and the hocus pocus bills that pad their campaigns with the crumbs and entrails their pork deals brought home. McConnell huffed, oinked and puffed about the need for earmarks.. uh, hello!! Until the gop leadership from the top down is no longer giving the constitutional conservatives a blowhard excuse for their creatively disguised spending charades, they will continue to receive scorn yes even if the gop loses sometimes, because the tea party is out to get THEM. I cannot think of one rino the tea party has fallen in behind.
Unity with rinos will ensure a dem victory.. it worked in ’94 & ’06 wouldn’t you agree?
Brian, I agree that one shouldn’t “make perfect” the enemy of the good”. I also agree with your statements about united fronts being necessary for winning. I totally agree with the concepts of incremental change and being willing to work within the system.
The problem is Brian, all rhetoric aside, the establishment blue bloods and portions of moderate Republicans don’t
*sigh* hit send accidently on my cell phone. I miss the editor feature.
Anyway, it is the establishment and moderates sequestering themselves. It is the fiscal conservatives, the Ron Paul, Republicans, libertarian minded Republicans, and Social Conservatives that are marginalized.
So while the establishment is setting up McCain like failures, the other groups work around the system and have to do the real work. The GOP is just as responsible for the outrage that created the Tea Party as the Democrats are.
I mean, when you have Republicans mocking the personal statement of not believing in Darwin’s theories…….that goes a bit beyond just saying that JFred mismanaged. That casts out a good number of your party. They have freedom of speech & religion too ya know.
Coalitions? It doesn’t take much effort to find Republicans establishment types calling Ron Paul people names. The deride the Tea Party as much as Democrats do.
It is little hard to form a coalition when you don’t offer a real seat at the table and you do nothing to stop policies that will serve to damage our economy and freedoms.
There are two sides to making peace. The establishment have to play their part.
Well said Britt,
As for the Tea Party, there are only three things the Tea Party stand for and one being fiscal responsible. Now, we must bury the hatchet and negotiate one of the only three principles we’d brought to the table?
Plus, Repubs can’t champion fiscal responsibility when they want ethanol pork in a tax reduction bill. Especially when the father of Global Warming condemned it.
How can the establishment Democrat-lites dog the Tea Party and then tell them that they should bury the hatchet? In 2009, James Carville wrote off the Repubs for the next 50 years. How conveniently we forget that history.
No Republican backed Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle or Joe Miller. …and the Alaska election is rather suspect. Republicans did everything they could to curb the elections, whether it was pull campaign money, withhold support or run as a write-in with 161 other write-in candidates. They went after Rubio and Paul also but they ran near-perfect campaigns.
Meanwhile, you had Blumenthol who didn’t know how to create a job and a Marxist who didn’t get any publicity…and they got elected. Didn’t hear how stupid these people were from our Moderate friends. And still haven’t.
There are 2 parts of this argument I wanted to weigh in on.
1. The assumption that “establishment types” are somehow all squishy moderates. Load of crap. The most moderate established leader is still more conservative than Dick Saslaw or Harry Reid. Take a guy like Steve Martin or Mark Cole. These guys have been around a long time but are some of the most conservative out there. And labels aside, isn’t this about electing the most conservative candidates we can?
2. Every major Republican came out in support of O’Donnell, Miller and especially Angle. They were better than the folks they beat in the primary BUT they turned out to be weak candidates. It’s not enough to just nominate a conservative or a good candidate. We NEED to nominate people who are both!
SteveThomas came here and said what I was coming to say. This is what drives me crazy – can anyone argue that Ken Cuccinelli is not part of the Republican establishment? Or Bob Marshall? They’ve both been Republicans for over a decade. What about Jim DeMint? He’s been in Congress for over 20 years. How many of the current self-proclaimed Tea Partiers that you know on the local level were Republicans first and became Tea Partiers when the movement picked up steam?
I am not strictly talking to the Tea Party – I think both sides have made mistakes. The moderates who backed a third party candidate in Minnesota did the wrong thing. The moderates who make fun of the Tea Party, say they’re “scared” of Palin and O’Donnell, etc. are just as bad as the Tea Party members who want to pretend like what happened in November was all about them and the establishment had nothing to do with it. Both sides deserve credit for the victory, and some blame for the failures.
John, to say that “no Republican backed O’Donnell, etc.” is just a flat out falsehood. How can you even make that claim with a straight face? Nothing that you said even remotely approaches reality. That kind of attitude is exactly what I’m talking about here.
I’m not asking for compromises on specific legislation. All I want is for the backbiting and accusations to stop. I want to see the Tea Party stop calling those of us in the center “Democrats-lite” or claim we don’t have any principles. I want to see moderates stop calling those on the far right racists, crazy, and looking down their noses at them. I see value in all Republicans and I want my fellow Republicans to share that belief.
