http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-crane4-2009nov04,0,277258.story

The founders envisioned a federal government constitutionally limited to defending our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For that to happen, we must have at least one political party that strongly advocates limiting the power of government. For much of the 19th century, that party was the Democrats. For the early part of the 20th century and from the early 1960s through 1988, that party was the Republicans.

<insert bumpersticker here about hope, change, death panels>

As for the GOP, it has outwardly abandoned the limited-government principles of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Little other evidence is needed than the Medicare prescription drug benefit—with its $13-trillion unfunded liability—passed with a strong-arm campaign by the Bush White House and a Republican congressional majority.

WHOA!  What pinko wrote this drivel?

Edward H. Crane is the founder and president of the Cato Institute

For all of Obama’s problems, duplicity isn’t one of them.  Okay, I’m taking stuff out of context, but think about it…Goldwater would *@Y& if he saw the GOP today.

No, he wouldn’t. He’d sigh and shake his head knowing that the patricians had retaken power. Lincoln on the other hand…

no_vaseline - 03 November 2009 06:38 PM

For all of Obama’s problems, duplicity isn’t one of them.

Unless you consider his promises on taking dramatic action to end the wars immediately upon getting into office.  That’s what rallied so many of the younger voters and gave passion to so many others.

He started hedging the second it looked like he had everything locked up for the win, and started giving excuses for baby steps within a week of taking office.

disappointing.

Obama has promised Change and Hope or Chope if you watched the Mad TV skit.

We have the Change portion down which is he has changed his stance on almost everything since he has taken office.  His simplest Change was transparency and yet he still refuses to make the White House Visitors public knowledge.  Who is lobbying him for Health Care?  Where are all those outraged liberals when Bush and Cheney tried this?

He is delivering Hope too, Hope that he is a one term president.

trrenter - 11 November 2009 11:00 AM

Obama has promised Change and Hope or Chope if you watched the Mad TV skit.

We have the Change portion down which is he has changed his stance on almost everything since he has taken office.  His simplest Change was transparency and yet he still refuses to make the White House Visitors public knowledge. Who is lobbying him for Health Care?  Where are all those outraged liberals when Bush and Cheney tried this?

He is delivering Hope too, Hope that he is a one term president.

Bullshit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/30/white-house-visitor-list

Dated October 30th.

The White House this afternoon released visitor logs in response to a mass of public records requests, many from news organisations and the president’s conservative opponents. The list shows more about what the information seekers hoped to find than it does about the identity of Obama’s confidants, because the White House said it only released logs corresponding to specific requests.

“There is an important lesson here,” White House special counsel for ethics and government reform Norm Eisen wrote on the White House blog. “This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information.”

More than 100,000 people visit the White House every month, and from the raw logs, it is unclear whether names on the list corresponded to the famous people who own them.

Eisen wrote the list includes “a few ‘false positives’ - names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else. In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly (‘R Kelly’), and Malik Shabazz).” Eisen added: “The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”

I don’t mind if you hate on the guy, but don’t lie about it.

I stand corrected I didn’t see that Obama finally relented.

The Friday night dump combined with the H1N1 at my home kept me out of the loop.

It only took a year for that change!

trrenter - 11 November 2009 01:13 PM

I stand corrected I didn’t see that Obama finally relented.

The Friday night dump combined with the H1N1 at my home kept me out of the loop.

It only took a year for that change!

Yeah - but it got done.  Just like winding down Iraq is getting done.  Rome wasn’t built in a day.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-utah-senate14-2009nov14,0,4048460.story

In California, former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina—seeking to be the Republican nominee against Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer next year—faces Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine, who is rallying support from conservatives nationwide. In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist is fighting a stiff primary challenge from former state House Speaker Marco Rubio.

“One side feels the Republican Party has lost its way and sacrificed its basic principles,” said Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “The other thinks the party has moved too far right and become inflexible and intolerant.”

That worries some Republicans in Utah, which has not elected a Democratic governor in nearly 30 years or a Democratic senator in nearly 40. Last week, a traditionally GOP House seat in upstate New York went Democratic, thanks largely to party infighting driven by nationally prominent conservatives.

Obama is losing moderates - meanwhile, the GOP continues to purify the party, telling moderates “we don’t want you either”.

no_vaseline - 14 November 2009 01:41 PM

In California, former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina—seeking to be the Republican nominee against Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer next year—faces Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine, who is rallying support from conservatives nationwide. In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist is fighting a stiff primary challenge from former state House Speaker Marco Rubio.

