Republican Revival Revelations

Read Reihan, Ramesh, and Ruffini.Here’s Ramesh Ponnuru making tons of sense:

What these races suggest is that Republicans’ principal problem in recent elections has not been that they are too far right, or — as a lot of conservatives like to think — not far right enough. After all, voters turned on both moderate and conservative Republicans in the late Bush years. The problem has instead been that voters have not thought Republicans of any stripe had answers to their most pressing concerns. Addressing those concerns, rather than repositioning itself along the ideological spectrum, is the party’s main challenge.

Of course, nobody on the mainstream right is addressing the leviathan in the room: defense.  I’m  not sure we can regain a level fiscal footing until the question of defense spending is addressed, and of course even in the most sensible corner of the conservative movement, that’s hardly even the ghost of a whisper.  No matter how fiscally sane the GOP gets, and no matter how responsible and practical their policy prescriptions become in the future, without addressing defense we’re still at a fiscal standstill.

I’ll have more to say about all of this but I’m feeling a bit of writer’s block coming on at the moment.  Suffice to say, the posts linked above all point to the need for a more policy-centric, less ideological agenda on the right.  It’s actually pretty much what I’ve been saying for some time now.  If only Rush Limbaugh would stop being such a jerk, maybe we’d see this start to materialize.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Please do be so kind as to share this post.

17 thoughts on “Republican Revival Revelations

    • Let’s say one tries to fix a problem by doing X and it doesn’t work.
      Let’s say one tries again, and it doesn’t work.
      Let’s say one tries again, and it doesn’t work.

      Eventually, one would hope that X is abandoned for, I don’t know, Y or something.

      The problem is that some ideological opponents of one tend to respond with something like “you’re abandoning your beliefs, you’re being an opportunist, you’re a hypocrite” (I’m sure you know the routine) when one sees that X doesn’t work.

      I don’t see this as a problem necessarily. Hell, even if X works like a charm for a dozen years then stops working, why not abandon X for something that works? Pragmatism is a very American Philosophy, after all.

      The problem is that Rush has communicated in the past that he has said things because he’s just carrying water for his side.

      If he’s abandoning the neocons, is he just going to be carrying water for the tea partiers and/or other independent conservatives? Is he saying these things because of his conservativism or is he just cynically following money?

      Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with cynically following money. I love cynically following money.

      The problem is that if you follow someone who is cynically following money, you’re eventually going to wake up and listen to him explain how he’d been lying to you for the last few years and, seriously now, he’s shooting you straight from here on out.

      Is Rush shooting straight now, Mr. Cheeks? Or is he just carrying water?

        Quote  Link


  1. JB, your opinions are always so interesting. I may be silly but following his last contract, I really don’t think Rush (mmm, mmm, mmm!) is all that concerned about money. My guess is he makes enough to smoke Montecristos!
    So I was just wondering what you guys think about Rush becoming a puricon (I just coined that word, and please see if we can use it!)?
    And, JB, what about the 2010 elections, what do you see?
    And, who’s going to be the GOP leader, if there is one?

      Quote  Link


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *