Sunday, March 27, 2011

And So It Begins

None of the potential 2012 candidates have officially declared and already the "he/she is not conservative enough" debate is going on. It happens every election cycle. It is particularly amusing watching the presidential debates among the Republicans. Each one will try to accuse the other of not being conservative enough. The reality is that most governors are not conservative enough. There are two basic reasons for this.

1. The most "conservative" position is not always the best position. For example, today's conservative movement has deemed raising taxes as always liberal. The talk-radio inspired environment simply does not allow for a time when a governor should raise taxes. It is always heresy to do so. Yet, we also have a situation where states are broke. This is precisely why Romney raised fees and not taxes. He wanted to be able to tell the "no taxes" crowd that he never raised taxes, yet he also needed to balance the budget.

2. There are political restraints. Even if we truly believe that Rush Limbaugh's version of conservatism is the answer to all of our problems, there is still the problem of implementing such policies. Here is where governors from liberal states have even more trouble. They must apply Jim DeMint policies in states where Jim DeMint would get laughed off the stage. And if they don't apply Jim DeMint policies with a pure heart and 100% of the time, then they are not "conservative" enough.

It is never going to change. The only thing to do is laugh when you watch a Republican "debate." It is all about folksy one-liners and attaching the liberal meme to an opposing candidate. There is little discussion about whose policies were effective, and a lot of discussion about whose policies resemble the policies of the make-believe Ronald Reagan that conservatives have created in their minds (the real Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times and would never please the purists on talk radio).

So let me add my two cents about the current crop:

1. They are all conservative (Huntsman is slightly moderate).

2. None of the governors were 100% "conservative" while in office (note: Rush Limbaugh conservative, that is).

3. If any of them become President, he or she will not be 100% "conservative" while in office (note: Rush Limbaugh conservative, that is).

4. The more we demand that the candidates be Rush Limbaugh "conservatives," the harder it will be to defeat Barack Obama.

Cross posted at The Cross Culturalist


Right Wingnut said...

My eyes have been opened in Iowa. There seems to be a lot of powerful folks with kooky views on social issues. I'm having a hard time picturing Palin pandering to that talk show radio host you wrote about yesterday, Vander Plaats, and some of these other egomaniacs. These folks really bug the hell out of me.

Right Wingnut said...

Another thing re: Iowa....ethanol subsidies piss me off too.

Bill589 said...

Pablo - To me, ‘conservative’ mostly means bringing us back to the principles and practices that took thirteen war battered colonies and made them into the greatest nation ever. I don’t just want us to beat Obama, I want us to beat Obama and to begin the returning to those principles and practices. That’s how to truly ‘fix’ our country.

IMO, a conservative like, I don’t know, maybe . . . Sarah Palin for instance - will ‘mop the floor’ with Obama, everywhere, but especially in debates. And then she’ll turn the country around.

Anonymous said...

IMO Sarah will never talk to anyone unless she has the questions in advance. Obviously a talk show would be more than she can handle and would make a fool of herself, as usual.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Anon @7:46am

You are being too harsh. Sarah will be more than ready and able to handle the talk show circuit. She doesn't need the questions in advance either.

Not when the answers are broadcast in the questions themselves.

For example:

"Governor Palin, is not a problem for the nation to create jobs, when we have such outrageous spending by this President?

"Well..(Fill in Talk Show host name) is a big problem and something I'm most concerned about. This President has....(drop in slogans, platitudes and talking points)."

Anonymous said...

Doug, I used to appreciate your posts and your comments but unfortunately your rational side has been beaten by your complacency for ignorance.


Anonymous said...

@ Doug NYC GOP

You are bang on, Doug, in that assessment. Talk show hosts to whom she grants interviews all seem to hand her the answers on a silver platter. She just needs to take their lead. So funny to see that done, time after time.