“One side feels the Republican Party has lost its way and sacrificed its basic principles,” said Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “The other thinks the party has moved too far right and become inflexible and intolerant.”

That worries some Republicans in Utah, which has not elected a Democratic governor in nearly 30 years or a Democratic senator in nearly 40. Last week, a traditionally GOP House seat in upstate New York went Democratic, thanks largely to party infighting driven by nationally prominent conservatives.

Obama is losing moderates - meanwhile, the GOP continues to purify the party, telling moderates “we don’t want you either”.

I don’t know DeVore, but I’d vote against Fiorina just on GP; she’s already proven herself to be morally corrupt while at Hewlett-Packard. While some may argue that is a job requirement for Senator, I’m not one of them.

Democrats, not just Obama, are losing self-identified independents, some of whom may be moderates. But you are incorrect… it’s the Republican *voters*, not the leadership, that are telling the GOP that *they* don’t want moderate candidates, which is how primaries are supposed to operate. During the general election, both sides will again be courting the moderates and the independents.

You consistently get this wrong… it’s not the Republican Party that is driving the moderate candidates out, it is the Conservative base who recognize that the move to appeal to the moderates resulted in corruption, lost elections, and a Democrat in the White House. The “Democrat-lite” model of politics was a massive failure for the GOP and it’s the Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan that has said “enough”, moving away from the top-down political decision making and instead supporting local talent.

Nude - 14 November 2009 03:05 PM

no_vaseline - 14 November 2009 01:41 PM

In California, former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina—seeking to be the Republican nominee against Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer next year—faces Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine, who is rallying support from conservatives nationwide. In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist is fighting a stiff primary challenge from former state House Speaker Marco Rubio.

“One side feels the Republican Party has lost its way and sacrificed its basic principles,” said Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “The other thinks the party has moved too far right and become inflexible and intolerant.”

That worries some Republicans in Utah, which has not elected a Democratic governor in nearly 30 years or a Democratic senator in nearly 40. Last week, a traditionally GOP House seat in upstate New York went Democratic, thanks largely to party infighting driven by nationally prominent conservatives.

Obama is losing moderates - meanwhile, the GOP continues to purify the party, telling moderates “we don’t want you either”.

I don’t know DeVore, but I’d vote against Fiorina just on GP; she’s already proven herself to be morally corrupt while at Hewlett-Packard. While some may argue that is a job requirement for Senator, I’m not one of them.

DeVore is slightly to the right of Daniel Boone.  Fiorina is dogmeat regardless.  As bad as Boxer sucks, there’s no possible way DeVore defeats her in a statewide election.  I think Boxer is beatable, but not by somebody like DeVore.

Democrats, not just Obama, are losing self-identified independents, some of whom may be moderates.

Isn’t that the same thing?  Either way, we agree.

But you are incorrect… it’s the Republican *voters*, not the leadership, that are telling the GOP that *they* don’t want moderate candidates, which is how primaries are supposed to operate. During the general election, both sides will again be courting the moderates and the independents.

The moderate/independent middle is not where the Republican *voters* are.  If they were, they’d just be Republicans.

You consistently get this wrong… it’s not the Republican Party that is driving the moderate candidates out, it is the Conservative base who recognize that the move to appeal to the moderates resulted in corruption, lost elections, and a Democrat in the White House.

I disagree completely.  Move to the middle = corruption and incompetence?  C’mon! 

The “Democrat-lite” model of politics was a massive failure for the GOP and it’s the Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan that has said “enough”, moving away from the top-down political decision making and instead supporting local talent.

“Democrat-lite”?  I disagree.  Try hubris.  And a dash of incompetence.

Nude - 14 November 2009 03:05 PM

You consistently get this wrong… it’s not the Republican Party that is driving the moderate candidates out, it is the Conservative base who recognize that the move to appeal to the moderates resulted in corruption, lost elections, and a Democrat in the White House. The “Democrat-lite” model of politics was a massive failure for the GOP and it’s the Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan that has said “enough”, moving away from the top-down political decision making and instead supporting local talent.

You’re incorrect.  It’s a subset of the based that is pursuing Theocracy over the small Government ideals of Reagan.  It’s the devil’s detail deal Reagan did to get elected and it’s home to roost.  The fringe in both parties mobilize for the primaries because that’s where they get the bang for the buck. Hence, we have more polarizing candidates.  If the fringe base doesn’t get their candidate or one that supports their Christiandom first viewpoint, they don’t turn out but unfortunately, the fight at all has tainted the candidate enough that they are unpalatable to many.

