back to top16 Comments to “The GOP feud”

1. BY jjf 10.16.07 AT 9:39 AM

   Maybe someone should first define “Republican-ness.”

   Pro- war?
   Pro- torture?
   Pro- spying?
   Pro- spending?
   Pro- unitary executive?

   Report comment to moderator

2. BY Polites 10.16.07 AT 9:40 AM

   They’re all 8+ and that is the problem. I am reminded of this quote provided by Frank in Phoenix two years ago on WorldMagBlog:

   [Northern 'conservatism'] is a party which never ‘conserves’ anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of ‘conservatism’; it is now ‘conservative’ only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity; and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

   American ‘conservatism’ is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted?

   Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the ‘conservatism’ of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always – when about to enter a protest – very blandly informs the wild beast, whose path it essays to stop, that its bark is worse than its bite, and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it ‘in wind,’ and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. ~ Robert Lewis Dabney (Women’s Rights Women, 1897)

   Report comment to moderator

3. BY Kyle A 10.16.07 AT 10:31 AM

   I don’t know about Republican-ness, which fluctuates and varies, but on conservatism:

   Giuliani: 7
   McCain: 8
   Romney: 8
   Thompson: 9

   Report comment to moderator

4. BY Peter L 10.16.07 AT 10:35 AM

   To me, Republicnaism means lower taxes, strong defense, and laws that support business without corporate welfare. Add conservative and that means pro-life, pro-marriage and high moral stands on other social issues. Not knowing all the candidates’s stands on every issue, my perception is this:

   Giuliani: 3
   McCain: 6
   Romney: 6
   Thompson: 7 or 8

   Add the other candidates everyone forgets to mention are running, and they all score 8 or higher. Note the the RNC- you want to win next year? Go right and dump the front runners. Every time the Republican candidate has not taken a strong conservative stand, the Democrats have won (at least post-Nixon). You think the RNC will learn form history? I doubt it. Look forward to 4-8 years of Hillary or Gore, folks.

   Report comment to moderator

5. BY Stephen 10.16.07 AT 1:15 PM

   Romney wants to double Guantanamo. I think we have a winner right there.

   Report comment to moderator

6. BY Frank in Phoenix 10.16.07 AT 1:17 PM

   More “Republican”? Who cares. They’re hardly distinguishable.

   But more conservative? Or more constitutional?

   Rep. Ron Paul. No contest.

   Incidentally, some GOP flack named Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics wrote, “I would argue that Paul does indeed ‘cheat’ on the party brand”:

   http://tinyurl.com/yrfy8t

   The piece would be funny if it weren’t such a sad indictment of the “conservative” party of the “two-party” system.

   I guess his assertion all depends on how you define the GOP “brand,” as JJF pointed out from the start.

   Small-government, non-interventionist, pro-life Evangelical conservatives keep voting GOP because they feel like they have no choice but to vote against the Democrat alternatives.

   Then once we help the GOP get to the dance, they refuse to dance with them that brung ‘em.

   Report comment to moderator

7. BY Night Train 10.16.07 AT 1:18 PM

   They’re all 10 on the Republican scale.

   They’re all 0 on the conservative scale.

   Report comment to moderator

8. BY jjf 10.16.07 AT 1:35 PM

   Why do many of you give Thompson such high marks on conservatism? I know little about him, but it seems he entered late and has said little. Is his conservatism just a media impression? Wishful hoping from conservatives who are dissatisfied with the front-runners? What has Thompson said or done that makes you think he is a conservative?

   Honestly, he strikes me as a vapid politico who’s just repeating the script he’s been given. He’s just an actor, and this is just another job. This time the role is conservative presidential candidate.

   Report comment to moderator

9. BY trr 10.16.07 AT 2:08 PM

   Too bad Duncan Hunter’s not on the list. Thompson isn’t going far. Giuliani wants to be seen a mafioso, and he’s not conservative on social issues. Night Train hyperbolizes again, but there’s some truth to what he/she said.

   Report comment to moderator

10. BY Kyle A 10.16.07 AT 2:55 PM

    JJF, if you want to know more about Thompson’s conservative views, here is a post I wrote about him with some links to some of his writings:

    http://renaissanceguy.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/fred-thompson-my-current-pick-for-president/

    Here’s one I wrote called “Is Fred Thompson Just Another Actor” that addresses your specific point:

    http://renaissanceguy.wordpress.com/2007/06/03/is-fred-thompson-just-another-actor/

    Report comment to moderator

11. BY jjf 10.16.07 AT 3:29 PM

    Kyle,

    I’ll glance through those links. My distrust of Thompson comes from the feeling that he’s got nothing to say and nothing to offer, so maybe hearing some of his ideas in his own words would help.