We are all on the same team. Neither the establishment or the Tea Party can win without the other.
I also disagree with folks who criticize the TEA partiers. In my region, they have been an extraordinarily good influence and contribute to the debate from the conservative side. As a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, I will take any help I can get to advance my cause.
To be clear, I was speaking I generalities. I do not percieve “all” establishment Republicans to be moderate. Additionally, not all moderates are rabid attackers of the other groups in their own party.
I do consider Cuccinelli & Marshall to be a part of the “establishment”. The difference is they are high profile examples of establishment Republicans that DO reach out to the other groups. Absolutely why Tea Partiers and even many Libertarians like these guys. When it comes to Cuccinelli & Marshall, we don’t let the perfect be their enemy. Those two are hardly perfect, but on balance, they’re both darn good.
I understand the frustration some may have with the fact that some of the Tea Party candidates were not good candidates. I can appreciate that fact. The problem is that is the fault of the establishment in general for allowing things to get so bad that there is this kind of uprising.
The Tea Party candidates did get some support. I agree. Some however, were given the cold shoulder and SOME quietly hoped for the Democrats to win. Some practice “support the candidate” the same way they complain that others do/don’t.
Who said GOP establishment types were moderates? The issue is who holds the power, the people or the politicians. The people are enraged with the process of governance, regardless of party. The GOP establishment politicians went out of their way to make sure they were leading the mob, lest they fall victim to its wrath. From most accounts it worked. Now that the election crisis is over, the ‘party’ would rather bury the hatchet and be one party with the elites still in charge. Be honest. What’s changed with the Rovians back in charge of the party, other than the tea baggers assuming the subservient position they were intended to have?
Civility is something that is no longer taught or exercised in our country, as much as I can agree with you.
There’s a new book just out about Amerians who actually take a stand against tyranny. I recommend it.
http://www.booksbyoliver.com
It’s not just the Republicans breaking up into groups, the Democrats are having a horrible time right now with Obama “crossing over” to the Republicans.
Thanks for keeping civility in the news!
Let’s not speak in generalities. There are enough exceptions that the rule itself is questionable and I’d rather us all not tar good Republicans or conservatives in the cause of anger.
You have a problem with bad candidates like Angle? Me too. You have a problem with Republicans not supporting those bad candidates? Me too. I want to elect conservatives. Who’s with me?
I totally reject your suggestion that there are enough exceptions. Were that indeed the case, there would probably not be a Tea Party and fiscal hawks would be quietly wishing the budget was better handled. Instead, we have a huge movement of people pointing to negligence of the Republican leadership in general.
Before the Tea Party movement and under Bush, not a damn thing was being done about overspending and damaging the economy.
So far would I say Bush was better than Obama? Absolutely. That said, let me paraphrase what appeared in a BD article a while back:
The claim that you suck less
“The claim that you suck less, is not a compelling arguement”
- sorry another error caused by the touch screen on my phone.
I dunno. I’d call Chairman Mullins an establishment guy, but he’s a rock-ribbed conservative. My point is that just because someone is “establishment” doesn’t mean they are not conservative. That’s why I tend to prefer the terminology “conservative” rather than TEA party or establishment. Those terms are meaningless to me because not all established Republicans are equal and not all TEA parties are equal either.
Steve, you missed the point. I agree that there are conservatives that are also considered “establishment”. The point is that the powers in the party didn’t even come close to preventing what caused the Tea Party to form to start with.
Democrats constantly throw the fact that there wasn’t any of this Tea Party stuff going on when Republicans were the ones blowing the budget. They are right and the GOP should be embarrassed about that. It was only a hand full of fiscal conservatives in and out of the GOP that said anything.
As a whole, the establishment shares blame because they could have insisted that the party creed be followed. They could have insisted on responsible spending. Yes, there are exceptions, but not enough of them. How so? We got the spending levels, growth of government, and the bailouts to prove it.
It is just that simple. I’m willing to note that there are exceptions, but I won’t just ignore what happend and hold the GOP power holders blameless .
Making peace is a good idea. The top just has to convince the grass roots that they mean it and they really do have a seat at the table under that “big tent”.
If you’re just gonna offer rhetorical sweet nothings and promise not to do it again, forget it. The other side has to show that there’s something worth coming home to.
Okay, here goes. The view from a chair in the center is this. Obama and the Democrats leveraged Bush’s unpopularity, the timing of the economic downturn / housing crash / investment bank failures to get the majority of Congress and the Whit House. Republican’s were stunned.
The party members, after coming to from the election KO, started looking for someone to blame. Well, it HAD to be the party “establishment”. A few hard core conservatives saw this as an opportunity to grasp power within the Republican Party and started this Tea Party stuff. Lo and behold, it actually caught on. More of them came out of the woodwork and momentum was gained. Terms like “RINO” gained popularity, they grew and grew and next thing you know, its Nov 2010 and they have candidates. Now a true fight for the party is ON!
Realize this: big business runs the Republican Party. They aligned with mainstream party leaders because they could be managed with campaign funds & could be counted on to work in the favor of business. The Tea Party is composed of individuals desiring of a lessening of the pork barrel; the chits business gets back for their the investment in their candidates /office holders. The Tea Party will only be tolerated if it works within the interests of big business, such as the case was in the healthcare debate. When the Tea Party diverges away from such positions, it will lose funding, or more likely see the “RINO” candidates getting funded and being nominated. This is going to be nothing but a brutal fight for re-establishing control of the party by business.
I suppose I’m not sure that my philosophy of “let’s elect conservatives” doesn’t address your concerns.
@Britt –
Totally agree. Those who have been on the outside for years are now suddenly discovering that there’s a lot more likeminded folks than not.
Establishment Republicans that preach party loyalty over loyalty to principles should be swept out of office. Period.
Now I will agree that there are some establishment types that are true to principle. I hesitate to call Cuccinelli and Marshall “establishment” Republicans though — as the two of them and many, many others were carrying the conservative banner long before the Tea Party became popular.
Of course, with an organic movement like the Tea Party, one always has to worry about those who call themselves leaders in the movement. One person can make an organization, or a committee representing thousands with no leadership. For every Jamie Radtke, there’s some dude with a blog claiming to be something they’ve never been (can’t think of an example, but you get the point — some folks have substance, others don’t).
The kicker is this: Will the Tea Party realize that 30% doesn’t make a majority? Conversely, will the establishment GOP realize that their coalition cannot function or operate without the support of the Tea Party and movement conservatives?
The “revolution” of 1994 can never happen again. Should the GOP not deliver on promises to reduce the size and scope of government, the Tea Party and the conservative movement writ large will find leaders who will.
The real question is whether the moderates within the GOP are willing to link arms with a conservative movement they’ve never trusted, and a Tea Party they don’t understand. It’s not terribly inconceivable for moderate Republicans to walk into the arms of a Democratic Party willing to jettison the progressive wing…
We can chop this up all sorts of ways:
– Moderates vs. conservatives
– Establishment vs. Tea Party
– Conservatives who have fought in the trenches vs. a Tea Party that doesn’t care who kept the torches lit
– Conservatives vs. libertarians
– Fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives
…the list goes on.
Any true leader will be able to bind all of these factions into one party movement. Because at the end of the day, there are ways to fix the denominator of gov’t so that free enterprise can flourish. The less power the government has, the more power and ability we have to build that shining city on a hill.
After all, let’s face it — any society so wrapped up in political religions is a society doomed to fail.
We should be looking for ways to chain and then starve the Leviathan state. That’s what binds us — and the more those who see government as the problem squabble, the more time it has to feed on and grow upon American society.
So… kill the Leviathan. Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, moderates, Tea Party newbies, classical liberals, Austrians (the economic theory), and all those who oppose the nanny state should be able to rally around that simple principle.
The idea that the Republican Party is the party of big business is simply not true anymore. If this were 1906, I wouldn’t debate it. But modern industry is far more savvy than it used to be. Business cares about one thing in politics – business. If you look at who companies give to with their PACs, it is almost exclusively incumbents and incumbents of both parties. They don’t care who is in charge, so long as they have access to them.
The idea that the Republican Party is the party of the super rich is also simply not true anymore. As many or more of the richest Americans self identify as Democrats as they do Republicans. Most of Hollywood is solidly Democratic – and they aren’t broke out there.
Both parties appeal to people at every step along the socio-economic spectrum. Neither party is controlled by some shadow network of puppet masters no one can see.
Fact is, things are generally a lot simpler in the explanation than we assume.
The republican establishment and/or RINOS are what brought the party to the 2008 election outcome. What brought the Republican Party Victory in the 2010 election was a gall force wind called the “tea Party”! I have been tired of holding my nose and voting for the RINO case in point was John warner. This election was about a couple issues one being defict spending and look at the deal they Republicans are going to make that will include pork and more defict spending. The Republican establishment evidently has not gotten the message yet. And what going on with the next Speaker of the House crying to Barbara Waters on 60 minutes! We need backbones not tears to turn this Country around.
Shaun, party loyalty IS a principle. And the goal is that there is never a situation where you have to choose between the two. They go hand in hand.
But here’s the kicker for me – who gets to define what a principle is? For me, I believe in compromise – I am willing to sacrifice perfect for good enough because I would rather move the ball forward slowly than sit still unless I can get whatever I want. That’s a key principle to my philosophy of governance – I know it may not be yours, but who gets to decide which principles we play by? There’s nothing in the GOP Creed that says “thou shalt not cut deals.”