Ideally, what the GOP needs to do is seize the majority of moderates by coupling a more liberal social policy with a fiscal conservative standpoint and kick the fringe to the fringe.

No_Such_Reality - 15 November 2009 10:00 AM

You’re incorrect.  It’s a subset of the based that is pursuing Theocracy over the small Government ideals of Reagan.  It’s the devil’s detail deal Reagan did to get elected and it’s home to roost.

I would have agreed with that in 2000, or even 2004. But in looking at the candidates that are running on conservative credentials, the James Dobsons of the world are practically invisible. It is the limited government folks who are at the forefront and running effective campaigns.

The razed earth practices of the fringe and Rush’s the world burned all the real people out. With the failure of the fundamentalists, all that are left are the vacuous opportunists.  Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Arnie, etc.  The same adled mindsets as seen from advisors for McCain.

The problem with them, is the same as the problem with McCain.  It’s not democrat-lite or even the lack of ideas, it’s the pandering of ideas to see what sticks and lack of idealogy couple with a “given” basic capitulation to the fundies.

People have tasted that. Had their nose rubbed in that.  They’ve had enough of that.  The same empty sound bites.  Marketing without substance and corporate Napoleons with visions of grandeur.  Even worse, a willingness to pander to the theocracy for support.

So they are not democrat-lite.  What the current sell outs are, are Big Government theocracists.  They are neither fiscal conservatives nor have anywhere near a centrists view on social issues.  They are the opposite, financially & fiscally illiterate, big spending, big government, totalitarian theocracists. 

So you see, the problem is, they’ve already compromised themselves.  It’s a given they’ll compromise themselves again with the fundies again to garner support if needed.  We’ve seen how dangerous the fundie empowerment is with Bush.

No_Such_Reality - 15 November 2009 10:04 PM

The razed earth practices of the fringe and Rush’s the world burned all the real people out. With the failure of the fundamentalists, all that are left are the vacuous opportunists.  Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Arnie, etc.  The same adled mindsets as seen from advisors for McCain.

The problem with them, is the same as the problem with McCain.  It’s not democrat-lite or even the lack of ideas, it’s the pandering of ideas to see what sticks and lack of idealogy couple with a “given” basic capitulation to the fundies.

People have tasted that. Had their nose rubbed in that.  They’ve had enough of that.  The same empty sound bites.  Marketing without substance and corporate Napoleons with visions of grandeur.  Even worse, a willingness to pander to the theocracy for support.

So they are not democrat-lite.  What the current sell outs are, are Big Government theocracists.  They are neither fiscal conservatives nor have anywhere near a centrists view on social issues.  They are the opposite, financially & fiscally illiterate, big spending, big government, totalitarian theocracists. 

So you see, the problem is, they’ve already compromised themselves.  It’s a given they’ll compromise themselves again with the fundies again to garner support if needed.  We’ve seen how dangerous the fundie empowerment is with Bush.

Again, check the date, you just described 2004. Unless you have some links to current candidates, front-runners, or stump speeches by people testing the waters in 2009, I’m going to dismiss your assesment as dated demagoguery.

No, I just described 2008 and 2009.

Do you think Palin is a fiscal conservative?  Are you really going to pretend the party did a hard left between nominating Palin and now?

Was the health care debate hijack on sniping over abortion fiscal conservation?

No_Such_Reality - 16 November 2009 09:41 PM

No, I just described 2008 and 2009.

Do you think Palin is a fiscal conservative?  Are you really going to pretend the party did a hard left between nominating Palin and now?

Was the health care debate hijack on sniping over abortion fiscal conservation?

Who are trying to convince? Because if it’s me, I’d like the links I asked you for proving your contention.

Is Palin running? Is she even in power? No and no. She’s shilling for other candidates and selling her book on Oprah. The party didn’t really nominate her, McCain picked her; the VP slot is pretty much rubberstamped at the Convention. And I think it’s pretty comical that you are trying to bootstrap your BS by insinuating I claimed the *party* made a hard left turn.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was named after the Congressman who sponsored it, Bob Stupak (D-Michigan) and Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania) and it was not a “hijack” but an enabling piece of legislation that got the conservative DEMOCRATS on board. Had that amendment failed, the bill itself would not have passed for lack of DEMOCRATIC votes. You do know the difference between DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS, right?

