"Conservatives" and the "Middle"

Hey Folks,

Jonah Goldberg is generally recognized as one of the more rabid righties; so, it is instructive to learn what he thinks of the recent Republican debacle.

As you can see below, he claims it wasn't brought about by any of the selfish "policy reform" aimed at destructive cuts in wages, medical care, pensions, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. It wasn't brought about by the little-boy Neocons' playing "Empire." It wasn't caused by kissing up to God (hypocritically, he admits - it's clear in his language below), beating up on gays, or by conning Latinos in three or four contradictory ways.

No. The Republicans lost it by over-spending, scandals, stupidity, everything EXCEPT by being conservative. They were not "pure" enough. They weren't hard-line enough on the war. They weren't hard-line enough on issues like gays, prayer in school, etc.; they weren't Conservative enough!!! Yeah, right.

So, the point is: while some of the righties, their fellow travelers; and a pliant, suggestible media is babbling on about the need for Democrats to be reasonable and compromising, to move responsibly to the middle, the Kkkarl Rove/Grover Nerdquist crowd is screaming even louder for blood.

Well, fuck them and the Bush they rode in on. They lost because they were self-serving, heartless, lying, inhuman oppressors attempting to subjugate the people here and around the world..

Now, let's see if the Democrats choose to compromise with that !!!

- Uke Man



Republicans were big losers because they lost their way
Friday, November 10, 2006
JONAH GOLDBERG
Entire column at: http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE5NQ==

Through its own crapulence, jobbery and malfeasance, the Grand Old Party lost the House of Representatives, the jewel of the Republican revolution, the engine of conservative policy reform and home to the much-maligned freedom fries. . . .


And so the Republicans were doomed. The cliches are no less true for being cliches. The GOP came to power in 1994 promising lean government, and became the party that needs to unbuckle its pants and loosen its belt two notches after every lobbyist-paid meal. The GOP once had the reputation of being able to run the government like a business and wars like a finely tuned machine. But under compassionate conservatism, government became a faith-based charity. . . .


Now, let’s get back to the important business of pointing fingers and assigning blame. Conservatives have been sharpening their bayonets for months, waiting to inaugurate the first great intramural bloodletting of the new millennium. Libertarian types think the fault lies in too much social conservatism. Social conservatives see too much worldliness. Both see too much compromise, while moderates, squishes and other RINOs (Republicans in name only) see too little compromise. Realists and isolationists see too much war. Neoconservatives and other hawks see, if not too little war, certainly too little commitment to do everything it takes to win the ones we’re in.

Of all these arguments, the only two you are likely to hear ad nauseam are: too much social conservatism and too much war.

Why? Because that’s the view of the liberal establishment that for 40 years has been arguing that if only conservatives were more liberal they’d be more successful, even as the conservative movement has been the most successful political enterprise of the last half-century.

Philosophically, reasonable people may differ about whether there’s been too much social conservatism, but politically, this is idiotic. As Ramesh Ponnuru notes in the National Review, Christian conservatives give the GOP as many votes as labor and blacks combined give to the Democrats. It’s to the Republicans’ electoral advantage to take positions that shock the conscience of Rosie O’Donnell. . . .

Republicans lost because they behaved like self-indulgent politicians, not purists. Conservatives care a lot about ideas, so that’s where we’ll try to assign blame. But the ideologues aren’t to blame. The Republicans are.