Scarborough: Today's GOP is Not Too Conservative It's Too Radical

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

In the wake of back to back disappointments the past two elections, as well as Arlen Specter's recent defection to the Democrat Party, liberal media members -- and even some not-so liberal media members -- have been blaming the GOP's supposed demise on Republicans being too conservative.

On Sunday's "Meet the Press," MSNBC's Joe Scarborough took issue with this popular yet obviously debatable theme:

[W]hen I hear Democrats like Arlen Specter and read editorialists like E.J. Dionne saying how liberal--or, or how conservative the Republican Party's become, they've got it backwards. We have not been conservative as a party, we've been radical

That was just one of many eye-opening statements by Scarborough during this segment that have been edited together in the video embedded right. Below the fold is a partial transcript of this enlightening discussion that included former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
MR. DAVID GREGORY, HOST: And we are back with Ed Gillespie and Joe Scarborough.

Welcome to you both. Well, you've just listened to Senator Specter talking about what's wrong with the Republican Party. And he talks about this, Ed Gillespie, as a low point, a wake-up call. Do you see it as that?

MR. ED GILLESPIE: Well, clearly the pendulum has swung away from us, and it's our job as a party to figure out how to get it to swing back. And obviously President Obama and the Democrats in Congress will give us some opportunities there, but we've got to proactively go out and address some of the concerns. We've got geographic concerns; we're noncompetitive on the West Coast, largely, and noncompetitive in the Northeast and increasingly so in the, in the Great Lakes. We've got to do better with Hispanic voters. So there are some things we've got to address. But I, you know, I'm optimistic. This is the fourth time in my lifetime, and I'm 47, that the Republican Party's been declared dead. We've come back the previous three times and I think we'll come back this time as well.

MR. GREGORY: But, Joe, it seems like the fundamental question is, what does the party want to be, right? So there are people who've said, "This is a low point." Ron Brown, seen in his column this week in the National Journal, talks about the party being more monochromatic, more conservative regionally and in terms of the voters. And he talked to Tom Davis of Virginia who said this, we'll put this up on the screen: "Shrewd former Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, who chaired the Republican--the National Republican Congressional Committee, calls Specter's defection a `devastating blow' that will send a `bad signal' of ideological intolerance to the moderate white-collar suburbanites the party must recapture if it is to threaten the Democrats' congressional and Electoral College majorities. `The dilemma for Republicans is, are we--what are we going to become, a coalition or are we going to be a private club?'"

MR. JOE SCARBOROUGH: But look what's happening right now. This always happens, like Ed says. Republicans were dead in 1964, they were dead in 1974. They're dead again, we hear. But just look at Connecticut, the, the bluest of the blue states; you've got a senator, Chris Dodd, down by 16 points. Look in Illinois, another blue state; you've got Mark Kirk doing very well against all Democratic comers, another Republican moderate. Look, look in Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge. If, if Tom Ridge gets in, that's a guy that's probably going to win that state also. Even New York state, thank to, thanks to David Paterson, is a state that could very well go Republican. So there's always a back and forth. But the bigger question is, what does the Republican Party need to be? We keep hearing that it's too conservative. You know, it depends on how you define conservative.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: Over the past decade we've spent too much money, we've spread our armies across the globe, we've, we've changed rules on Wall Street that allows, you know, that allowed bankers to leverage 40-to-1. That's not conservative, that's radical. And we have to understand that and be truly conservative.

MR. GREGORY: This--Ed, you worked for President Bush, and we look at the standing of the Republican Party from when he came into office to when he leaves. And look at this polling: positive ratings now for the Republican Party at 29 percent, in December of 2001 at 57 percent. Bear in mind, that's after 9/11 there. Negative ratings jump, they double, from 22 to 44 percent there. Is this about Americans turning away from President Bush, or is it about turning away from the Republican Party? Is there a distinction?

