The 2016 Ohio Sellout (Portman blows, with the wind)

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

A bit off-topic, but the GOP needs to be thoroughly repudiated, to the point that Congress return to Democrat control.

This is pretty stupid, IMO. Just complete idiocy.


The amount of kookery in this forum, by both the Trumpanzees and the Never Trumps, is pretty astounding.

[endicom]

I'm a NeverTrumper, but the way these people are running from Trump less than a month from election, smacks of cowardice and expediency. These "leaders" are as responsible for the rise of Trump as anyone in this sordid turn of events.

The notion that Trump has killed the GOP or killed conservatism is ridiculous. What he has inadvertently revealed is that there was nothing there but the vapors.

[Night Hides Not]

I think the GOP is collapsing even now, to be replaced by a different party -- much as the GOP itself replaced the Whigs.

Oh, the new party might possibly have the same name, but the current party has shown itself to be utterly hollow.  At a national level, the Trump candidacy has shown that there's basically nothing in the party worth defending.  "Standing up to the Democrats" is all very well, but it's not much of a platform.

At a guess, I'd predict that the new party will probably be closer to "Center Right" than conservative, because it would also attract those who are nominally Democrats; but at the same time it would probably produce candidates who are at least qualified, and possibly even very good, whose platforms (we could hope) play to common sense.

Good post, I hope you're right. There's a huge swath of the population that resides in the middle, pundits may derisively refer to them as "low information voters." I see most of them as hard working, productive citizens that are too busy with their careers and families to keep up with politics. IIRC, that was the view of our Founding Fathers, too.

That's why we have a representative republic, that depends on electing people that are moral and have good judgment. In a perfect world, I would love to see a miniseries and a rebirth of educating this country on the Federalist Papers. Considering the success of the play about Alexander Hamilton, I see hope for the future.

[Night Hides Not]

The notion that Trump has killed the GOP or killed conservatism is ridiculous. What he has inadvertently revealed is that there was nothing there but the vapors.

There you go again...Trump hasn't killed conservatism, that's only a figment of your imagination. The GOP committed suicide, led to the abyss by Trump and Priebus.

[aligncare]

Perhaps not but I'm not willing to hand the nation to the Maduro Party while pining for Party Perfect.

I'll second that, too. Pithy, pointed--perfectly presented post.  ^-^

[endicom]

There you go again...Trump hasn't killed conservatism, that's only a figment of your imagination.

Try reading again my comment.

[r9etb]

The notion that Trump has killed the GOP or killed conservatism is ridiculous. What he has inadvertently revealed is that there was nothing there but the vapors.

There you go again...Trump hasn't killed conservatism, that's only a figment of your imagination. The GOP committed suicide, led to the abyss by Trump and Priebus.

Actually, I think endicom is correct on that point. 

If you asked 100 "conservatives" what is meant by "conservatism," you'd probably get 200 different answers -- and even more answers on how to make "conservatism" a viable political platform.  And in the end, you probably end up with some sort of misty-eyed reference to Reagan, without any serious assessment of what he did and stood for.

Yes, there are some basic areas of agreement, and from those could be built a coherent definition of conservatism.  But unlike the muddle we have now, that "conservatism" must be practical:

- It must be capable of working within the real world -- it has to engage in politics (which, alas, includes compromise). 
- It has to recognize that there are people who disagree, and who must be convinced through argument and example, rather than by proud stances on arcane points of philosophy. 
- And it has to learn that a 10% gain is still a gain -- and not a loss because it's not 100% and permanent.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

This is pretty stupid, IMO. Just complete idiocy.


The amount of kookery in this forum, by both the Trumpanzees and the Never Trumps, is pretty astounding.

The writing is on the wall.  There will be some segment of conservatives convinced that the GOP must be destroyed, and replaced by a third party.  They'll drift off to support the Constitution Party or whomever, not vote GOP downticket, etc...  There are other conservatives convinced that is a terrible idea, and that the best course is to try to elect a conservative within the GOP.  The result will be that conservatives will be divided, and inevitably fail in either approach.

Good times!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If you asked 100 "conservatives" what is meant by "conservatism," you'd probably get 200 different answers -- and even more answers on how to make "conservatism" a viable political platform.  And in the end, you probably end up with some sort of misty-eyed reference to Reagan, without any serious assessment of what he did and stood for.

Yes, there are some basic areas of agreement, and from those could be built a coherent definition of conservatism.  But unlike the muddle we have now, that "conservatism" must be practical:

- It must be capable of working within the real world -- it has to engage in politics (which, alas, includes compromise). 
- It has to recognize that there are people who disagree, and who must be convinced through argument and example, rather than by proud stances on arcane points of philosophy. 
- And it has to learn that a 10% gain is still a gain -- and not a loss because it's not 100% and permanent.

