Kondracke: GOP should stop letting conservative radio set its agenda.

[ChrisFromNJ]

How can the Republican Party rebound? The first step would be to quit letting Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham set its agenda.

But Step One is to fire Rush Limbaugh and his ilk as the intellectual bosses of the GOP. They shouldn't be muzzled, as some liberals want to do by reviving the "fairness doctrine" in broadcasting, just ignored more frequently.

In recent years, Republicans have let right-wing talk show hosts whip the GOP base into frenzies -- over immigration, brain-damage victim Terry Schiavo and same-sex marriage -- that have branded the party as troglodyte.

The result is that the demographic groups representing the future of American politics shifted decisively to the Democratic Party in 2008 -- Latinos, young people, the well-educated, moderates, working women, first-time voters, suburbanites and "seculars."
As former White House political guru Karl Rove observed last week, "the GOP will find it hard to regain the majority" if it keeps losing Latinos.

Immigration scarcely was an issue during the fall campaign. But the damage was done over the past two years as the radio screamers roused the rabble, who then beat on GOP Members of Congress, presidential candidates and even the Bush administration not just to control the border but treat undocumented residents as felons.

As a moderate, I think he makes some very good point. GOP has been hurt very much over the last 2 elections with their association to talk radio. I heard one of McCain's pollster say one of the most effective ads of this campaign season was Obama's Spanish ad linking McCain to Limbaugh's immigration policies.

This is a very real problem for the GOP. If Obama doesn't trip over his feet in the next 4 years, the GOP faces some very real problems going forward.

[paul718]

I understand Kondracke's argument, but I don't think it's true.  There is no evidence of talk radio hosts setting Republican agenda.  They crusaded against McCain during the primaries, but he secured the nomination quite easily.  I think talk radio mirrors the opinions of the Conservative base, not the other way around. 

Look at what happened on the other side.  The Dems nominated the MoveOn.org candidate, and he won the presidency in pretty convincing fashion.  Had he lost, the same argument could be made for them, as MoveOn/Kos are roughly the equivalent of Limbaugh's/Hannity's radio programs. 

Kondracke is taking his stab at answering the "Why did the GOP take a bath?" question.  But he's making it out to be more complex than it really is. 

[opebo]

Morton Kondracke is supposed to be a 'moderate'?!

[ChrisFromNJ]

Morton Kondracke is supposed to be a 'moderate'?!

What would you consider him, opebo?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Kondracke is a liberal who believes who would like to make sure that the only choices voters have is between liberal A and liberal B.

Why is the world would anyone vote for a pathetic immitation of the original, when the original is available?


Oh, and have Kondracke have his liberal Republican candidates tell the voters before the primary in clear and unmistakable terms that they favor amnesty for illegal aliens.  After all, if we are to believe Kondracke, the voters favor amnesty, and its just the 'right-wing talk radio hosts' who oppose it.  Oh, and BTW, have Kondracke explain that one to former Rep. Cannon of Utah.

Oh, and also, 'gay marriage' is so popular, according to Kondracke.  How he explains that the voters in 30 states would be interesting (most recently Arizona, California and Florida).

[Mr.Phips]

Kondracke is a liberal who believes who would like to make sure that the only choices voters have is between liberal A and liberal B.

Why is the world would anyone vote for a pathetic immitation of the original, when the original is available?


Oh, and have Kondracke have his liberal Republican candidates tell the voters before the primary in clear and unmistakable terms that they favor amnesty for illegal aliens.  After all, if we are to believe Kondracke, the voters favor amnesty, and its just the 'right-wing talk radio hosts' who oppose it.  Oh, and BTW, have Kondracke explain that one to former Rep. Cannon of Utah.

Oh, and also, 'gay marriage' is so popular, according to Kondracke.  How he explains that the voters in 30 states would be interesting (most recently Arizona, California and Florida).

Kondracke is no liberal.  He is pretty much in the middle.  He will attack both sides at different times as he attacked Democrats harshly for their opposition to offshore drilling. 

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Well, it pretty simple. Nationalism doesn't work when your idea of the "American Nation" no longer exists.

[ChrisFromNJ]

Kondracke is a liberal

No he isn't.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Kondracke is a liberal

No he isn't.

Yes he is!

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Ehhh... he's liberal if you are far-right. Then the typically right is the center-right. The Center-right is the "Real" center and the center is the center-left. ...and of course, the typical left is the far left and the far left is just a monolithic bloc that stretches from Bernie Sanders to Josef Stalin.

[ChrisFromNJ]

Kondracke is a liberal

No he isn't.

Yes he is!

No, he isn't.

[opebo]

Morton Kondracke is supposed to be a 'moderate'?!

What would you consider him, opebo?

Well, I've only seen him on TV, but he always seemed to be quite right-wing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Kondracke is a liberal

No he isn't.

Yes he is!

No, he isn't.

Yes he is!

Across a wide spectrum of issues Kondracke consistently takes the liberal position.

What he does is to present the most extreme version of liberalism on an issue, and then suggest it needs to be slightly moderated.

He favors increased taxes.

He favor increased foreign aid.

He opposes the right to keep and bear arms.

He supports amnesty for illegal aliens.

[opebo]

He favors increased taxes.

He favor increased foreign aid.

He opposes the right to keep and bear arms.

He supports amnesty for illegal aliens.

Those are 'liberal' positions?  The last three are of no consequence whatever, and the first is just responsible economics (anyway it isn't 'increasing' taxation, just returning it to the levels which worked in the past from the levels recklessly implemented from about 1981, which caused the depression).