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, I think--obviously, the president's numbers were low. It was frustrating to me because I am such a strong admirer and count myself a friend. But it's, it's a lot of different things. We had control of Congress for 12 years as well, and there were some things I think that we could've done differently. When we had the White House there were some things I think that we could've done differently. We--the, the point is to look at where we have opportunities, learn our lessons. I think that the effort that Eric Cantor and other leaders in Congress have, have just launched a go out and listen and learn and hear the voters is important. There's opportunities in that. President Obama, while he enjoys a, a 61 percent favorability rating, there is growing concern about his spending and borrowing and taxing out there. More independents in line with Republicans in those concerns than with Democrats.

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

MR. GILLESPIE: On national security issues we have some opportunities. So the key for us is to come forward with positive agenda and explain to voters how it is that our conservative principles translate into policies that improve their lives and create jobs and help them with health care and energy.

MR. GREGORY: I just want to, I want to press you on one point.

MR. GILLESPIE: Sure.

MR. GREGORY: You say independents are with Republicans on this. Obama advisers say just the opposite, that he's in the high 60s in terms of approval among independents, much more trust for Obama than for Republicans on the economy. And, and this from the ABC/Washington Post poll: Who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy? It's Obama 61 percent, Republicans in Congress 24 percent.

MR. GILLESPIE: Yeah. Let me--the, the poll I was citing...

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

MR. GILLESPIE: ...was actually from a group that I recently helped to launched, Resurgent Republic.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. GILLESPIE: Which is modeled on a, a similar liberal side of a group, but it's accurate data. It, it, it's consistent, 61 percent approval of President Obama's performance. But on the budget itself, specifically...

MR. GREGORY: Specifically on the budget.

MR. GILLESPIE: ...do you support this budget with its $1.4 trillion in--or $1.6 trillion in new spending, $1.4 trillion in new debt, and 51 percent of the respondents oppose it, and, and more independents aligned with Republicans in opposing that budget than Democrats.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. GILLESPIE: So that's, that's a specific issue I'm citing.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: But here's the, here's the problem, though. When Republicans took over Washington--and we're not just talking about George W. Bush, we're talking about Republican Congress. When Republicans took over Congress in 2001 and the White House, we owned Washington, D.C., like Democrats do now. We had $155 billion surplus. When Republicans got out of power we had a $1.5 trillion debt--deficit. We doubled the national debt from about $5.7 trillion to about $11 trillion. Americans believe that we were spending too much money on foreign wars as well. We, we were the world's 911. We got away from the basics that Eddie and I worked on in the 1990s: balancing the budget, reforming welfare and adopting Colin Powell. You want to know a true conservative on foreign policy? It's Colin Powell, who says we go to war sparingly, and when we go to war we fight to win so we can bring our troops home. We've gotten away from that. And it's not just been one Republican, it's been the entire party. We've got to refocus. That's why when I hear Democrats like Arlen Specter and read editorialists like E.J. Dionne saying how liberal--or, or how conservative the Republican Party's become, they've got it backwards. We have not been conservative as a party, we've been radical.

MR. GREGORY: You've got a book coming out in the next couple of weeks, and we're going to put the jacket, the special preview jack on the screen here.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: Oh, this is so exciting.

MR. GILLESPIE: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: "The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise." And then look at the headline from The New York Times this week: "GOP Debate: A Broader Party or a Purer One?" Both of you address this question. Should it be broader? Should it be purer?

MR. SCARBOROUGH: That's a false choice, though. Ronald Reagan was about as conservative as you can be. Ronald Reagan said, you know, the government that governs the least governs best. Thirty years ago you had Margaret Thatcher, 30 years ago this month, coming into power. Again, Thatcher, a hard-core conservative on economic issues, especially. We need to be conservative, but like Reagan. Because conservatives always love talking about Reagan. They'll talk about the ideology but not the temperament. We've got to work on our temperament. We've got to be more like Reagan. We can't scare little kids and dogs.

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, you know, I...

MR. SCARBOROUGH: And also regionally, let's face it, we've had conservative leaders. We've had George W. Bush...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: ...Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay.

MR. GREGORY: All right, but on, but on that point, Ed, Karl Rove and...

MR. GILLESPIE: Are, are, are they going, are they going to, are they going to win New England? No.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: No.

MR. GREGORY: But, but the, but the, the, the criticism of President Bush and Karl Rove was to run a base strategy not only to get elected, but to govern that way, to a point where Lindsey Graham from South Carolina says, "Look, we can't have a party where I can't accept somebody in my party who agrees with me 70 percent of the time."

