Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Published on Monday, March 22, 2010 by FrumForum
It's Waterloo All Right: Ours
From the Right: David Frum

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today's expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It's a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November - by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today's disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama's Waterloo - just as healthcare was Clinton's in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton's 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise - without weighing so heavily on small business - without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there - would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or - more exactly - with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters - but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say - but what is equally true - is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed - if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office - Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.

© 2010 FrumForum
FrumForum.com is a site edited by David Frum, dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Teabaggers coming in to dismiss Frum as a socialist RINO in 5... 4..... 3...

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Teabaggers coming in to dismiss Frum as a socialist RINO in 5... 4..... 3...

He could very well be right.

But he's not.

houndawg wrote:I thought the most interesting phrase in his article was ..."...conservatives and Republicans...".

The Republicans think they're a shoo-in this year in the elections this year, but their scorched earth policy could backfire on them as badly as Gingrich's attempt to stop government backfired. Now they're in the position of looking bad if the wheels don't come off by election-time, especially after their histrionics about "death panels" and other such nonsense. one prediction - if this turns out to be not the catastrophe predicted by the lunatic fringe in charge of the Republican Party, Sarah Palin is finished politically and the T-waggers are back to their customary side show gig on PeopleofWalmart.com.


Conservatives and Republicans..........very interesting.....

hank scorpio wrote:

houndawg wrote:I thought the most interesting phrase in his article was ..."...conservatives and Republicans...".

The Republicans think they're a shoo-in this year in the elections this year, but their scorched earth policy could backfire on them as badly as Gingrich's attempt to stop government backfired. Now they're in the position of looking bad if the wheels don't come off by election-time, especially after their histrionics about "death panels" and other such nonsense. one prediction - if this turns out to be not the catastrophe predicted by the lunatic fringe in charge of the Republican Party, Sarah Palin is finished politically and the T-waggers are back to their customary side show gig on PeopleofWalmart.com.


Conservatives and Republicans..........very interesting.....

+1

GSUhooligan wrote:I doubt November will bring the mass exodus of dems that republicans are wanting because so many conservatives are pissed at the Republican party, a large chunk of them are going to vote Libertarian or Independent, thus splitting the votes. I absolutely hate this bill and want it repealed, but I won't vote Republican.

kalm wrote:Interesting take from Bush's speech writer:

Published on Monday, March 22, 2010 by FrumForum
It's Waterloo All Right: Ours
From the Right: David Frum

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today's expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It's a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November - by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today's disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama's Waterloo - just as healthcare was Clinton's in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton's 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise - without weighing so heavily on small business - without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there - would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or - more exactly - with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters - but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say - but what is equally true - is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed - if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office - Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.

© 2010 FrumForum
FrumForum.com is a site edited by David Frum, dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.

ASUMountaineer wrote:As a "conservative," or as D says, a "fiscal conservative/ social liberal" I can't disagree with Frum's assessment. The Republican Party is in a sad state of affairs, the only reason the party may gain seats in November is the ineptitude of the Dems. However, I don't think the gains will be as substantial as the GOP hacks would have you think. There's a reason I don't support the GOP anymore, and no longer refer to myself as a "Republican" and it's been covered here.

Vote 3rd Party/ against incumbents, and bring about actual change.

houndawg wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:As a "conservative," or as D says, a "fiscal conservative/ social liberal" I can't disagree with Frum's assessment. The Republican Party is in a sad state of affairs, the only reason the party may gain seats in November is the ineptitude of the Dems. However, I don't think the gains will be as substantial as the GOP hacks would have you think. There's a reason I don't support the GOP anymore, and no longer refer to myself as a "Republican" and it's been covered here.

Vote 3rd Party/ against incumbents, and bring about actual change.

There is no sure thing that the Democrats can't screw up. I do think the Republicans are going to be a little surprised, not by the depth of anti-incumbent feeling, but by the breadth of it. The average voter might agree with the tea party folks in general about guvmint, but unlike the tea partiers, doesn't see it as a one-party problem. This fall the feeling will be "a pox on both their houses", but without alternative voting I don't think that the libertarians and greens are going to see big jumps in their vote tallys, they'll be up, but not hugely. Get alternative voting passed and the third partys are in bidniz.

Early scouting report: look for Green candidate Rich Whitney to pick up more than 10% of the vote in the Illinois governor's race this fall. Last election he got enough votes that the Greens didn't have to collect signatures to get on the ballot this time.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

houndawg wrote:
There is no sure thing that the Democrats can't screw up. I do think the Republicans are going to be a little surprised, not by the depth of anti-incumbent feeling, but by the breadth of it. The average voter might agree with the tea party folks in general about guvmint, but unlike the tea partiers, doesn't see it as a one-party problem. This fall the feeling will be "a pox on both their houses", but without alternative voting I don't think that the libertarians and greens are going to see big jumps in their vote tallys, they'll be up, but not hugely. Get alternative voting passed and the third partys are in bidniz.

Early scouting report: look for Green candidate Rich Whitney to pick up more than 10% of the vote in the Illinois governor's race this fall. Last election he got enough votes that the Greens didn't have to collect signatures to get on the ballot this time.

Same happened with Bob Barr in NC this past election cycle, so at least, for president the LP will be on the ballot. IIRC, the same is the case for NC governor.

ASUMountaineer wrote:As a "conservative," or as D says, a "fiscal conservative/ social liberal" I can't disagree with Frum's assessment. The Republican Party is in a sad state of affairs, the only reason the party may gain seats in November is the ineptitude of the Dems. However, I don't think the gains will be as substantial as the GOP hacks would have you think. There's a reason I don't support the GOP anymore, and no longer refer to myself as a "Republican" and it's been covered here.

Vote 3rd Party/ against incumbents, and bring about actual change.

houndawg wrote:
It's a start. Install alternative voting and the big two are going to get a rude awakening.

hank scorpio wrote:

houndawg wrote:
It's a start. Install alternative voting and the big two are going to get a rude awakening.

That is why you will never see it happen, why would either want to cripple themselves? The only scenario I could see it is maybe in states (only 24) were a citizen's intitiative could be run to force it.

kalm wrote:

hank scorpio wrote:
That is why you will never see it happen, why would either want to cripple themselves? The only scenario I could see it is maybe in states (only 24) were a citizen's intitiative could be run to force it.

I beleive it's present in quite a few cities already.

hank scorpio wrote:

kalm wrote:
I beleive it's present in quite a few cities already.

Changes on a city/township level are much different than those on the state level. It would be easy in Billings, but everything here is non-partisan already. Anytime you try and change any laws regarding voting, get ready have garbage thrown at you for every concievable direction. Trust me on this one.

kalm wrote:

hank scorpio wrote:
Changes on a city/township level are much different than those on the state level. It would be easy in Billings, but everything here is non-partisan already. Anytime you try and change any laws regarding voting, get ready have garbage thrown at you for every concievable direction. Trust me on this one.

Oh I don't doubt it. But if these type of changes are proven on a grassroots or smaller scale they can sometimes lead to changes at higher levels.