Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Yes, Erick, I Want A New Base

I finally agree with Erick Erickson on something:
To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht’s “The Solution,” it seems a lot of Romney’s ardent supporters have viewed the base of the Republican Party and decided the base should be replaced with a new base rather than admit the their candidate is the problem. Many Romney backers, as indicative of Medved’s latest column, do seem to want another conservative base instead of the one that exists since the majority of the one that exists keeps rejecting their candidate of choice.
Yes, Erick. I do want a new base. I have been saying this for the past three years. America needs a credible conservative movement that isn't based on hysterical fear mongering and blatant dog whistling. What is most troublesome is Erickson's opening paragraphs.

What is it with Salem Radio’s major hosts? Geez. You want to find out what the Romney campaign thinks, flip on Michael Medved or Hugh Hewitt or a number of the other Salem Radio hosts and you’ll find a host fully in line with Mitt Romney and fully out of step with the bulk of the conservative movement. 

In fact, it is striking to find Salem’s radio hosts so in the tank for Romney when the top radio shows in the country from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to Glenn Beck to Mark Levin to Neal Boortz to Laura Ingraham have all either stayed on the sidelines or gone largely against Romney.
You will notice that Erick for the most part equates Rush and Co. with the base. They are one in the same to him. And if he is right, then America desperately needs a new conservative base.


Terrye said...

I want the base we used to have. Before the crazies started taking over.

..and I am tired of being lectured by guys like Eric..who the hell died and made him boss of anything?..they think they decide who the base is and how the base votes and what the base believes and what the base watches on TV and what it listens to on the radio and what kind of work it does and what kind of religion it should or should not have..what is next for Eric? A secret hand shake?

Terrye said...

And since when did those loud mouths stay on the sidelines? If Eric believes that he is truly deluded..once upon a time the base was not about entertainment or talk radio or ratings or any of was real people making up their own minds like rational individuals. said...

This is Eric the Erickson, the CNN pundit that wanted everyone to vote for Huntsman... the non-base, non-establishment liberal Republican.

Yeah he sounds like a good source of what the base actually wants.

Terrye said...

I can remember when the base was more open minded..people like Eric will ban you just for disagreeing with him..I have known people who got banned from Sarah Palin's facebook just for saying something positive about Romney..Republicans used to be more open minded and pragmatic and honest than they are it is all about making the other guy look bad and getting more hits on a blog or better ratings on some radio or cable TV show.

Lionhead said...

@Terrye, "I want the base we used to have. Before the crazies started taking over."

So do I Terrye, only the Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan base. Where did they go? Am I the last of the Mohicans?

Rick Perry said...

Yeh, everyone should follow Erickson's advise including Rick Santorum.

Didn't he want Santorum along with Perry to bow out so Gingrich could be the ABR.

He is so intuitive.

Right Wingnut said...


What is it with your obsession with Erick Erickson? I really don't like the guy, but he's spot on here. perhaps the Democrat Party base would be more to your liking.

Terrye said...

Lionhead...I am 60 years old. I remember Ronald Reagan, the real Reagan, not the Disney character created by so many in conservative media who use the man and his memory for their own political purposes..Ronald Reagan would not fit into Eric's idea of what the party should for Goldwater, I think he was more of a libertarian than a conservative and that might be one reason he lost so badly.

So no..I don't think you are the last of the Mohicans.

Terrye said...


Actually, I think Eric would be more comfortable in the Democratic party..after all they both want Obama to win another term.

Lionhead said...

@Terrye, hehehehehe I have you beat on the being the elder then. ;) Barry Goldwater was the Mr. Conservative of this time & provided the base for Reagan to follow through. He was staunchly for strong National defense & that plus another issue gave LBJ the landslide victory. You might remember this campaign ad from LBJ:

Ron Paul is just about no defense & that seems to be a libertarian value, so I don't think one could consider Goldwater a libertarian. Google "The Conscience of a Conservative" a book written by Brent Bozell to get a better handle on him. It's an interesting look back.

Terrye said...

Lionhead..hehe all you want..Goldwater was more of a libertarian than a conservative. I am not dissing the man, I am simply pointing out that if you look at his policies today he would be someting of a libertarian..but he was certainly no liberal. He was a gentleman however. One problem I had with him..that was the time of the Civil Rights Act..Republicans in Congress were supportive of that legislation. In fact without them it would not have passed. However, Goldwater picked a public fight with Martin Luther King over this issue. He refused to support it on philosophical grounds. Eisenhower had gotten 44% of the black vote..Goldwater got 9%.

And one of the big beefs that Santorum had with the Tea Party was that they supported Rand Paul, who made a point of criticizing this same legislation. And Santorum thought that was a stupid thing to do.

Dave said...

Erickson is an embarrassment to the Right. He doesn't have a clue that the crisis we are facing is unsustainable Federal spending and deficits, and that anything else is irrelevant until that is addressed.

Romney's the only guy who can win, as attested by organization, staff, fundraising, resume, and ability, and has a plan to reduce federal spending to less than 20% of well as a plan to eliminate the deficit within a first term.

And, for all purposes, he prefers Obama....and a run on the dollar.

newark hawk said...

Just for the record, here is a little historical perspective:

In 1988, George H.W. Bush lost 6 of the first 9 nominating contests, while winning 50% or more of the vote in just 1 of the first 9. Despite his sluggish start, Bush went on to win 41 states and the nomination, and then went on to crush Michael Dukakis in the general election.

In 2000, George W. Bush lost 3 of the first 7 nominating contests, while winning 50% or more of the vote in just 2 of the first 7. Despite his sluggish start, Bush went on to win 43 states and the nomination, and then went on to defeat Al Gore in the general election.