MR. GILLESPIE: Well...

MR. GREGORY: Do you think it's a false choice?

MR. GILLESPIE: I, I do think there's a lot of false choices in there. First of all, let's note, President Bush, when he passed in his first term in office No Child Left Behind and the, and the tax package, all with bipartisan support in the both the House and the Senate. We haven't seen President Obama do that yet. So that, that's a false--that's a misnomer. I do think, though, that it is important.

The fact is Ronald Reagan, everybody talks about Reagan. He was right when he said, "Somebody agrees with me 80 percent of the time is my friend." And we can be a party that adheres to principles. But also understand, to me I think who we ought to be looking at is the Democrats, frankly, and how they got the majority. They have recruited and supported candidates who run in rural districts who don't agree with their party platform on gun control.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. GILLESPIE: They have recruited and supported candidates who run in predominantly Catholic or, or largely Catholic districts that don't agree with them on abortion.

MR. GREGORY: Right. That's a model, you think.

MR. GILLESPIE: Yes. I--the fact is, the most important vote a, a member of Congress casts is the first vote of the Congress, which is who is going to be the speaker and who's going to be the majority leader...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. GILLESPIE: ...and set the agenda for the rest of the year.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: And while that may offend purists, remember, when we came in in 1994 we owned--oh, we owned Maine.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: We had two Maine congressmen, we had two congressman from New Hampshire.

MR. GILLESPIE: New Hampshire, New York.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: We had, we had, had two in Massachusetts. We had three in Connecticut. Now there's not a single Republican House member representing anybody in all of New England.

MR. GREGORY: All right, I want to get to...

MR. SCARBOROUGH: We are shut out of that region. We have to go Ed's direction.

Fascinating.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The "conservatives" and

The "conservatives" and "Republicans" that MSDNC features to present the "conservative" and "Republican" point of view: Kathleen Parker, fundamentalist homosexualist Andrew Sullivan, Michael Smerconish, convicted felon John Dean, David "Gergen" Brooks and Joe Scarborough.  Not a single conservative or even Republican among the lot.  MSDNC, though, does have Pat Buchanan who left the Republican party about 13 years ago!  Buchanan is pro-life, but other than that, he's a party-line Democrat.

Radicals

Hmmm... Let me think here.... How many of George Bush (either one) ran around the country setting bombs at the Pentagon, and Judges homes......  If the GOP are radicals, I hate to think of what our Prez and his fiends, oops, I  mean friends are....

we can't

we can't let a bunch of talking heads define who we are.

Hold on ‘cause the world will turn if you're ready or not ~ KT Tunstall

Scarborough and his ilk

Scarborough and his ilk are the problem...not the solution.

Tom Davis...Colin Powell...don't make me laugh...I could go and on, matters now...Joe has sold himself long ago...and msnbc loves him for it...

He gets a big pat on head and a Super-Dooper doggy bone from his masters...his job is ensured for another month.

Good Boy Joe....go get 'em...grrrr...

Btw...I heard this blather this morning...all that I could take of it that is.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Scarborough has spent way too much time at MSNBC

 

"DumbAssity of Dope"

...

"Joe has sold himself long ago...and msnbc loves him for it..."

That's right.  That's why he's still employed over there.  He loves to whisper liberal sweet nothin's into liberal ears...

Hang on a sec, guys...

...I could be wrong here, but I think the bias was from the guy interviewing Joe Scarborough, not from Joe Scarborough himself.  Let's look at what he said:

The first part of what he said was that "We have not been conservative as a party...."  I think that is objectively correct - between No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug benefits expansion, we didn't start on a very conservative note with the Bush presidency.  And we ended by bailing out banks.  Yes, we were giving Obama what he wanted coming into his presidency, but the fact remains that bailing out the banks was not a conservative move.  So on that measure, I think Scarborough was correct.

The second part of his statement was "....we've been radical." This is by far the more arguable point.  I don't think I've heard Joe say yet what he means by "radical."  I think he probably means that we've spent far too much money on terrible ideas; which, if that is the case, is also correct.  But I am unqualified to read Joe Scarborough's mind - I can only hope that is what he meant to say.

