Ongoing Conservative Delusions

There's a phenomenon I've long noticed among liberals dissatisfied with Barack Obama, whereby they'll say, "He's never said X!", with X being some kind of defense of liberal values or articulation of the liberal position on a particular issue. But if you look through his speeches and comments, you'll find that just about every time, he has in fact said whatever it is he's being blamed for never saying. Maybe he hasn't said it often enough for your liking, but the real problem is probably that saying it didn't have the effect you wanted.

I thought of that reading this article by Molly Ball about a gathering of conservatives yesterday at which new senator Ted Cruz of Texas was the headliner:

"More than a few conservatives say, well, if the voters want to bankrupt our country, let them suffer the consequences," he said. But the real problem, Cruz said, was that "Republicans were curled up in the fetal position, so utterly terrified of the words 'George W. Bush'" -- for whom Cruz once worked, as a campaign adviser and in the Justice Department -- "that we never bothered to contest" Obama's economic arguments. The "utterly ridiculous notion" of a "war on women" also went unchallenged, in Cruz's telling.

The other speakers at the dinner -- which was also attended by two members of Congress, Raul Labrador of Idaho and Steve King of Iowa, as well as a former Commerce Secretary, Carlos Gutierrez, and emceed by Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard -- were even more adamant that it was the method, not the message, that lost the election for the GOP.

Now, it's true that Republicans didn't talk about Bush, but that's because the voters still kind of hate him. But the idea that Republicans "never bothered to contest" Obama's economic arguments? That they never challenged the "war on women" notion? Seriously?

You can argue that Mitt Romney was a crappy candidate, but no conservative can reasonably claim that he didn't make a case for conservatism. In fact, that was the best thing about this election: for all the trivia, it presented a fundamental ideological debate, with both candidates talking about first principles throughout. Conservatives aren't happy that they lost that argument. But even though it's not particularly good politics to condemn the voters for not seeing the light, it's a lot more honest than saying they never got the chance to hear what conservatism had to offer.

Comments

And the Conservative disconnect with reality continues. Where were these guys during the 20 Republican debates or when Akin, Murdock and Limbaugh were giving us an earful of ignornance and bigotry? Where were these guys when poll after poll confirmed that Americans want the wealthiest Americans to pay their share? The message was heard loud and clear.

Author actually nailed it. The GOP looked at George W Bush as a leper. Whatever he did or did not do, he did leave us with a 2007 deficit of 167 billion and an unemployment rate in 2007 under 5%. And that was, gasp, 4 years after the Bush tax cuts and the two wars. Yes the housing bubble blew up while he was in office, but the dot-com bubble blew up when Clinton was in office and the left didn't walk away from him.

And that allowed Obama to blame every one of his failings on Bush (the lost 8 years, yada yada) and take credit for all the Bush successes

I love how you first pretend 2008 never happened (reality check: George Bush was still president at the start of 2009, Obama wasn't inaugurated till January 20th), and then that the bursting of the dot-com bubble was even remotely comparable to the financial crisis of 2008.

...and of course the budgets of the first two years of the Obama Presidency were those planned and passed under Bush.

Budgetary years have been running behind calendar years for at least a couple of decades now, but I believe junior Bush was the first President ever to have a budget year so late that it had *no* ovrlap with its calendar number.

-dlj.

The GOP looked at Dubya as a leper for good reason. What you fail to mention in your simplistic analysis of Bush's legacy are a couple of other relevant facts. Reduced revenue to the tune of 231 billion because of the Bush tax cuts, 2 wars, a perscription program, and the first installment of the stimulus program have ALL added to our current defict. Merely looking at one point in time and drawing broad generalalities does not really tell the whole story of how we have arrived at this point in our budget.

The Romney campaign failed miserably to tout the success of conservative policies over the past thirty years, including the Bush years. Beginning with Reagan and continuing through the Clinton years when Republicans controlled Congress and dragged him to the center, America experienced its most spectacular economic success since before World War II. This was indeed the tide that lifted all boats as the rich got richer and so did everybody else. Not only did Romney not mention Bush, he simply didn't tell the amazing success story of the transformation of the American economy beginning in 1981. Nor did he ever lay the blame for the housing collapse and the financial meltdown at the feet of liberal policies, beginning with Jimmy Carter and peaking with Clinton, that unqualified buyers should have a "right" to home ownership. The chickens came home to roost in 2007, but the disaster was blamed -- of course -- on Bush "policies." Interestingly, Obama never identified what these policies were, and Republicans never touted the Bush economy, which, for five of the eight years between bookend recessions, was quite good. The failure to communicate the unqualified success of conservative economics contrasted with the disastrous results of liberal policies, was the greatest failure of the 2012 campaign.