    For now, I go on things like his announcement on Jay Leno:

    We started around the kitchen table in late March talking about it, thinking about it, thinking about what kind of world and what kind of country our kids were going to grow up in and how many people have a chance to do something about it. And I decided that it was time for me to step up. So I did.

    What kind of reason is that? It’s completely empty of any substance. It sounds like the moral of some fluffy Oxygen channel movie.

    Report comment to moderator

12. BY Night Train 10.16.07 AT 3:47 PM

    What kind of reason is that? It’s completely empty of any substance. It sounds like the moral of some fluffy Oxygen channel movie.

    Thanks for making my day, JJF. That’s hilarious. All the more so because it’s true. I wish I’d said it.

    Report comment to moderator

13. BY Kyle A 10.16.07 AT 4:29 PM

    Very funny, JJF. Sincerely. We need more wise guys around here.

    I actually resonate with Thompson’s announcement because I am also concerned about the country my kids will inherit from us. I believe very strongly that “first principles” matter more than any particular set of political platforms.

    Report comment to moderator

14. BY bdancer 10.16.07 AT 6:37 PM

    Three key issues: pro-life, pro-gun rights, and pro-small federal government. Pro-defense is more or less a given for all the candidates.

    Giuliani, Romney, and McCain do poorly on all three—Giuliani and Romney especially crash and burn on the second, and McCain fails the third like it’s his job. Thompson, on the other hand, seems to be reasonably strong on the first, very strong on the second (see this), and a little better than mediocre on the third (he supported the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection act, for example). That ain’t bad. And, he’s actually got a shot at winning (sorry, Hunter and Paul).

    Report comment to moderator

15. BY hrw 10.16.07 AT 7:08 PM

    What a Republican is I have no idea. But conservatism has generally been describing as adhering to tradition unless moderate changes are needed to adapt to a new environment. The British conservative party was fairly paternalistic until the post WWII era and was transformed completely by Thatcher who was not a real conservative since she created a revolution. The Canadian conservative party until recently also stood for tradition and a paternalistic view of gov’ts role. However, under Mulroney and Harper they have switched values and have become Friedmanites — a revolutionary adherance to the so-called free market.

    FRom what I know; Giulani is not a tradition conservative and neither is Thompson. However Romney was a paternailistic governor not a neo-con which makes him more conservative. McCain jumped the shark a long time ago. As for Ron Paul; if America has any concept of tradition he’s following it.

    Report comment to moderator

16. BY jjf 10.16.07 AT 11:38 PM

    @Kyle:

    Of course you care about the children. Everybody does. That’s what makes Thompson’s a completely banal statement. The question is specifically how a Thompson presidency will be better for the future of the country.

    In your links I read that Thompson at least pays lip service to “first principles,” but then he just falls back on the same old Republican talking points. For example, I read this:

    Our nation is based upon the proposition that our statutes, common law and the Constitution will not only be applied fairly between litigants, but will also be observed by the government. People will be able to rely upon the rules, usually long established, and their consistent application. This engenders respect for the law. It is a sad irony that a nation that is so dedicated to the rule of law is doing so much to undermine the respect for it.

    And I got excited for just a moment — maybe I could get behind this guy. But then Thompson doesn’t pursue his idea in its contemporary context — habeas corpus, the executive branch not being exempt from laws requiring court approval for surveillance or being given broad authority to issue “signing statements” that reinterpret a law, the need for the judicial branch to be impartial arbiters of law rather than partisan hacks. Instead, he goes after the same old Republican bugbear: activist judges.

    Now I hate activist judges as much as the next guy. But… really? Activist judges? You want to talk about undermining the rule of law and the most pressing example you can come up with is the 1973 Roe vs. Wade?

    Then he moved to prayer in schools, and I got the firm impression that Thompson is just moving down the list of talking points. Yes, I agree that the Federal government has been intrusive in its handling of school prayer, but if you are truly motivated by a desire to restore the Constitutional limits of the Federal government, then you’re going to see a whole lot of bigger issues that need addressing first. If, on the other hand, your motive is simply to win brownie points with a conservative audience, you’re going to run down the list just like Thompson did:

    * I love the Constitution
    * I hate activist judges
    * abortion
    * prayer in schools
    * the Roberts nomination
    * pardon Scooter Libby
    * did I mention I love the Constitution

    There’s not an original thought in there.

    Report comment to moderator