Excellent post.  And the "ask 100 conservatives/get 200 answers" point is only a slight exaggeration.  It's why conservatives fragmented during the GOP primary, and why it has been so difficult for us to coalesce around a single candidate since 1984.

And to illustrate the point, I quite sure there are plenty of conservatives who would take issue with your final three points as being a betrayal of true conservatism.

[Night Hides Not]

Actually, I think endicom is correct on that point. 

If you asked 100 "conservatives" what is meant by "conservatism," you'd probably get 200 different answers -- and even more answers on how to make "conservatism" a viable political platform.  And in the end, you probably end up with some sort of misty-eyed reference to Reagan, without any serious assessment of what he did and stood for.

Yes, there are some basic areas of agreement, and from those could be built a coherent definition of conservatism.  But unlike the muddle we have now, that "conservatism" must be practical:

- It must be capable of working within the real world -- it has to engage in politics (which, alas, includes compromise). 
- It has to recognize that there are people who disagree, and who must be convinced through argument and example, rather than by proud stances on arcane points of philosophy. 
- And it has to learn that a 10% gain is still a gain -- and not a loss because it's not 100% and permanent.

Let's get the conversation started.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The writing is on the wall.  There will be some segment of conservatives convinced that the GOP must be destroyed, and replaced by a third party.  They'll drift off to support the Constitution Party or whomever, not vote GOP downticket, etc...  There are other conservatives convinced that is a terrible idea, and that the best course is to try to elect a conservative within the GOP.  The result will be that conservatives will be divided, and inevitably fail in either approach.

Good times!

Liberals have always portrayed conservatives as not too bright.


I'm beginning to agree with them.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Let's get the conversation started.

Actually, that conversation has been going on for this entire election, from which candidate was a "real conservative" or "conservative enough", to the issue of how far you compromise, etc..  To a certain extent, it's almost every political conversation we have here.

[r9etb]

And to illustrate the point, I quite sure there are plenty of conservatives who would take issue with your final three points as being a betrayal of true conservatism.

I'm quite sure you're right.

[endicom]

- And it has to learn that a 10% gain is still a gain -- and not a loss because it's not 100% and permanent.

The leftist call for revolution failed. The leftist turn to incremental gain has been successful. In the U.S., that is.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The leftist call for revolution failed. The leftist turn to incremental gain has been successful. In the U.S., that is.

They are absolutely relentless.  It's a big reason why they win.

[r9etb]

They are absolutely relentless.  It's a big reason why they win.

Another is one of the fundamental differences between left and right: those on the left often seem to "live for the meetings."  Seriously: I know a lot of left-leaning people whose lives seem to revolve around going to meetings for this or that cause, and for partaking in the political process on behalf of that cause.  It's what they do -- it's how they self-identify.  And because they're at all the meetings, they're the ones who get on the committees and set the agenda.

Whereas those in the middle-to-right prefer to stay home at night, and to identify themselves with their day jobs.

[Jazzhead]

I'll second that, too. Pithy, pointed--perfectly presented post.  ^-^

Fascinated by fascist folly,  I fear.   

[geronl]

Anything Trump touches, dies.

Even the dumbest Republicans know this now. Trump is intent on killing the party.

[endicom]

They are absolutely relentless.  It's a big reason why they win.

Michael Walsh, of PJ Media and elsewhere, often says the same. And he might be making a career out of exploring Democratic Party and Clinton criminality.

[GtHawk]

Everyone that won't vote for Orange Julius is traitor, right? We have the choice of two immoral, arrogant, vindictive, mentally unstable narcissists, both suck, but if I don't vote for your mentally unstable narcissist I'm supporting the other according to your logic. Well then by your logic my not voting for either one supports yours, so be happy in the knowledge that I will support your choice by not voting for either one.

[r9etb]

Anything Trump touches, dies.

Even the dumbest Republicans know this now. Trump is intent on killing the party.

The political version of the estranged husband who kills the wife and kids before killing himself....

[Night Hides Not]

Everyone that won't vote for Orange Julius is traitor, right? We have the choice of two immoral, arrogant, vindictive, mentally unstable narcissists, both suck, but if I don't vote for your mentally unstable narcissist I'm supporting the other according to your logic. Well then by your logic my not voting for either one supports yours, so be happy in the knowledge that I will support your choice by not voting for either one.

Brief analysis: under your logic, A = A. IOW, it's immutable truth.

Trumpian logic is always according to the eye of its beholder, with a variable shelf life.

[r9etb]

Brief analysis: under your logic, A = A. IOW, it's immutable truth.

Trumpian logic is always according to the eye of its beholder, with a variable shelf life.

Um.... are you sure you understand GTHawk's point?

[Night Hides Not]

Um.... are you sure you understand GTHawk's point?

Of course, we're playing six dimensional chess, to understand how Trump's mind ticks.  lol

[r9etb]

Of course, we're playing six dimensional chess, to understand how Trump's mind ticks.  lol

So maybe it's that I didn't understand your point.....