Conservatives Cite Defeats as Rebuke of Moderates

[Kevin]

Conservatives Cite Defeats as Rebuke of Moderates
By Michael Falcone

After a stinging rebuke of their party on Election Day, a group of soul-searching conservatives who met to map out the future of their movement on Thursday suggested that their best course was to turn their back on more moderate elements of the Republican Party.

And they said that if future candidates for public office want to tap into the vast fund-raising and grassroots resources of the conservative movement, they would have to fit a “job description” holding them to a set of core principles, like fiscal restraint, opposition to abortion, tough border security and a strong national defense.

“The moderate wing of the Republican Party is dead,” L. Brent Bozell, the founder of the Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, told reporters on a conference call after the meeting.

The group of about 20 prominent conservative who met at Mr. Bozell’s retreat in the Virginia countryside said the election was a signal that conservatives had become too accommodating of moderate Republican views.

“Conservatives were silent when Republican Congressional leaders massively expanded government,” said Richard A. Viguerie, a longtime leader of the movement. “Going forward you are going to see conservatives look to themselves for leadership.”

The defeat of Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, as well as Democratic gains in the House and Senate, was the catalyst for Thursday’s discussion. In House races, in particular, it was the view of the group that conservatives held onto many of their seats while moderate Republicans fared poorly.

Keith Appell, the senior vice president of a public relations firm active in Republican causes, said on Friday that conservatives were not lamenting the losses of moderate members of the party.

“I don’t think any of us are going to shed any tears over losing Chris Shays,” Mr. Appell, said. Mr. Shays, a Republican Congressman from Connecticut, has long drawn the ire of conservatives for his left-leaning views. He was defeated in his re-election bid on Tuesday by Democrat Jim Himes.

The members of the small group, who planned to continue their meetings, suggested the future of their movement rested on a return to fundamental conservative principles coupled with a more effective use of technologies, like social networking and text messaging, that Democrats have so successfully harnessed.

Others who attended the meeting included Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, Tony Blankley, who served as a spokesman for Newt Gingrich, Al Regnery, the publisher of the American Spectator, and Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster.

Tony Perkins, director of the Family Research Council and a participant in the deliberations, said in an interview that Tuesday’s election confirmed that the Republican Party is “in a ditch.” Candidates for elected officials who are “squishy on conservative principles” would not longer be tolerated, Mr. Perkins said.

And even after a bruising campaign, some said they regarded the Republican vice presidential candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, as a rising conservative star.

“I can tell you that the candidacy of Sarah Palin was immensely helpful — actually essential — to making this a reasonably close race,” said Morton C. Blackwell, a conservative activist. Had Mr. McCain not selected her to be his running mate, Mr. Blackwell said, “I think the Republican ticket would have fared like Senator Dole’s did back in 1996.”

Many polls, though, suggested that while Mrs. Palin initially provided a boost to the McCain campaign, by the last weeks of the race her presence on the ticket had turned away many voters, particularly more moderate ones.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/conservatives-cite-defeats-as-reason-to-move-right/

This is not a good sign for the rebuilding of the GOP if you ask me.

[PBrunsel]

The 2008 Election was not a rebuke of "moderates", it was a rebuke of big spending "conservatives." That horrid bail out monstrosity was in no way a conservative Republican bill, yet Senator McCain voted for it. Had he stood against it, I feel he would have done better last Tuesday. He threw out his "budget hawk" persona by voting for that bill.

I certainly hope the Republican Party returns to pro-cpatilaist cllassical liberalism now, and throw off the shackles of Neo-Conservative big spending and war mongering. Those things simply can not sell, and if they ever can then our nation's time in the sun will have passed.

[Frodo]

Would Republican candidates favoring federalist (aka, states' rights) approaches to such issues like abortion and gay marriage be able to pass muster with these folks?  Or do they have to endorse something like a constitutional amendment banning abortion and gay marriage nationwide?

[Keystone Phil]

Seeing as McCain isn't a moderate and this election really had nothing to do with ideology, this is wrong. It was a wave year, folks.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The 2008 Election was not a rebuke of "moderates", it was a rebuke of big spending "conservatives." That horrid bail out monstrosity was in no way a conservative Republican bill, yet Senator McCain voted for it. Had he stood against it, I feel he would have done better last Tuesday. He threw out his "budget hawk" persona by voting for that bill.