Your lack of grasp of reality is stunning. Anyone who still believes what you've written is as ignorant as they come. You should be embarrassed.

Can you provide us with any evidence to support this assertion:

"This was indeed the tide that lifted all boats as the rich got richer and so did everybody else. "

I have no specialist knowledge whatsoever in respect to either the history or the economic theory and therefore have to base my views on the findings of others, but it is my understanding that the data shows that, during the time interval in question, the wealth of the middle class, at least in terms of purchasing power, was being eroded.

Do you deny this? To be fair, of course, you have every right to challenge the sources on which my position is based.

It's difficult, if not impossible, to tout something that does not exist. And, that pretty much describes the "amazing success story of the transformation of the American economy beginning in 1981" you say Romney failed to tell. Unlike you, Romney knew there was nothing there but pitfalls, and purposely avoided them like the plague. Not that that makes Romney some sort of political genius . . . it was just so obvious that even he could see it.

Regarding Bush '43 it was clear that the Republicans had a problem with Bush's popularity (lack there of) and the lush target Bush presented Obama with regard to the unfunded wars, the bailouts and the deficit. But I believe that it was their decision to pretend Bush didn't exist, to not have him at least present visually at the convention that gave Obama a serious edge over Romney. And I think that because it demonstrated, broadly and unmistakably, that Conservatives were/are in denial about the country and their messages.

It is not hard to go from the empty chair monologue to asking why would anyone expect Obama at the RNC? And where was Bush? to Romney's agonizing maneuvers to avoid details, facts and the eery feeling that even the Conservatives knew there message wouldn't sell. It wasn't the the "Failure to communicate the unqualified success of conservative economics" that cost Romney the election it was the continual failure to convince the electorate that Conservatives were in the reality based world.

I agree with most cwwj post. Regardless of the liberal parasites like Barney Franks and Chris Dodd, along with Jimmy Carter, then Bill Clinton, and RINOs Graham, Leach, and Blilley, who allowed the Housing and Banking crisis to implode and cause a world wide economic disaster by repealing the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 which prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, commercial bank, and an insurance company., but in addition implemented The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate. This single piece of Legislation, signed by President Clinton, along with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that Jimmy Carter signed into law, allowed and enabled these Liberal Democrats, - specifically Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, and Chuck Schummer to perpetuate and exasperate the sub-prime and ARM mortgage lending govt system, by coercing forcing banks and other financial institutions, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whom GW Bush 43 did nothing to change, to stop, for the GOP was just as much a part of it as the liberal Democrats were. Bush ran up the deficits and debt and expanding govt, almost as much as Obama has, just not to the level of degree as Obama, and operated 2 unfunded wars.. But he did lower tax rates and kept the economy moving on a somewhat even keel without intentionally nose diving it like Obama is.. Basically, RINO's like to manage big govt, not to use it for tyrannical purposes like Obama, as opposed to Conservatives, who restrains big govt, and keeps govt out of the private people's lives, and out of the private sector's market economy.

The reason Romney never did what he should have done, espouse Conservative Values, Principles, and most importantly, the proven past success of Conservative economic, political,and social policies, is because Romney is no Conservative, let alone a Reagan Conservative.. But a Mass progressive GOP establishment RINO in the mold and like so Ford, Nixon, Rockefeller, the Bush's, Rove, David Dewhurst, etc, etc..

Romney even publically denounced Reagan policies while running for Gov.. How can Romney articulate something, communicate something, advocate something he neither believes in, or likes.

RINOs like Romney are big govt progressives just like the Obamacrats, just in Republican clothes.. And is why they are almost as much of a detriment to this Nation than Obama and his obamacrats, for they are not willing to acknowledge any of this, but only proclaim their #1 enemy is the grass roots Tea Party Folks, then #2 is terrorists/ Muslim Brotherhood, etc, then the Obamacrats, etc..

