Today, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the RNC itself must be held-up in a corner of some remote cave, licking their political wounds.

And let’s not forget Newt Gingric…

On October 29th, 2009 at 9:19 am, Roland said:

Unfortunately, they also tend to believe idiotic things like unions are a good way to check corporate excesses in their treatment of workers, and we shouldn’t risk bombing enemy children unless we absolutely must, and no abortion doctor would ever kill a perfectly healthy eight month fetus.

And they still do not understand Medicare is a massive failure (because it works so well for the recipients).

I’d seriously question just how pro-union they actually are, but you’re right about Medicare. FDR was very clever in setting up Social Security the way he did, so as to make it very difficult poltically to do anything about it. Still, that leaves a very large area of agreement that the Republican powers-that-be have so little excuse not to base their platforms on. On these other issues, the we-need-to-compromise-in-order-to-win-elections defense doesn’t hold water. We need to face up to a much more sobering possibility: that being politicians, and therefore government people, they have an interest in promoting big government, no matter how much they put on a show of being opposed to it.

I would say that among other things: I think they’d consider a flat tax or a consumption tax reasonable. I think it goes without saying that they’re opposed to amnesty. And I think they could be persuaded to get the federal government out of education and return it to the states where it traditionally had been, back when it resulted in a much higher-quality product than nowadays.

I agree. And the center does not want legislators or judges screwing with our marriage laws, and they understand the importance of the Second Amendment, and they think budgets should be balanced at least once in a while, and they can clearly see government spending is wildly out of control.

And they are proud of America. They think a powerful America is a good thing for the world.

Unfortunately, they also tend to believe idiotic things like unions are a good way to check corporate excesses in their treatment of workers, and we shouldn’t risk bombing enemy children unless we absolutely must, and no abortion doctor would ever kill a perfectly healthy eight month fetus.

And they still do not understand Medicare is a massive failure (because it works so well for the recipients).

It has bankrupted the country. Without it, we would not be talking about upping the ante and putting everyone on government health care so no one will be able to tell when the government is massively degrading our medical care because there won’t be any free market medical care to compare it to.

On October 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pm, Roland said:

Reagan was an American centrist. He was “right wing” only in the view of the media, the Europeans and the beltway politicians.

And in comparison to the modern Republican Party. Yes, I know about the ’86 amnesty. The fact is, nothing like that had been tried at that point, so it wasn’t political suicide the way it would be for even a Democrat nowadays. Yes, I know about Sandra Day O’Connor. Again, the political environment regarding judges was very different in 1981 when she was appointed (as was she).

But Reagan unabashedly defended the free market, way more than the measelly Gingrichites in charge of the party do nowadays. And speaking of Gingrich, the Newt of ’94 was a much more robust defender of conservative principles than what’s become of him today, and he and his copartisans got impressive results from the voters.

So what would you estimate the American center is like? What would they consider reasonable, and what would they draw the line on as unreasonable? I would say that among other things: I think they’d consider a flat tax or a consumption tax reasonable. I think it goes without saying that they’re opposed to amnesty. And I think they could be persuaded to get the federal government out of education and return it to the states where it traditionally had been, back when it resulted in a much higher-quality product than nowadays.

On October 28th, 2009 at 12:15 pm, Blackstone said:

The Republican candidate will turn to the right if he thinks moving a bit that way (only a bit so that he doesn’t lose what he thinks is the center) will win him disgruntled conservative votes he otherwise wouldn’t get.

If he sees those votes as being more difficult and ‘expensive’ to get than the votes he can get on his left, then he will go left.

The conservative threat to withhold support has to be both credible and reasonable (reasonable as defined by people in the center, not by people on the right). A candidate cannot give up those votes in the center.

One is that the Beltway “center” and the Main Street “center” are two very different things.

I could not agree more strongly. I call the Mainstreet center the American center, since most of the rest of the world is sharply to our left.

The other thing about the center is that it can be influenced.

Perhaps, but much less than you might imagine. Reagan was an American centrist. He was “right wing” only in the view of the media, the Europeans and the beltway politicians.

Unfortunately, with the media and academia so firmly in bed with the Democrats it takes incredible political ability for a real American centrist to convince the voters of the truth as to where he and his opponent really stand.

“So I say to my many conservative friends who suddenly decided whether they’re from Minnesota, or Alaska, or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I don’t think so,” he added.

Well THIS conservative from Southern New Jersey seems to know a bit more than the Upstate New York Republicans, and I DO think so, Mr. Gingrich.

You’re finished, man. Go away.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

On October 27th, 2009 at 9:38 pm, Roland said:

Generally speaking, refusing to vote for the more conservative candidate just makes nominees try harder over time to appeal to the voters on their immediate left.

Where’s the evidence for this? When McCain knew that he was staring down the barrel of a conservative revolt, he swung right, not left. The fact is, Republican candidates would go all the way over to the left if they knew for certain it wouldn’t cost them any votes on the right. After all, why settle for 50% of the vote when you can get 100%? (I’m exaggerating with my numbers obviously, but you get the idea)

You undermine your own argument with this paragraph:

Then if the frustration on the right becomes so great a third party begins to become a real possibility, the Republican nominees will just start moving back to the right, thereby undermining the new party.

Wouldn’t that count as an incentive to go for a third party?

The center rules in the American political system. You must appeal to the center, or you might as well go play golf.

I’m not denying this, but a thing or two need to be noted. One is that the Beltway “center” and the Main Street “center” are two very different things. We saw that clearly in the amnesty fiasco. We saw it again with the very impressive success of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (Ward Connerly’s initiative to ban racial preferences), which both the state Democratic and Republican Parties were opposed to.

The other thing about the center is that it can be influenced. You don’t have to blindly follow it. Candidates who can make convincing defenses of good solid principles usually do quite well (Reagan being the most visible example).