Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

... a review of recent political history reveals that the George W. Bush campaign of 2000 advanced an agenda of “compassionate conservatism” designed specifically to reach out to Catholics, moderate voters and, most importantly, Hispanics. As governor of Texas, Bush was known as a candidate who appealed for support far beyond the GOP faithful. 

What happened to induce such a radical change in GOP thinking? 

In order, the Florida recount of 2000, the Sept. 11 attacks and then Iraq and its aftermath all combined to create an increasingly polarized electorate that caused both parties to focus on incremental gains and large partisan turnouts as the way to electoral success. 

... Then came the 2004 presidential election. Faced with an increasingly unpopular war, the Bush campaign circled the wagons and adopted the only strategy available:
 
It focused on identifying and turning out massive numbers of conservatives and Republican faithful to eke out a narrow victory. This was a substantial accomplishment, but the question remained whether the strategy could be replicated in other circumstances. 

From Congressional Quarterly this morning.

“After a recent House vote, [Congressman John Murtha] stopped for a moment in the lobby adjacent to the House floor, just steps from his corner, to take a question from a reporter about the difficulty of piecing together which members got how much money for which projects in his bill.”

“Murtha answered abruptly before walking away. ‘So, you have to work,’ he said. ‘Tough [expletive].’”

More from Minority Leader John Boehner

For years, I’ve taken a lonely but outspoken stand against ubiquitous and, in fact, nearly universal lies about the state of marriage and the prevalence of divorce in the United States. In the past in this space I’ve used the authoritative Census Bureau figures to prove that the “50% divorce rate” that everyone loves to cite is, in fact, a pernicious myth: nearly 70% of first marriages manage to last until one of the partners dies.

On Saturday, I was pleased to see America’s “Journal of Record,” the New York Times, running a valuable column similarly decrying the current tendency to inflate and exaggerate the purported “collapse” of the institution of marriage. This column, by two professors of business and public policy at the prestigious Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, counts as especially significant because this same New York Times had previously run numerous articles by the shameless and agenda-driven Sam Roberts, who outrageously manipulates available data in order to prove his favorite point: that traditional marriage is finished in the USA and we need to get used to a brave new world of fresh romantic arrangements.

In any event, Professors Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers take on Roberts and all the other wedlock-is-dead advocates with their powerful, persuasive piece.

“The great myth about divorce is that marital breakup is an increasing threat to American families, with each generation finding their marriages less stable than those of their parents,” they write. “The story of ever-increasing divorce is a powerful narrative. It is also wrong. In fact, the divorce rate has been falling continuously over the past quarter-century, and is now at its lowest level since 1970. While marriage rates are also declining, those marriages that do occur are increasingly more stable. For instance, marriages that began in the 1990s were more likely to celebrate a 10^th anniversary than those that started in the 1980s, which, in turn, were also more likely to last than marriages that began in the 1970s.”

Near the conclusion of their column, Stevenson and Wolfers cite specific numbers: “The narrative or rising divorce is also completely at odds with counts of divorce certificates, which show the divorce rate as having peaked at 22.8 divorces per 1,000 married couples in 1979 and to have fallen by 2005 to 16.7…. The facts are that divorce is down, and today’s marriages are more stable than they have been in decades.”

Given these figures, and the easily available and profoundly reassuring news about the persistent strength of the institution of marriage, how can we explain the widespread claim that traditional, life-long marriage is outdated and increasingly irrelevant?

The left promotes the lie in order to indicate that timeless family institutions no longer apply in the 21^st Century, and we need new, experimental, exciting and “liberating” arrangements--- like living together without commitment, or single mother households, open multiple partner relationships, or gay marriage, or whatever. The right goes along with the claims about moral collapse because the bad news conforms to the gloomy, “we’ve-lost-America” temperament of too many conservatives, as well as confirming the (often ill-informed) nostalgia for the recent past.

Of course, people of conscience and foresight need to work to defend the institution of marriage and, yes, the traditional family faces multiple threats and challenges that ought to give us pause. But one hardly helps the cause of matrimony by going along with the dumb and dishonest idea that the battle to preserve it is already lost. The column in the New York Times bears the appropriate title: “Divorced From Reality.” Thoughtful conservatives can’t afford that sort of divorce—and need to fight and win our crucial battles within the parameters of the real world.

"If we do this, we're going to do a very well thought-out, well-planned effort ... this is not something that will be effective just for the '08 presidential election." 

Unlike other years when conservatives have fielded candidates merely to make a point, Viguerie tells me this new idea "goes far beyond the '08 elections".

He believes Republicans have gone crazy with spending -- and that the brand has been destroyed.  He says conservatives are demanding new Republican leadership to "get conservatives to the political promise land." And he accuses GOP leaders of "bribing" voters.  It may be that the Republican Party can't be saved," Viguerie tells me.

According to Viguerie, after years of being treated like a "mistress," conservatives are finally fed-up with the GOP.  As evidence, he cites a litany of historical examples:  In 1948, Dewey ran a liberal Henry Cabot Lodge on his ticket and lost an election he should have won.  1960, Nixon sold out and put  liberal on the ticket and lost.  1976, Ford installed Nelson Rockefeller on the ticket and lost.  George H. W. Bush betrayed conservatives across the board ...

When I mentioned my recent interview with Rep. Pete Sessions -- and the argument that a 3rd party challenge will only result in electing Hillary Clinton -- Viguerie boldly declares: "That's a very unsophisticated argument that angers conservatives."

He dismisses what a source told me earlier today about Roy Moore possibly being the 3rd party candidate.  Viguerie tells me Roy Moore's name never came up at the meeting (a source told me today he was a leading pick to be the 3rd party candidate).  He also tells me the concerns voiced were not just among social conservatives (as was widely reported today), but also includes fiscal conservatives, as well. 

Listen below ...

Note:  The audio quality starts off as extremely bad, but dramatically improves as after about 20 seconds.  It's worth putting up with...

Click To Play

Our take: Although the Edwards' campaign insists this decision was made voluntarily and not out of necessity, we find that somewhat hard to swallow. Edwards fell badly behind Clinton and Obama during the second fundraising quarter, a trend that seems likely to continue when the numbers for the last three months come out today.

It seems more likely that Edwards recognized he would never be able to compete with Obama and Clinton financially and, given that reality, sought to turn a negative into a positive. Edwards is hoping that his acceptance of public financing plays into voters' sense of him as a different kind of candidate and distinguishes him from Obama (the other "change" candidate in the race) and Clinton.

As much as voters tend to decry the influence of money in politics, however, poll after poll shows that almost no one makes their mind up based on where a candidate's campaign money comes from. And, in an election where Democratic voters seem ready to do almost anything to win back the White House, it's hard to imagine them backing a candidate who will have a hard cap on his spending between February and late August.