Is it any wonder why Romney the GOP Establishment RINOs lost the election.. besides the claim of the obamacrat sycophants voter fraud rigging, or what have you.

This is what happens when you have a GOP establishment RINO as the GOP Nominee, instead of a Reagan Conservative in the first place.

Reagan was not a GOP establishment Republican, but a Conservative, who was the only Republican Presidential candidate to unseat a sitting incumbent Democrat.

He did so because he knew his enemy, he knew their tactics, he knew their history, and he knew how to counter them with his vast in-depth knowledge of the opposition ideology-socialism/marxism. In addition to his articulate charismatic ability to communicate Conservative values, principles, and ideals of what brings prosperity to a Nation and a people.

He was not one to capitulate, appease, and give in to those he knew were corrupt, subversive, and ideologically driven, as the GOP establishment and GHW Bush soon found out.

This is the kind of leadership in a candidate that we must have to defeat these hordes of progressive corrupt elements, now in power and office.

RINOs are definitely good at destroying their party base structure, and appeasing and capitulating with and to the enemy of Freedom, Liberty, Democracy, Free Market Capitalism, aka the Obama-rats.

Their self-destructing self-serving interests have only made the Republican Party weak and ineffective- ie; impotent.

Yikes, you obviously don't know the economic history of America. Not surprising of anyone who actually believes that conservative economic policies produce better results than progressive policies. Your ignorance was highlighted when you wrote "socialism/marxism" as if they are the same and as if progressive polices are the same as marxist policies.

Suggest you review your understanding of the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act and who was behind its eventual repeal. Your understanding and simplistic explantions of how Bush "did lower tax rates and kept the economy moving on a somewhat even keel without intentionally nose diving it like Obama is.." is another example of Conservative disconnect with reality. It wasn't because Romney was a RINO that he failed, it's because the Conservative message fails to include ALL Americans. Romney also failed because Conservatives have taken the message from the far Right and given it a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve.

I'm confused. Wouldn't repealing a restriction on corporate powers/mergers be a pro-free-market action? If you want to partially blame our circumstances on that repeal, than go right ahead, but don't pretend that it must have been a purely "liberal thing" just because Clinton signed it.

(and even to this day, Ronald is greatly over-rated.)

Mitt Romney was a "crappy" candidate? No more crappy than the one who was re-elected. BUT..the one thing I can say positive (in my way of thinking) about Romney, unlike Obama, he did not support partial birth abortion. I wrote in Ralph Nader.... (again) .and he wasn't even running this time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqqz_KLU4Ys

Ran out of topics to talk about? Conservatism has been on display for the 8 years prior to Obama's election and most of us are unimpressed with how irrelevant it is to our daily lives and the advancement of our society at large.

Conservatism seeks to maintain the status quo (the classical definition) and most of us are not happy with the status quo in much of anything. The status qup keeps wages stagnant, but prices keep going up (and the GOP wonders why so many of us have little to no free money to spend); the status quo keeps 50+ million citizens out of medical insurance. The status quo rewards CEOs and their top henchmen with salaries and bonas payments that they did not earn. The status quo keeps in place a tax structure that is unfair to most working Americans. The status quo keeps women on the outside and seeks to deny them ownership of their own bodies.

You can have the status quo; not interested.

Ran out of topics to talk about? Conservatism has been on display for the 8 years prior to Obama's election and most of us are unimpressed with how irrelevant it is to our daily lives and the advancement of our society at large.

Conservatism seeks to maintain the status quo (the classical definition) and most of us are not happy with the status quo in much of anything. The status qup keeps wages stagnant, but prices keep going up (and the GOP wonders why so many of us have little to no free money to spend); the status quo keeps 50+ million citizens out of medical insurance. The status quo rewards CEOs and their top henchmen with salaries and bonas payments that they did not earn. The status quo keeps in place a tax structure that is unfair to most working Americans. The status quo keeps women on the outside and seeks to deny them ownership of their own bodies.

You can have the status quo; not interested.

Conservative nothing bad enough, but do not forget that on the basis of existing good thing to learn. Like a soccer jersey website(http://www.soccerjerseysinus.com/ ), to know if the steady demand opportunities.

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

Connect
, after login or registration your account will be connected.
Advertisement