     While I agree with you entirely here, the people in control of the party now interpret every setback as a rebuke of moderation. They can't accept that their agenda will be anything other than welcomed by the masses, & if allowed to do so, will run the GOP straight into the ground.

[paul718]

Would Republican candidates favoring federalist (aka, states' rights) approaches to such issues like abortion and gay marriage be able to pass muster with these folks?  Or do they have to endorse something like a constitutional amendment banning abortion and gay marriage nationwide?

I have no problem with a federalist approach.  I am pro-life and indifferent to gay marriage, but don't think any constitutional amendments are called for (though I do think Roe v. Wade should be overturned b/c it's bad law).  I also think it would be wise for the GOP to tone down it's social demands, but I have trouble meshing that with the fact that social initiatives were relatively successful Tuesday night (i.e., gay marriage ban in CA). 

[Hash]

Was waiting for this.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Republicans lost for not being conservatives, but it was the conservatives not being conservatives even more than the moderates

[Kevin]

We lost this year because we didn't embrace the right forms of conservatism over the past 8 years.

[Stranger in a strange land]

We lost this year because we didn't embrace the right forms of conservatism over the past 8 years.

had Bush been conservative in the traditional sense of the term (ie kept things as they were and not pushed for more deregulation, more spending, and more war than was necessary), I think his presidency would have been far more successful.

As it was, I think Republicans were done in by excessive devotion to the ideas of Ronald Reagan: Reagan's ideas may have been needed time, and even as a Dem I'll admit that some of them worked, but because deregulation, lower taxes, and higher military spending were the right policy in the early 80s doesn't mean they're the right policies for every time and every situation.

[Ban my account ffs!]

We lost this year because we didn't embrace the right forms of conservatism over the past 8 years.

had Bush been conservative in the traditional sense of the term (ie kept things as they were and not pushed for more deregulation, more spending, and more war than was necessary), I think his presidency would have been far more successful.

As it was, I think Republicans were done in by excessive devotion to the ideas of Ronald Reagan: Reagan's ideas may have been needed time, and even as a Dem I'll admit that some of them worked, but because deregulation, lower taxes, and higher military spending were the right policy in the early 80s doesn't mean they're the right policies for every time and every situation.

I've been saying the same thing for a while.  Not every economic "collapse" is equal.  They all need different responses.

If taxes are relatively low and government investment in things like infrastructure and education is anemic, then taxes should be raised on those who can afford it to pay for big investments in our core programs... keeping the working population healthy, happy, knowledgeable, and to work on time.

If you have massive stagflation and regulation and taxes are really high.. then you would take the Reagan Route.

The government can respond accordingly to the demands of our economic system in order to keep it from spiraling out of control.

In the end, our economy is seeking balance.  To cut spending, cut taxes, and continue deficit spending like we have done now for a good part of the past 30 years will only worsen the problem.

The things that will improve our economy in real terms are
a)  New natural resource inputs
b)  productivity increases

The government can play a pivotal role in both of those.

The free market will simply positively reinforce itself into a deep hole.

[Person Man]

Was waiting for this.

Lol...they were being  Semi-conservative. Quasi-Conservative. The Diet Coke of Conservatism. One Calorie. Not conservative enough. The banjos simply weren't loud enough, I guess.

[Kevin]

We lost this year because we didn't embrace the right forms of conservatism over the past 8 years.

had Bush been conservative in the traditional sense of the term (ie kept things as they were and not pushed for more deregulation, more spending, and more war than was necessary), I think his presidency would have been far more successful.

As it was, I think Republicans were done in by excessive devotion to the ideas of Ronald Reagan: Reagan's ideas may have been needed time, and even as a Dem I'll admit that some of them worked, but because deregulation, lower taxes, and higher military spending were the right policy in the early 80s doesn't mean they're the right policies for every time and every situation.

That is what I am talking about, however we didn't deregulate in the right areas we didn't keep our spending down and we didn't fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a fiscally responsible way(even though that's kind of hard to get around due to war being expensive and we have appeared to at last seized something close to victory in Iraq)   

[Kevin]

We lost this year because we didn't embrace the right forms of conservatism over the past 8 years.

had Bush been conservative in the traditional sense of the term (ie kept things as they were and not pushed for more deregulation, more spending, and more war than was necessary), I think his presidency would have been far more successful.

As it was, I think Republicans were done in by excessive devotion to the ideas of Ronald Reagan: Reagan's ideas may have been needed time, and even as a Dem I'll admit that some of them worked, but because deregulation, lower taxes, and higher military spending were the right policy in the early 80s doesn't mean they're the right policies for every time and every situation.