The Democratic party will no more jettison their progressives than we Republicans will jettison our social conservatives. As much as I disagree with them, I am smart enough to know that they are necessary.
What I am looking for is a cause celebre that can unify the party – something that everyone, from moderates to Tea Partiers, can get behind. It has to be a policy – it can’t be a person. The cult of personality model of leadership that the Democrats love doesn’t work for us.
The one thing that I see that binds everyone in the party together is fiscal issues. We can all agree that we have to get spending under control and until that is done, we should be shelving all talk of any kinds of tax increases.
But the real question is once that’s done, where do we go from there? I think that’s really what caused our undoing after 2000. We basically had solved the fiscal problem, and the party ran off in a dozen different directions and in turn lost our way. We let the fiscal stuff go, and now we’re back where we started. It’s a frustrating, sisyphean task, but it has to be done. We know the Democrats won’t do it, so we have to.
But for us to do it, we have to be united. And that means guys like me need to admonish moderates when they start talking stupid, and folks inside the Tea Party need to do the same thing for their members. We have got to work together.
Mark, that’s horsehockey. We lost in 2008 because we’d been in charge too long and people wanted something different. Unless the economy had been humming along like it was in 2005, there was no way we would have beaten any Democrat in 2008. Ronald Reagan himself could not have beat Obama.
This is, yet again, what I am talking about. The Tea Party did not win the 2010 elections all by themselves. There is no way they could have. There simply aren’t enough of them. I was no John Warner fan either and I’m a moderate.
We need to stop with the rhetorical attacks on each other and focus our attention on the Democrats.
Tim, Thanks for a great read.. that was a good post.
Follow the money.. Big Business interests fund leaders from both parties and sometimes it appears to be different individuals but it is the same businesses. The common man/woman instinctively understands this all too well. The tea party movement is the only modern day successful mass movement to drive a wedge between those who seek to control the masses in both parties since together the dem and gop establishments are THE ONE and only Washington establishment. Together dem and gop put wings on the big government bird that is flying high and preys on the easy kill of business money as effectively as a combine gathering corn. Follow the money.. without it the bird becomes weak.
@Brian — fiscal issues are what split the RPV in 2004 with the tax hike. I’m not so sure that is the long pole of the big tent anymore…
…and here’s the other kicker. Government is *always* growing. The only compromises we make are *always* with the Democrats. They always get half — we always lose half.
The status quo is compromise. Why we always have to “do the right thing” and concede on principle is beyond me… and it’s just that sort of statesmanship that drives conservatives and the Tea Party absolutely up a wall.
For instance, I would love to see the GOP pressure the Democrats on any government-funded project or entitlement. Let’s see them give ground for once, rather than the GOP reducing a $600 billion plan to a $350 billion plan (or some equivalent nonsense).
Brian- I can understand how you feel especially if the GOP is the highest principle, but my question is this:
What is the goal/policy/platform is the tea party is to compromise on? And what should moderates compromise on? How much liberty do moderates want?
How much socialism is acceptable?
And frankly, the tea party movement has compromised. As a movement we overwhelming supported GOP nominees in the mid-term elections. As a movement, we did not run 3rd party candidates. For that compromise, we got a bogus tax deal, and the liberal Fred Upton (grandson of the founder of Whirlpool) as the head of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The tea party knew what it was doing, few of us expected the GOP leadership to “get it”. The 2010 midterm goal – break the supermajority in congress, and get a full repeal of Obamacare and roll back the extreme leftist Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda, and elected as many authentic liberty oriented people as possible.
So we did the compromise largely as a stop-gap measure until we could raise up an entirely new field of authentically conservative candidates.
One can compromise on a tactic, a strategy, the timing of an issue,a structure, perhaps even on a definition. But one cannot compromise on a principle. Tell me, what is the compromise on abortion? Only some pre-born infants die? Only some of the time? Only in certain ways?
What is the compromise in a parent’s authority and responsibility over a child (barring extreme things like abuse)?
What is the compromise on national debt? Fiat money?
What is the compromise on bogus climate change?
What is the compromise on the Constitution? Only certain articles? Only certain amendments?
What is the compromise on private property? Only some of my property belongs to me? The government has limited rights to say how my property is used – and only if there is a compelling interest in public safety or my neighbor’s property values – like having a toxic waste facility next to a neighborhood. But compromise on how much of my children’s inheritance the state can steal through taxes? NO compromise. How much of my income is mine? (according to the government – the compromise is 50%.)
What are the compromises? Saving the GOP? The GOP is *only* a mechanism to get citizens from private citizen to elected public servant. It is not a source of governance. The majority of the tea party doesn’t believe in party loyalty as a principle. We believe in loyalty to principles as a “party”.