After the Couric debacle, she has an absolute gut-wrenching fear of exposing her ignorance in answering even the most benign of questions. She will not run because of this but she will continue to lead her worshippers on in believing she will.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations have just helped the liberal trolls take one step closer. You should be very proud.


Bill589 said...

The ridicule and personal attacks are very liberal trollish.
They remind me of a quote from a very strong conservative:

Margaret Thatcher -
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

Doug NYC GOP said...

And all the anti-Romney commentary by yourself and RWN doesn't help their cause as well?

Are you proud of that behavior?

Obviously, it's not just liberals who view Palin this way, just as it's not just liberals who see Romney as flip/flopper. I don't let the Roemney stuff bug me anymore, as it's sooooo 2008.

I just like to tweak back at those who are so fervent in continuing this storyline and it amuses me.

Doug NYC GOP said...

RWN - I can agree with you about Iowa. Seems to be always overblown and the issues never quite seem to in line with the rest of nation's collective focus.

Ergo, this brilliant observational piece, was posted earlier, by a very charming and talented writer, who's name escapes me now...

OhioJOE said...

Be assumed all you want. I intend to be assumed on election Day.

Anonymous said...

Doug, no it doesn't because Romney is not in their line of fire yet...but if he is the nominee...he will be and they will know of this site and feel welcomed because you agreed with them about a good, Republican woman that you seem to know very little about.


PS - I won't discuss my thoughts on Romney's short-comings with LIBERAL TROLLS and that is my word!!!

Right Wingnut said...


Long before the liberal trolls infested Right Speak, we have been subjected to anonymous (and some not anonymous) drive-by hits on Palin. Since this site is overwhelmingly dominated by Romney supporters, one has to assume they are coming from your camp. Those repeated attacks make it much easier to write posts critical of Romney's past policies,. Notice we don't go after Romney or his family personally. And, we don't troll around from pro-Romney post to pro-Romney post leaving snarky one line comments.

Right Wingnut said...

As for the truther trolls...There's a site called Next Right, which was started by Patrick Ruffini. Patrick had an open forum with a no-ban policy. It got to the point where the forums were unreadable. Here is the result of that....

Anonymous said...

Bill589 said...

Margaret Thatcher -
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

Great quote from Maggie. Don't think she ever needed help in answering questions, though. Too bad Palin isn't more like her.

Anonymous said...

No one goes after Romney's family, because he does not force them upon us as Palin does. Huck also keeps his kids out of the tabloids, off the TV and out of the limelight. Same with Obama, Pawlenty, etc. Megan McCain was an adult when she started speaking about politics and writing books. And yes, she is fair game now too when she talks stupid.

Doug NYC GOP said...

JR - How can you say Romeny is not in their line of fire yet?

Perhaps not to the degree or with the intensity Palin is targeted, but thay have been harping on his "Skinny jeans, no tie look" - pounching on the HC comments of other GOP rivals, etc. for past month or so.

Maybe you missed those accounts.

Palin is a public figure, who at present is causing a lot in the GOP to doubt her in greater numbers than they did before. To say RS and my comments are giving rise to Liberals is most absurd, considering they have been on her case since Day One. They certianly haven't been waiting for me to give the green light or lay out a welcome mat.

This penchant for insisting everyone bend over backwards to defend her, while the rest of the field is fair game is just tiresome.

Anonymous said...

Doug, either you chose to ignore my comment or you didn't understand I was referring to the state of affairs on this site. Obviously your input on Sarah Palin, on this site, will have little effect on the overall scheme of things amongst the political chattering class but your comments on this site do welcome the liberals with open arms.

If Romney becomes the nominee and they are on here blasting Romney...just remember your welcoming tone of agreement and I hope you will not be critical of them...otherwise it might make you look hypocritical.


BTW, I just reread your comment and if you really thought I meant what you posted than I must question both your opinion of me and your own intellectual capacity?

Doug NYC GOP said...