[paul718]

(anyway it isn't 'increasing' taxation, just returning it to the levels which worked in the past from the levels recklessly implemented from about 1981, which caused the depression).

What?

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Kondracke is right-leaning and someone who likes to complain quite a bit.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Kondracke has it partly right, we need to avoid the inflammatory Coulter, the idealouge Hannity (who's still a good guy), and we need to get on the Limbaugh page.

It's this simple:

Conservation over environmentalism,
Low taxes and low spending,
Strong defense (that we don't use)
Leaving the social issues to the states rather than looking overzealous and stupid about gays.

We'el win again on that.

Limbaugh isn't a psycho or a big social conservative.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Kondracke has it partly right, we need to avoid the inflammatory Coulter, the idealouge Hannity (who's still a good guy), and we need to get on the Limbaugh page.

It's this simple:

Conservation over environmentalism,
Low taxes and low spending,
Strong defense (that we don't use)
Leaving the social issues to the states rather than looking overzealous and stupid about gays.

We'el win again on that.

Limbaugh isn't a psycho or a big social conservative.

Thinking that Hannity is a "Good Guy" is why you are losing. These policies just don't work anymore. Low Taxes and Low Spending? How do you do that with corporate welfare and an expansionist foreign policy...leaving social issues to the states doesn't actually solve any issues, either and just seems irresponsible. I mean, its a good policy, but where do you stand on it after you find the proper venue?

[paul718]

These policies just don't work anymore. Low Taxes and Low Spending? How do you do that with corporate welfare and an expansionist foreign policy...

There's a loud and strong argument against bailout-mania from both sides of the aisle.  And in The Man from the GOP's post he said "a strong defense (that we don't use)" which means a non-expansionist foreign policy.

...leaving social issues to the states doesn't actually solve any issues, either and just seems irresponsible. I mean, its a good policy, but where do you stand on it after you find the proper venue?

Because some Conservatives believe that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to enact things like a federal abortion ban or a federal marriage amendment, and that those issues would be better decided by each state individually.

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

I agree about those individuals. Mark Levin should be the real person setting the conservative agenda.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

These policies just don't work anymore. Low Taxes and Low Spending? How do you do that with corporate welfare and an expansionist foreign policy...

There's a loud and strong argument against bailout-mania from both sides of the aisle.  And in The Man from the GOP's post he said "a strong defense (that we don't use)" which means a non-expansionist foreign policy.

...leaving social issues to the states doesn't actually solve any issues, either and just seems irresponsible. I mean, its a good policy, but where do you stand on it after you find the proper venue?

Because some Conservatives believe that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to enact things like a federal abortion ban or a federal marriage amendment, and that those issues would be better decided by each state individually.

1- It still costs money to build a strong army, but I do agree that it is a good way of providing demand subsitution in supply-side policy-dominated economies....but I would perfer that "strong defense" would include civilian programs, such as the Costellation Program, the Orbital Power program and other science programs.
2- Conservatives will still have to come to decisions at the state level if they want to defer these issues at the state level....and what about territories and commonwealths...and Indian Reservations?

[opebo]

(anyway it isn't 'increasing' taxation, just returning it to the levels which worked in the past from the levels recklessly implemented from about 1981, which caused the depression).

What?

Prior to Reagan's tax-actions, the top rate was always in the 70%+ range from the 1930s to 1981 or so.  Our current economic troubles prove the damage caused by lowering it.

[paul718]

1- It still costs money to build a strong army, but I do agree that it is a good way of providing demand subsitution in supply-side policy-dominated economies....but I would perfer that "strong defense" would include civilian programs, such as the Costellation Program, the Orbital Power program and other science programs.

You're right.  Growing the army, outfitting it, R&D, etc., are extremely expensive (ex: the Reagan deficit).  But mobilization is also very costly, and avoiding such (if possible) would certainly save a lot of money. 

2- Conservatives will still have to come to decisions at the state level if they want to defer these issues at the state level....and what about territories and commonwealths...and Indian Reservations?

Yes, but as the level at which these descisions are made become more localized, the less they become partisan issue.  For example, there are plenty of pro-life Democrats in Alabama, and plenty of pro-choice Republicans in Connecticut.  Also, I think Kondracke was referring to Republican appeal at the national level.  If these decisions are left to the states, they cease to become an issue in presidential and congressional elections. 

[Mint]

Kondracke has it partly right, we need to avoid the inflammatory Coulter, the idealouge Hannity (who's still a good guy), and we need to get on the Limbaugh page.

I wouldn't call someone who is friendly with Hal Turner and routinely spews bilious talking points a 'good guy.'

It's this simple:

Conservation over environmentalism,
Low taxes and low spending,
Strong defense (that we don't use)
Leaving the social issues to the states rather than looking overzealous and stupid about gays.

Agreed for the most part though the second part needs some moderation IMO to be viable.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

(anyway it isn't 'increasing' taxation, just returning it to the levels which worked in the past from the levels recklessly implemented from about 1981, which caused the depression).

What?

Prior to Reagan's tax-actions, the top rate was always in the 70%+ range from the 1930s to 1981 or so.  Our current economic troubles prove the damage caused by lowering it.

So you want return to the "great economic boom" of the 1970's. I guess all the gas-lines and high prices were just for fun right. What about the collaspe of the Penn Central do to overregulation and overunization of the Railroads. Was that just for kicks. Low taxes didn't cause this economic meltdown.