In 2012 - not counting Missouri's straw poll - Mitt Romney lost 3 of the first 7 contests(winning or tying for 1st place in the other 4), while winning 50% or more of the vote in 1 of the first 7.

By historical standards, Romney is very well-positioned to win the GOP nomination, and to then defeat Barack Obama in the general election.

Sorry to burst the bubble of the ABR crowd with a few inconvenient facts.

Machtyn said...

The last time I said this, RWN didn't like it. But I believe Romney studied Reagan's campaign and has tried to mimic it as close as he could. Granted, I'm sure he didn't want to lose his first time around like Reagan had; but, like Reagan, Romney went on to fully and actively assist fellow GOP candidates around the country, including TEA Party favorites.

Is Romney the next Reagan? No, all I'm saying is that the similarities are striking. If Romney is nominated and elected President, we'll be saying we are Romney Republicans in 10-20 years. I believe Romney will be that uniting for the Republican Party and transformative to government in making it smaller, leaner, efficient, and profitable. In so doing, he will allow the private sector to flourish as the private sector should.

Go ahead you ABRs, laugh at me. If you listen to Romney and study him out, truly, that is what you will see. That is how he was so successful in MA, at the Olympics, and in all the businesses he picked up and carried to profitability.

Lionhead said...

Pablo, yesterday you asked what I stand for. Here it is:

"Our tendency to concentrate power in the hands of a few men deeply concerns me. We can be conquered by bombs or by subversion; but we can also be conquered by neglect - by ignoring the Constitution and disregarding the principles of limited government."

"I am convinced that most Americans now want to reverse the trend. I think that concern for our vanishing freedoms is genuine. I think that the people"s uneasiness in the stifling omnipresence of government has turned into something approaching alarm. But bemoaning the evil will not drive it back, and accusing fingers will not shrink government."

"The right to vote, to equal treatment before the law, to hold property, and to the protection of contracts are clearly guaranteed by the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. These rights should be rigorously enforced. Existing law demands it."

I favor a sound Social Security system and I want to see it strengthened. I want to see every participant receive all the benefits this system provides. And I want to see these benefits paid in dollars with real purchasing power.

"Social Security is a system of basic protection for the aged. In addition, most Americans now participate in private pension plans while many have their own savings and investments Social Security was never intended to replace these voluntary programs. Its prime purpose was and is to supplement them, to provide a basic floor. I am convinced it can do this job, the job for which it was created."

"Government must do everything within its power to guarantee a sound dollar. It can do this by reasonable budgets, by living within the means of the people who pay the bills, and by encouraging the individual enterprise from which the real value of money is formed."

"We need clearly stated and clearly understood priorities for national programs. We cannot do everything at once and there are many things the Federal Government should not try to do. Local governments must take on more and not, less responsibility in meeting needs when those needs are fully established."

"Let us, by all means, remember the nation's interest in reducing taxes and spending. The need for economic growth that we hear so much about these days will be achieved, not by the government harnessing the nation"s economic forces but by emancipating them. By reducing taxes and spending we will not only return to the individual the means with which he can assert his freedom and dignity, but also guarantee to the nation the economic strength that will always be its ultimate defense against foreign foes."

"We, the people, can change all of this. We can unite. We can reject appeasement. We can deny self-indulgence. We can restrain our pressure groups from seeking special privilege favors at the expense of the general public taxpayer."

"We can meet our obligations and not postpone the debt payment and place that burden on the next generation. We can do all of these things, for the people of America are strong, capable and courageous."

"To do these things, to restore the flaming beacon of freedom and opportunity which for so many generations enjoyed the admiration and affection of all the peoples of this earth, we must make our voices heard in the election of those who are to represent us in the governing bodies of this republic."

"I understand what the people of America are saying in this decade. Their message has been heard and understood. The people are now eager for a leader who will restore, the Constitutional limitations of government, who will mobilize moral force of 180 million people to reduce and to limit the inequitable, concentration of power in any government, organization or economic combine."

Lionhead said...

@Machtyn, do you think your man Mitt could support the principles I posted above?

"But I believe Romney studied Reagan's campaign and has tried to mimic it as close as he could." *** "Is Romney the next Reagan? No, all I'm saying is that the similarities are striking."

Ronald Reagan supported & endorsed Barry Goldwater in 1964; do you think Mitt could campaign for/with Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan?

For Mitt or you to wrap yourself around Ronald Reagan is disingenuous.

Anonymous said...

Lionhead...For you to act as though YOU know what Ronald Reagan would do or say today is above arrogance, it's delusional.

Didn't Rubio say that Mitt was one of the first National Republicans to get behind his candidacy??? You're right Goldwater IS the standard for conservatism...50 years ago...quit talking to us Romney supporters like we don't know about conservatism.


Lionhead said...

Gordon, you truly don't know about Conservatism. I'll be reminding you everyday of its roots & people that followed its principles. Here's a quick refresher lesson for you:

You're so wrapped up in Mitt, you've forgotten all the previous history with Reagan. Well, here's a part of it. You accuse me of arrogance, well, sir, I accuse you of ignorance!

Right Wingnut said...


With all due respect, of course, because you're a good guy....I've never had any doubt about your conservative values....until you complimented Pablo on his tea party bashing post yesterday. Now, I have serious doubts. Perhaps you skimmed the post, and didn't notice the left wing style attacks on conservatives.....

Lionhead said...

Hi Gordon, got another 'gem' for you from Ronald Reagan. Notice how the man is clear speaking, forthright & has no mistakes in his speech to cause reviews on following days. Savor the man, Ronald Reagan, another true conservative.

You can't help but feel good after watching this refreshing clip. ;)