JR - I'm still confused on how you draw a difference between comments against Palin, as opposed to anti-Romney,anti-Huckabee or anti-anyone else on this site?

Maybe I don't understand your premise. It seems to me you are saying, by my issuing remarks critical of Palin, I am creating a welcoming and nuturing envirionment for Liberals to come and thrive and post slander. At the same time you maintain comments or posts against other candidates, don't have this same effect, for various reasons.

Is this your point, because it reads that way?

Moving forward, am I supposed to keep my thoughts and opinions about Palin to myself, in order to keep liberals from coming around here?

Regarding your BTW comment above - I'm missing something there as well, but allow me to clarify before this gets too far:

Obviously we disagree on our views of Sarah Palin. That aside, I have a sincere and high regard for you as an honorable, passionate person, who is highly intelligent and informed.

Where or how I alluded otherwise is a mystery to me, but lately I always seem to be battling back from these unintended slurs against you.

No disresprect, just confused. Last week I was charged with inferring you were a liar when I defended Bos. Now I'm questioning your intellect and my regard for you.

Maybe it's just time for me to retire.

Anonymous said...

Doug, I was originally referring to you agreeing with the anonymous liberal poster. I have never uttered a bad word about Romney to an anonymous liberal poster and I would expect the same respect of my supported candidate on a Republican site.

All the other stuff...let's just forget it...obviously we were discussing 2 different things. Thanks for the nice things you wrote...most of the time I feel the same about you.


Doug NYC GOP said...

Fair enough - Next time I crack a beer, I'll tip my 12 oz. to you.

Anonymous said...


Political sites allowing comments from opposing sides are a heck of a lot interesting than those where the posters are all of the same mind. If we keep our language civil, what's wrong with a little heated debate?

Anonymous said...

Anon, I'm sure there are plenty of sites out there designed for just that...I never thought this was one of those sites. I have no problem discussing politics with liberals, Democrats, blue bloods, centrists, moderate Republicans, main stream Republicans, Conservatives and libertarians. I do have a problem with liberals who troll from site to site to attempt to discredit Sarah Palin in the ignorant way they prove to do.

Try posting some negative comments about Romney and see how far you get but I'd much rather you sign your name and debate me on the issues...debate Romney's and Huckabee's and Pawlenty's supporters on the issues...but if your main goal is to spread lies out of boredom or personal income I would appreciate it if you took it somewhere else.

I have zero say in who is allowed to post on this site...everything I wrote above is merely my opinion...the owner might have a different opinion altogether.


BOSMAN said...


It really is a sad state of affairs and probably one of the reasons Republicans lost the 2008 election. Southern Conservatives, fiscal conservatives, evangelicals, moderates, far right, etc. All wanting PURITY to their points of view.

When was the last time you heard such terms slung from one Democrat at another, your a DINO? To liberal, To conservative...?

The DEMS JUST WANT TO WIN. If your a Democrat, you're acceptable for the most part. Not as much inside bickering as Reps.

If we want to win in 2012, we should look to them and follow there lead.

I'd take half a pie over no pie at all!

Anonymous said...

JR, I hope you noticed my strong condemnation of some of those trolls who came on here during the Trig Truther posts. That kind of behavior is unacceptable.

While I know that Palin's people feel she is more picked on than other candidates, plenty of other candidates get their share of negative media attention. Except the current President, who doesn't even need to answer difficult questions from the White House Press Corps. most of the time.


Dave said...

The way to beat the Purity Enforcers is with polling statistics citing relative electability.

Presumably there are enough Republicans who will participate in the process to nominate our next candidate on the basis of likelihood to defeat Obama, and thereby save the country.

Besides, our most electable candidate, Mitt Romney, is also a hard-core conservative.....despite the fact that many bear false witness about him.

Revolution 2010 said...

I want the person with THE BEST chance of beating Obama,

If that means chosing someone I agree with 75% of the time over someone I agree with 95% of the time, then so be it.