Compromise in and of itself is not a sacred value. An incremental approach is useful in some things. However, we did not gain our freedom from Britain incrementally. The Founders did not see fit to wean the colonies from tyrannical sovereign over a 20 year period. They revolted. Only AFTER they won their Independence did they agree to “work together” with Britain. The war of 1812 was Britain’s answer. Only after the U.S. pummeled Britain again, did the Brits “get it” and respect the sovereignty of the United States.
Slavery was not overthrown in this country incrementally.
There is no political Utopia. The Tea Party movement is principled AND pragmatic. Please elaborate on the specific compromises and increments that we are supposed to find acceptable.
Extremely informative discussion by Brian and Shaun. Just outstanding. I would vote for either of you.
I tend to think more like Turbo since I lived in Fairfax County inside the Beltway for decades.
I put out a bunch of food tonight including all the left-over Thanksgiving pies in the back of my 7 acres in the City of Hampton for the hungry raccoon family that lives back there. Charity begins at home but the 2 dozen deer that live in this area are a problem…..
@James –
Hunters for the Hungry is an excellent solution for two dozen plates of Bambicue roaming your property. Nothing says Merry Christmas like some properly slow cooked venison in the croc pot with some smoked deer jerky on the side.
…and yes, I have successfully hijacked this thread from the palatability of RINOs to the palatability of tasty, tasty deer.
Mark P Cernak said:
“The republican establishment and/or RINOS are what brought the party to the 2008 election outcome. What brought the Republican Party Victory in the 2010 election was a gall force wind called the “tea Party”!”
The republican victory in this election had a lot more to do with democrats losing in spite of present republican leadership. Some high flyers wanted more pors after nov2 but flared off out of shooting range before the rino hunters took em out. http://www.kentucky.com/2009/03/04/713560/mcconnells-earmarks-draw-scrutiny.html
These birds in the establishment are hard to take out. From their perch they can see pretty well where the blinds are and from their experience they know decoy from flock.
Good engaging stuff on this thread.
I do see a lot of potential for a united front. We need to be able to turn back some of the damage done. My big concern is the senate race.
1) The Tea Party has reason to not be happy with the prospect of a George Allen rerun.
2) Jamie Radtke being in the race will possibly inflame tensions and excite Tea Partiers and possibly damage the viabilty of alternatives to Allen that do enjoy some Tea Party support like Delegate Marshall.
I really hope that somebody starts off with a raging start and quickly out paces the competition. That would be the healthiest outcome. All I know is that Webb & Warner can’t be allowed to return to office after their willingness to embrace socialism.
Karen, I’m not talking about a goal/policy/platform compromise. What I’m talking about is the difference between campaigning and actually governing.
Governing isn’t about planks. It isn’t about saying things like “I support greater freedom” – who doesn’t? It’s about making tough decisions. Sometimes we will have to accept things we don’t like in order to move the ball forward on things we do like. The “bogus tax deal” as you call it is a perfect example. We get to stop the Democrats from raising taxes on anyone until we’ve had a chance to fix the spending problems that exist. In order to get that, we had to accept another extension of unemployment benefits that wasn’t paid for. I don’t like that, and it’s not ideal, but this isn’t a campaign debate or some kind of argument. Real lives and real people are affected by this stuff, and I would rather accept something I’m not a fan of in order to accomplish a significant goal than get nothing at all.
“Liberal” Fred Upton? Are you serious? The guy has a 72% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. Why does it matter that he’s the grandson of the founder of a major US manufacturer and employer? Shouldn’t that be a good thing? Do we not look favorably on success on this side of the aisle?
Your whole list of things to “compromise” on misses the point. Our principles and our values inform the legislation we propose and support. I’m not arguing that we should compromise for compromise’s sake. I’m saying that we should fight for what we believe in, but there are going to be times on specific issues where the fight can’t be won 100% and we should do our best to get as good a deal for the American people as we can.
The revolution WAS incremental. It took over a decade, from the passage of the Stamp Acts and the Townsend Acts, through the Boston Massacre, up through the First Continental Congress in 1774, to open hostilites in 1775 and finally the Declaration of Independence in 1776 – and even then it took us another 7 years to win our independence on the battlefield and in Europe’s diplomatic halls. People just didn’t decide one day that they’d had enough. It was a gradual buildup over a long time.
Slavery was the exact same way – without it, the Union would never have been born. And it took 80 years before things reached a head and we had to fight a bloody, long war to resolve the issue. It wasn’t an overnight decision that it was time to end slavery. It was a gradual buildup over a long time.
I’m tired of the rhetoric. The campaign is over. I’m happy that we have a number of elected folks who identify with the Tea Party. I’m looking forward to seeing how they put the rhetoric into action.
Because it’s not as easy as you seem to think it is.
Shaun, now you’re making me hungry.