Keep up the good work. You are single-handedly making your side look like idiots with every unsubstantiated claim and every factually incorrect assertion. Not only do you not know what is going on in the Republican party, you apprently don’t know what’s going on in your own party. I suggest you pull your head out of whatever/whosever orifice it’s embedded in and read up on current events.

Same old grumpy Nude.  I think he still has me on ignore.
I wonder what he would say about Obama`s Japan trip ?

I’m just enjoying watching the republican circular firing squad.

first, the woman rep in upstate NY forced to quit the race by the usual fundy suspects (club for growth, palin, etc), and now they are turning on the FLA race, hammering Christ.  I read yesterday’s NYtimes piece saying they are going after Fiorino next, in favor of chuck Devore.

its a purity test, and any remaining moderates, especially of the rockefeller/western republicans that I grew up with, are meat.

freedomCM - 17 November 2009 11:21 AM

I’m just enjoying watching the republican circular firing squad.

first, the woman rep in upstate NY forced to quit the race by the usual fundy suspects (club for growth, palin, etc), and now they are turning on the FLA race, hammering Christ.  I read yesterday’s NYtimes piece saying they are going after Fiorino next, in favor of chuck Devore.

its a purity test, and any remaining moderates, especially of the rockefeller/western republicans that I grew up with, are meat.

She wasn’t forced to quit, she quit because she was running a distant 3rd and had no chance of winning. As final proof that she cared more about being elected than about anything even remotely resembling Republican principles, she endorsed the Democrat. More importantly, had the Republican *voters* had a choice, she wouldn’t have even been on the ticket. Crist is a perfect example that this is not being led by social/religious conservatives because he has consistently taken their side on social issues. No, he made his mistake in embracing big government and sealed his fate when he appointed a buddy to keep the Senate seat warm for him. And Fiorina? Please. She ran H-P into the ground and was widely regarded as the one of the worst CEOs in American history, and in light of the current economic problems, she’s the last person that should be running for a Senate seat.

Calling it a “purity test” is misleading, because fiscally conservative, limited-government Republicans have been told to sit down and shut up since W won the nomination in 2000. This was for the good of the party in 2000, and then the good of the country in 2001, and then again in 2004 and 2008. During that time, we were told by just about everyone that we needed to be more moderate, more centrist, more open to the opposing views… and Republicans consistently lost elections to a Democratic party that was anything but centrist and moderate. This isn’t a purity test, it’s a realization that “we, the poeple” means me, you, she, and he have a responsibility to elect people who actually believe in what we believe and show it in actions, not just pay lip service to a dead President’s legacy. It’s not about running people out of the party, but about putting people in office who stand for something, who aren’t going abandon their principles because they want to be liked or because they can make more money or because they fear losing an election.

But hey, that’s why everyone on the left is trying to recast it in a negative light, right? Reframe the debate as “those mean and evil Republicans are getting meaner and more evil” before people start thinking that conservatives might have a point. Whatever. In the end what the left thinks doesn’t really matter because a) you’d never vote Republican anyway and b) refusing to acknowledge the truth makes you even more vulnerable come 2010.

freedomCM - 17 November 2009 11:21 AM

I read yesterday’s NYtimes piece saying they are going after Fiorino next, in favor of chuck Devore.

And, Boxer wins another term.

no_vaseline - 17 November 2009 03:36 PM

freedomCM - 17 November 2009 11:21 AM

I read yesterday’s NYtimes piece saying they are going after Fiorino next, in favor of chuck Devore.

And, Boxer wins another term.

How does a Fiorina vs. Boxer race end any differently?

no_vaseline - 17 November 2009 03:36 PM

freedomCM - 17 November 2009 11:21 AM

I read yesterday’s NYtimes piece saying they are going after Fiorino next, in favor of chuck Devore.

And, Boxer wins another term.

Thats a given.

The GOP needs to focus on keeping those Big Population States where it has Senators in place.
Its the only way they can keep some power in the Senate.

Idaho 1.5 Million.  2 Republican Senators
Wyoming 500,000     2 Republican Senators
Utah   2.5 Million   2 Republican Senators
Kansas 2.8 Million   2 Republican Senators

Just think if the Senate was based on states population like the House is. 
The GOP would be even more toothless than it already is.

Those 8 Senators represent less than 2.5% of this Nations Population. Yet can yeild power over the 97.5%
of the rest of us. Another flaw of our system. Unequal representation and power in the Senate.

bltserv - 17 November 2009 04:06 PM

Those 8 Senators represent less than 2.5% of this Nations Population. Yet can yeild power over the 97.5%
of the rest of us. Another flaw of our system. Unequal representation and power in the Senate.