I've been saying the same thing for a while.  Not every economic "collapse" is equal.  They all need different responses.

If taxes are relatively low and government investment in things like infrastructure and education is anemic, then taxes should be raised on those who can afford it to pay for big investments in our core programs... keeping the working population healthy, happy, knowledgeable, and to work on time.

If you have massive stagflation and regulation and taxes are really high.. then you would take the Reagan Route.

The government can respond accordingly to the demands of our economic system in order to keep it from spiraling out of control.

In the end, our economy is seeking balance.  To cut spending, cut taxes, and continue deficit spending like we have done now for a good part of the past 30 years will only worsen the problem.

The things that will improve our economy in real terms are
a)  New natural resource inputs
b)  productivity increases

The government can play a pivotal role in both of those.

The free market will simply positively reinforce itself into a deep hole.

You also have a point with Reagan even though he goes down in history with the ranks of other great conservatives, the Republicans need to move beyond him and seek a new dynamic form of conservatism with wider appeal.

[Person Man]

Yes. The free market really doesn't have anywhere to go. We are entering, and rightly so, a new era of economic consolidation.

[Хahar 🤔]

Hooray!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First off. These freaking idiots are being so stupid. The problem is not being moderates being moderates but conservatives being liberal. LAst time I checked Olympia Snowe wasn't the majority leader and Chris Shays wasn't Speaker. This whole squsihy candidates thing really gets at me. Even Reagan changed his entire philosphy as he grew older. They also have fallen in love with a potential 2012 nominee that helped cause McCain's defeat. Yes PAlin energized the base for McCain but it came at the expense of much needed independenets and moderates. There were plenty of choices that could have rallied consvervatives without causing as much damage.

Reagan would not be pleased with George W Bush. In fact I am kind of glad he isn't here to see what has happened. Reagan always had a Democratic House and so could never cut spending. Bush had a Republican congress but he increased spending considerably. Reagan isn't the problem.

Yes. The free market really doesn't have anywhere to go. We are entering, and rightly so, a new era of economic consolidation.

How do you come to that conclusion. Just take a gander at Rasmussen. They are polling it extensively. The opposition to the bailouts and even the stimulus is large. 63% prefer tax cuts over another stimulus check. 80% fear Gov;t will go too far dealing with Economic crisis. A plurality oppose the Auto Bailout 48-36. I think that this Bush=Conservative=unpopular crap doesn't work. Bush was not a fiscal conaervative and thus not a free market Capitalist(free market Liberal in other countries. Liberal as in freedom and limited Gov't) I think Americans agree with my assessment of Bush. 

[Mint]

There you go with your logic again.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Actually I agree, McCain himself is a moderate. Would it really benefit the Republicans if they became different from the Democrats in name only?

[Хahar 🤔]

Actually I agree, McCain himself is a moderate. Would it really benefit the Republicans if they became different from the Democrats in name only?

If that were to be the case, it'd be the fault of the Democrats.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Actually I agree, McCain himself is a moderate. Would it really benefit the Republicans if they became different from the Democrats in name only?

maybe, but he ran against the progressive income tax, sang songs about bombing Iran, and mocked women's health in the final debate. He himself may be a moderate, but the campaign he ran was about as far right as you can go.

[??????????]

He didn't mock womens health. He was talking about the way the term "health of the mother" has been stretched to mean almost anything. But keep on spinning lies. And nothing is "progressive" about our current tax system.

[Stranger in a strange land]

He didn't mock womens health. He was talking about the way the term "health of the mother" has been stretched to mean almost anything.

whatever. at very least he should have said it more tactfully.

nothing is "progressive" about our current tax system.

It's far from perfect, but a flat tax, like Joe the Plumber advocates, would be worse

[Lunar]

McCain was arguably a moderate in the Senate, it's important to remember he reversed himself on a number of hot-button moderate issues and did not run as a moderate in the primaries or in the general.  He ran as a "reformer" and ran to the right of Bush on Iraq (and highlighting that constantly as resume quality.)

And of course the Palin pick reinforced the non-moderate imagery.

[Keystone Phil]

McCain was arguably a moderate in the Senate

The guy was not a moderate. He was "moderate" (a maverick) on a few issues and so people automatically think of the guy as a complete moderate. It's not true.