Ditto Britt, Webb & Warner cast tie breaking votes. In spite of that I do not envision Allen defeating Webb in a rematch.
So far we have two viable opponents to Allen and we need to discuss their merits here on this blog. I have asked them to work together and decide which one of them runs in 2012. In my mind both can win.. one in 2012 and the other in 2014. Both have compelling resumes and between the two of them lies principles and experiences needed to defeat Webb that I also find lacking in Allen.
Re: Bob Marshall as an “establishment” Republican.
I’m sure Del. Marshall didn’t feel that way when Republicans were screwing him out of the chairmanship of the House Privileges and Elections Committee. My observation would be that Bill Howell seems only slightly less irritated by Marshall’s floor manuevers in the House than Tom Moss used to be.
JR: I’m not sure the GOP is any quicker about forming the circular firing squad than the Democrats.
Actually, party loyalty and discipline is one of the defining admirable traits of Republicans. It takes a lot to get you guys to turn on one of your own. Most of you didn’t get off the Bush bandwagon until you realized he was going to cost you the White House in 2008. Hell, most of the GOP stuck with Nixon until the smoking gun tape came out.
The GOP may have meaner interparty fights than the Dems, but the Dems seem to have them more frequently.
I don’t have time to read this bleating, pretentious post or the vain attempts to defend it, but I can offer you a somewhat succinct response:
No.
Need more? Ok.
There are meaningful differences between those with developed political philosophies (conservative or liberal) and those who lack them and the fights those differences produce are more important to us, the voters wedded to our principles, than your vain and silly political “careers”. Those of us who vote on the basis of our political principles aren’t going to stop voting you jackals out of office – even when you’re from “our” party – when you betray OUR principles. You can whine. You can cry. You can form little clubs to complain that history has left you behind and it’s not fair.
Well, it’s not fair. Politics never is. We fight in politics because we DISAGREE about things. And, short of everyone suddenly waking up and agreeing, we’ll continue to do so.
I’m not saying there’s no room for agreement between us, but there’s no reason to expect us to stop fighting for what we believe in, either.
Besides, you’re losing. The Tea Party has no reason to stop running you over with a semi.
Tea Party voter,
Even though I agree with your premise, the problem is that the bickering is what Progressives want because they’re out-numbered, 2-to-1.
Meanwhile, we’re going to have a well-funded fight come 2012 and the only way this progressive movement can be SLOWED down is a united front.
As we can accept our arguments as such, we must ensure that we don’t split and allow the Progressive agenda to continue as it has.
John, The RPV is not the sole pied piper anymore.. As long as they keep inflating the Allen doll, the Tea Party movement will not join the parade.
Turbo, The Progressives are too well funded and have the Unions, community activist groups and media to champion their cause. The Tea Party will need to go THROUGH the Republican Party again this next election also.
Now, maybe in 2014…but 2012 is too important to make a statement with a third party. This country can’t afford another Obama term.
Tea Party Voter – if you don’t have time to read the post, how do you have any idea what you’re answering? Come back when you have a few minutes to read rather than talking without thinking.
That something Democrats do. I expect better of someone on our side of the aisle.
Allen is all hat and no cattle.. the lips move but the actions differ.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRAllenHallowedGround806.html
John said: “Now, maybe in 2014…but 2012 is too important to make a statement with a third party. This country can’t afford another Obama term.” This BS worked here in VA-02 for 2010. I fought it then too.
John said: “The Tea Party will need to go THROUGH the Republican Party again this next election also.” Yeah, they might hive to go through it.. with a D9.
You lost me at T. Roosevelt. His gratuitous meddling in American politics after being shown the door paved the way for Woodrow Wilson and the brain trust that gave us the new deal. We don’t do well in Pluralities, especially when the one or more of the candidates is hell bent on manifestly changing America for the worse. he was warned but his ego was larger than his desire to protect America. I would be OK with putting a bill board in place of his face on Mt Rushmore.
Thanks for nothing T.
Tea Party Voter:
I’m going to be harsh, so I apologize in advance.
You are a fringe group. You are at your high water mark…actually, your high water mark was November 2nd. You had a critical mass and came up short. You won a couple of seats but you didn’t carry the senate. Your unwillingness to compromise will demonstrate to the swing voters how impractical your beliefs are and how government will be paralyzed because of your adherence to “principles”. They will vote against you as they voted against Bush. We had a structure with the weak central government you so crave and it failed – it was called the Articles of Confederation.
The Democratic supporters weren’t interested in this mid-term election. They will be in 2012 and that’s when the unrealistic impracticality of your fringe movement will bear fruit in Obama’s favor.
As I learned in grade school, politics is the art of compromise. Everyone does not hold to your principles and you have not cornered the market. Wake up and realize the ONLY hope you have is to work WITHIN the Republican Party. Otherwise enjoy the Democratic majority once again.