I agree, let’s repeal that pesky 17th Amendment and allow the States themselves to enjoy political representation as originally intended. The “people” have the House of Representatives, they don’t need the Senate too. It only leads to mob rule and undue influence by special interests.

(btw, bltserv, in case you were confused… I’m not actually agreeing with you.)

Nude - 17 November 2009 01:08 PM

Calling it a “purity test” is misleading, because fiscally conservative, limited-government Republicans have been told to sit down and shut up since W won the nomination in 2000. This was for the good of the party in 2000, and then the good of the country in 2001, and then again in 2004 and 2008. During that time, we were told by just about everyone that we needed to be more moderate, more centrist, more open to the opposing views… and Republicans consistently lost elections to a Democratic party that was anything but centrist and moderate.

So you’re saying from 2001 to 2008 to today, the Republican have become more centrist?

Forget it, they talked centrist and went hard right.

And before you babble on, I’m a republican, if you can’t reach a deal with me, then the party is dead, get used to it.

No_Such_Reality - 17 November 2009 06:53 PM

So you’re saying from 2001 to 2008 to today, the Republican have become more centrist?

Absolutely. From 1996, when Bob Dole lost to Clinton until 2008, when McCain lost to Obama, the GOP… the leadership and it’s candidates… all moved to the center and became more concerned with remaining in office than in remaining true to the spirit of the Contract with America movement that put them in power. That concern drove them to acts of corruption, to playing patsy for Wall Street, and to silently assenting as George W. Bush derailed the budget plans that were zeroing out the debt. They lost all credibility with the Medicare Drug plan and couldn’t even thwart TARP when it mattered because they were afraid to be seen as heartless in the face of a panicky public.

Forget it, they talked centrist and went hard right.

Are you kidding me? Where was the abortion amendment? Where was the federal ban on gay rights? Where was the ban on homosexuals in the military? Forget it. They used those issues to win elections by putting them on ballot measures to guarantee turn-out. But the GOP, especially under George W. Bush, did more to expand the federal government and advance the agenda of the neo-conservative faction, while ignoring the deficit, doubling the National Debt, and increasing the scope of the bureaucracy than any previous administration or combination of Congresses going back to World War Two. Seriously, what party have you been watching for the last 30 years?

And before you babble on, I’m a republican, if you can’t reach a deal with me, then the party is dead, get used to it.

Funny, you sound like a disaffected libertarian who registered Independent and is still nursing a grudge. If this is an example of the kind of critical thinking you bring to the party, go buy Palin’s book and amuse yourself; the rest of us have work to do.

Nude - 17 November 2009 07:57 PM

No_Such_Reality - 17 November 2009 06:53 PM

So you’re saying from 2001 to 2008 to today, the Republican have become more centrist?

Absolutely. From 1996, when Bob Dole lost to Clinton until 2008, when McCain lost to Obama, the GOP… the leadership and it’s candidates… all moved to the center and became more concerned with remaining in office than in remaining true to the spirit of the Contract with America movement that put them in power. That concern drove them to acts of corruption, to playing patsy for Wall Street, and to silently assenting as George W. Bush derailed the budget plans that were zeroing out the debt. They lost all credibility with the Medicare Drug plan and couldn’t even thwart TARP when it mattered because they were afraid to be seen as heartless in the face of a panicky public.

Forget it, they talked centrist and went hard right.

Are you kidding me? Where was the abortion amendment? Where was the federal ban on gay rights? Where was the ban on homosexuals in the military?

Faith based initiatives?
The Mexico CIty Policy on Abortion?
Stem Cell research restrictions?
Euthanasia fights?  What was her name?  Terri Schviao?
and what do you call the nods to Intelligent Design comparisons for Evolution?

That’s right, Religious right.

Forget it. They used those issues to win elections by putting them on ballot measures to guarantee turn-out. But the GOP, especially under George W. Bush, did more to expand the federal government and advance the agenda of the neo-conservative faction, while ignoring the deficit, doubling the National Debt, and increasing the scope of the bureaucracy than any previous administration or combination of Congresses going back to World War Two. Seriously, what party have you been watching for the last 30 years?

That doesn’t make them centrist.  Most NEO-Cons are fundies.  As long as they got the above and lip service to their litmus tests, then they charged ahead with big intrusive government and spending.  That’s the NEO-CON problem, they’re just the fringe left with a different and totalitarian world view based lip service to piety.