The Death of a Political party

Wil, I think historical moments create great leaders. And that agrees with your point about Newt. If the times need him, he'd be that guy. But if not, we'll end up with a Moderate like Rudy. If the GOP continues towards the middle, there may be room for a conservative party, depending on how much the indies and conservative dems defect to the Middle GOP, watering down the Democratic voter base.

Hey Wil, I'll be on radio tomorrow (Saturday) at 7 p.m. (EDT), discussing Sarah Palin's candidacy. You can find it on your computer by going to: http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/ Just turn the sound up and call in if you'd like.

As you know, Sarah has been in Kuwait, Iraq (I think), and Germany this week.

steve maloney

Where I disagree with "absolutists" (since you called yourself that:)

They want everyone in the Party to agree with them on every issue. That's just not the real world. Arnold had to move left, since his state is liberal. The GOP is comprised of all types of conservatives, just like the candidates that you described above.

The country is no longer conservative. 40+ years of Democrat control has moved it to the left. Bush appealed to the masses because of his compassionate conservatism. The country is split 50-50. But that split is not far left nor far right. We must face reality and then look to see which candidate will be strong on terror - Bush has been excellent and we need someone that will continue that legacy. Of the GOP candidates that you listed, I only see Giuliani appealing to the vast middle. (BTW, the "absolutists" don't seem to care that much about social issues anymore, if they did they would have been happy with Bush, who has finally moved the court to the right.)

If there is a conservative third party candidate, Hillary will be elected, just like Bill was, because of Perot, with 48% or even less.

I don't have children. But if I did, I would be very worried about their future. The Dems are no longer holding back, they are far left socialists.

I like the guy. I think he could very well be a valid candidate. Trouble is, most don't know much about him, which is a big reason I think he does not get the attention.

Wow, you must be a child prodigy...I would feel very sorry for any third grader who had to do a report on my rambling post. I think you get my post.

I agree that Huckabee and also Hunter would be and in fact are great candidates. Perhaps as Doc says they lack gravitas. In my personal opinion, Gravitas is not a natural trait but is a created entity, and the lack of media and money support creates a lack of gravitas. Or to put it another way, "Gravitas is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholders who can accomplish much behold none." I don't think that made sense, but I'll leave it.

Appreciate the comment. There are some absolutists who are like you say, "my way or the highway" There are many who say "this is conservatism, these are its tenets, this is where the line is drawn, and these are the issues we do not debate." I think most of the conservatives here are that way. I myself am. I can debate some issues, others are ironclad, like the war. I cannot vote for an antiwar Republican because to me, they fail to have a vision of just who our enemy is and fail to see the nature of how we live on the same planet as this enemy. Another ironclad issue for me is abortion, and yet, I, like Bush, realize my absolutism on this issue is in a distinct minority, and will try to end the practice incrementally just as he has done. For those, such as yourself, who want to moderate and appeal to the middle, are there any untouchable issues, or is everything on the table? I ask because it says a lot on how you view the world.

I also don't truly believe there is a "vast middle", I believe there is a hard core of 5-10% on either end of the spectrum, a party line crowd of 10-20% on each side who vote their party no matter what, and the remaining 40-70% are either apathetic and rarely vote, are poll driven and vote so that they can appear to support the winner, or are shallow, voting based on superficial appeal. Very few in this "vast middle" are truly moderates and truly look at issue to issue stands when they vote. They vote their "Heart" or their "Perception". In 92, many of them voted Perot because we were constantly hearing the "woe is me recession" talk in the media and believed it. They voted for Clinton in 96 because the media effectively portrayed Newt as the "Gingrich who stole grannys medicare check" and Starr as a sleazy sex obsessed nerd like a middle school hall monitor that tried to bust people for chewing gum in gym class. And Dole had no countervision.

The point is, stands on issues matter, but to the "vast middle", perception matters far more than substance. And to win will not require a moderate, it will require someone who can articulate hope to the shallow voters who can't be bothered to think. Sounds very cynical I know, but the more I talk to people, the more I realize how few of us there are who are truly "policy wonks", discussing specific issues. Only when one of this "vast middle" comes face to face with an issue in their real lives do they really care about it. Otherwise, its all about perception.

whether we like it or not, is the driving force in these elections. Most Americans aren't paying enough attention, or are too stoooopid, to really understand the issues, so they form their opinions from the sound bites and how the media portrays the candidates.

America has definitely gone leftwards over the past 75 years...with most of that coming since the mid-60s. Today, JFK would be considered an eeee-vil right winger. Just look at how his brother, Teddythedrunk (D-Chappaquiddick) is considered mainstream Dim-ocrat when he's closer to Lenin than FDR.

As for the GOP...it can be somewhat big-tent but still true to it's core values by picking and choosing what to compromise on. The absolutes would be: constitutional judges and justices (not revisionists), strong national defense and foreign policy, limiting the size of government (hopefully we can eventually get it CLOSE to where the Constitution says it must be), low taxes, anti-illegals, anti-partial birth abortion (work toward killing the worst Supreme Court decision ever, Roe v Wade), pro-American energy (open up ANWR, drill everywhere there's oil or natural gas in our territories, more refineries, more nuke plants, wind farms where practical including where Teddythedrunk doesn't want them because they might spoil his view while yachting, while working to practically conserve and develop alternate energy sources...we can be greenish without going wacko, as is evidenced by W's Crawford ranch), equal rights for all but not SPECIAL rights (homo legal unions okay but marriage is man & woman, end racial preferances mandated by government, if someone wants to hire all white men for their company that's their own business not the government's), and 2nd Amendment rights balanced only by good checks on purchases.

is the key...at this point the compromises seem pretty random.