Again, I apologiz
Tea Party Voter:
I’m going to be harsh, so I apologize in advance.
You are a fringe group. You are at your high water mark…actually, your high water mark was November 2nd. You had a critical mass and came up short. You won a couple of seats but you didn’t carry the senate. Your unwillingness to compromise will demonstrate to the swing voters how impractical your beliefs are and how government will be paralyzed because of your adherence to “principles”. The Republican majority in the House will suffer as a result. The center will vote against you as they voted against Bush. We once had a structure with the weak central government you so crave and it failed – it was called the Articles of Confederation. We aren’t going back to that!
The Democratic supporters weren’t interested in this mid-term election. They will be in 2012 and that’s when the unrealistic impracticality of your fringe movement will bear fruit in Obama’s favor.
As I learned in grade school, politics is the art of compromise. A mature and practical approach to government demands it. Everyone does not hold to your principles and you have not cornered the market. You’ve only realized you are not as alone as you thought. Wake up and realize the ONLY hope you have is to work WITHIN the Republican Party. Otherwise enjoy the Democratic majority once again.
Again, I apologize for the harsh comments, but your self righteousness is getting old and is playing out.
I’m tired of reading the newspapers and the philosophy of the news does not make sense. They bash businesses for making a profit, rich people for being greedy, promote a debunked green movement and mock Christianity while placating to Muslims.
I’m tired of Hollywood making fun of Americans and then darting off to Europe, Cuba or Venezuela. Whether its George Clooney lobbying for Sadan or Sean Penn for Haiti while Americans suffer the consequences. This is while Nashville was underwater. They denigrate America while Michael Moore posts $20K for Wikileak’s bail.
I’m tired of politicians belittling every American to the degree in which they must make all decisions according to the box your put in. Michelle Obama said mothers can’t be trusted with their own children’s health. We hear about the deficit when it’s convenient and then passing a $1 trillion Omnibus. And I could go on. It’s time to take the crack away from the addict; they cannot be weaned off the drug.
Muslims blame us for Imperialism and not allowing them to practice their religion freely but their religion doesn’t practice tolerance at all.
Europe and especially Greece blames us for their financial woes and Mexico blames us for weapons, drugs and corrupted cartel.
Calderon scolds Arizona while his immigration laws are far worst.
Meanwhile, the Tea Party appears to be patriotic, all the time, and they are denigrated. Now, for years, I’ve gotten up, attended to my job and attempted to make ends meet. I’ve trusted that my politicians were doing their job, making the diligent work needed to ensure America’s sovereignty and independence was upheld. I was wrong.
American’s liberty is at jeopardy with ObamaCare. We all know it’s the camel’s nose under the tent on our way to single payer. Once enacted, every part of our life will be regulated in the name of saving money or being safe.
As a conservative, let’s bury the hatchet and quit lecturing the Tea Party and address the issues that truly matter. Our views of looking at things are different because of our life experience, nothing else.
@Tim,
As for the Tea Party being at fault for losing the Senate, let’s look at the numbers. The Republicans needed four seats to have a majority. Now, there were four Tea Party candidates that lost elections, Miller (AK), Buck (CO), O’Donnell (DE) and Angle (NV). Now, if you’re saying that the Republicans could’ve won every one of those seats, we will have to agree to disagree.
Meanwhile, we can look at Murray (WA) and Gillibrand (NY) which aren’t exactly the sharpest knifes in the drawer. And let’s not forget Raese (WV) who had a sizeable lead going into the last month. That was before Manchin was against after he was for. I would tend to believe that these were races that could’ve been won by establishment Republicans but weren’t. But if you disagree, we’ll need to agree to disagree.
Meanwhile, we’re now seeing Charlie Christ’s true colors.
Don’t you find the Alaska election funny, a write-in candidate among 161 other candidates manage to get 41% of the votes. Heck, she’d only gotten 48% in her last election as a Republican. Her circumstance has never been done before. Where’s the article on that issue?
The problem with the grade school politic lesson is it didn’t include the control of healthcare. It’s not compromise when you’re broke and you’re paying $247K for virus free win grapes, $413K for peanut research, $235K for noxious weed management and $400K for solar parking canopies. That’s not compromise, that’s disgraceful.
And we can debate whether the tax cuts are adding to the deficit or not while I consider the question to be about GROWING our economy. Meanwhile, oil production is stopped, TARP propped up bad business practices by bailing out bad managers and keeping them in place (including Government Motors), our healthcare industry is deteriorating. Where are the articles on these?
No, we need to point toward the Tea Party & conservatives and accuse them of losing the Senate. Meanwhile, the same leadership that lost all those seats since 1994 are still in place. Why is that?
@John Jackson
Good points. Like you, I am tired of the same old people running the House & Senate. But, we elect them, so we have only ourselves to blame. Also, as I tried to point out in an earlier post, to which Brian correctly added to, incumbents have an endless pot of money from which to campaign.
I applaud the Tea Party’s moxie for creating a groundswell. I stop when they think they are the only valid point and will not even engage in any kind of debate & compromise. They want a diminished, weak central government presence, which is why the Articles failed and the Founders reworked their government into a federal republic.
I am all for efficiency and quality as they are. This country is now a beautiful mix of many viewpoints. Intelligent compromise, coupled with a common goal of bettering the country for everyone, not just those that agree with you today, is what we need. The Republican Party is better to do this than the Tea Party. They are a fringe movement, and like the Progressive Party of the early 20th century, Ross Perot’s group, John Anderson’s group, and Jesse Ventura’s group, they too will vanish. The Republican’s should let ‘em go and adapt. The electorate is catching on to the Tea Party’s intransigent principles and will not vote for them.
Tim, Tea Party is just a name for..
Taxed Enough Already
Pissed At Republicans This Year
Many Tea Peeps just cant take it anymore. They are regular people from all walks of life but as a whole they expect better from representatives who promote themselves as conservatives but vote like they expect democrats to.. Mitch “earmark” McConnell is in the crosshairs for a reason and you can bet on it the tea party peeps are po’d at him next time he is up for election if, I said IF he does not get the memo.
I keep noticing one big factor common to many tea party groups, they expect dems to be wasteful and they call em out on it but they pound hardest on limp republicans who lie about their conservative creds but put forth the BS that McConnell and other rinos who put up yet more earmarks. Yes I called Mitch a RINO. Anyone calling themself a fiscal conservative who puts in $85,000,000 in earmarks in this economy earns the title.
@Tim,
Thank you for your response. Even though I agree with you that we do elect them…you lose me with how these politicians (mainly Democrats) operate. Yes, the people vote them into office but just look at all the propaganda.
Print media like the NYT and Time Magazine are champions of the Progressive movement; you even have the Virginia Pilot and Daily Press that lean left. Then there’s nearly every TV organization and the one (Fox) that leans somewhat right gets pressure to move left. Each day, I see a ton of commercials from Andy Griffith who made $3 million about how great my healthcare is.
Then you have organizations like the Sierra Club, Organizing for America and, of course, ACORN. While 85% of the black community votes for Democrats, the NAACP’s reach stretches from DC to our local community. Colleges should not be off-limits from this scrutiny either. Public sector unions and teacher unions own the Democrat Party.
You have so-called Award winners for the Nobel Prize like Paul Krugman for Keynesian economics, Al Gore for Global Warming and Barrack Obama for whatever accomplishment he contributed.
I believe that the Tea Party did learn from those movements (at least the Perot) and knew that there was a need for a long-term movement. But I guess we’ll just have to wait and find out.
Heck, Glenn Nye wore an Independent label his whole campaign and never associated himself with the Democrat Party. But I could see why. Actually, I thought Glenn Nye was a pretty good candidate.
I hate to tell you this…but the Progressive Party of the early 20th Century is looking pretty strong behind the Democratic brand.
@Tim,
Also, with all that propaganda, an economic catastrophe and Sarah Palin, Barrack Obama only mustered 52% of the popular vote.
@Turbo, Is that the best you have? Are you talking about Mike or Mitch McConnell? I can’t seem to get those two guys straight?
John, this McConnell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbYrpXS6aL0
Young Turks! Next you’ll want me to get my source of news from Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow? I’ll even throw Glenn Beck in for good measure.
As I do not doubt there are earmarks from Republicans…this is the whole purpose of the article “Moderates vs. Conservatives”
John, Beck tore him a new one too.. So did others..
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/JillianBandes/2010/11/15/mcconnell_changes_tune,_supports_earmark_moratorium
And Limbaugh if it makes you feel better
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110810/content/01125110.guest.html
Turbo, What’s your point? Mike McConnell wants earmarks.
Let me repeat, “As I do not doubt there are earmarks from Republicans…” So, what’s your point?
@ John Jackson: Mr. Obama won with 52%…Mr. Bush won with less than 50% in 2000. I think Mr. Obama can claim something more of a mandate than Mr. Bush could (& did).
@ Turbo: Where does it say a Republican has to be a conservative? It doesn’t. The Tea Party’s myopic view is everyone is either a conservative (read “Good”)or not (“Bad”). A bunker mentality indicative of a fringe group.
Tim, my point is that with all that propaganda, tv, print, Hollywood, unions, community organizations, ACORN, colleges, etc. With all that propaganda, all he could muster was 52%. I wouldn’t exactly say that that media get warm chills up their leg with Republicans.
Leave your response