But that's a bit like hoping Joe Biden meant to say something that would make sense - you never really can tell...

I'm trying to figure out

I'm trying to figure out which Joe Scarborough showed up for this interview. Is he now presenting himself as a populist Pat Buchanan-like "paleo-conservative"?  It seems he wants to be seen as a conservative - but different than any conservative being discussed - so he can criticize conservatives in general. It's like he wants to be conservative but leave himself viable as a critic on MSNBC.

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

What a bunch of crap....

The GOP has been under constant attack from every media source for the past 10 years.  Name me one TV show that did not find ways to weave into their weekly scriptes some slap at the GOP.  Name one movie that did not hammer the GOP in subtle and non subtle ways.  

 We have been pilloried by the old line media.   Not just pilloried but they defend to the death their Democrat cronies.  OK everyone reading this tell me if you have heard the following, "if it bleeds, it leads".

FOX News used that for justification for a long time in saying why they lead their newscasts with stories of Americans being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.  I defy anyone to show me where any media outlet including FOX has led with a story of American servicemen dying in Iraq or Afghanistan.  

I guess blood is different under Obama then Bush.  Every media outlet is terrified of being called racist.  Every media outlet is terrified of being "Imused".   Untile the media and Hollywood start playing on a level field we will need to spend 20 times more money then the Democrats to get the truth out.

When the Republicans took the Congress in 1993 does anyone remember these long protracted hand wringings of the Democrat party is dead?   Do you?  When Ben Nighthorse Campbell the former Senator from Colorado switched from the Democrat party to the Republican party does anyone remember the Meet The Press show that week? 

It was about how Bill Clinton was bringing back the economy.   Then again to say that Joe Scarborough would have to bite the hand that feeds him.   Ahhhhh courage it is the one thing that has died and is gone.

Jack

"If at age 20 you are a conservative then you have no heart.  If at age 30 you are a liberal then you have no brains."   Sir Winston Churchill

jdripper... Hey...thanks

jdripper...

Hey...thanks for the memories...I had forgot all about that...what an excellent point here you bring up...

Oh the hypocrisy runs deep 24/7 does it not?

Good catch ripper...good catch indeed.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Joe Lieberman

Odd I didn't hear about those radical Dems when the lefties kicked out Joe Lieberman for one issue in 06.  Who are we losing exactly?  Maybe if it was 80% guys I would worry, but the ones we've lost are more like 50% or less guys.

The only 'radical' parts I

The only 'radical' parts I can come up with is going along with interfering with commerce through Lib-inspired bureaucratic interference, going along with massive spending needed to prop up the dying dinosaur of the Great Society, and the TARP 1 bailout.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).

Scarborough

Scarborough is the "house Alan Colmes" of MSNBC.  

"I think you'd better call John, 'cause it don't look they're here to deliver...the mail". -NY 

Of course, be happy to live

Of course, be happy to live by our constitution, live in a state that recognizes there really is a 10th Amendment, trust that a free market benefits all, that individualism and a strong belief in God forwards our progress and........You are a radical!

So it basically comes down to being beat over the head for living by, for & under the foundation our country is built upon. The insiders are now the outsiders.

We do not need to be defined, do not need to erect a "big tent" as our founders already built one. Just stick to the basics.

Unfortunately, our education system has collapsed to liberal indoctrination & revisionism. Good luck finding anyone who really understands the Civil War.

Geez.....I could go on, but best to just stop and go punch a wall.

We are not radical

We are not radical enough!  When liberals in the media attack this site we usually explain it away by saying they have a right to their views as well.

When these talkingheads attack MRC, we sit back and say they are within their constitutional rights. 

Well, I for one am tired of it!  When we continually bring a knife to a gun fight the end result is quite predictable.  Fight back!  Find where they live, find who their friends are, where they do business, who gives them funds. And continually hammer then, yes even their private citizens.  Remember how they treated that young Palin girl Bristol? Did she deserve it?  If you're satisfied on how private Conservative citizens get treated, by all means sit back.  These liberals perfected these tatics,against us for God's sake. Fight back! 

Otherwise we are certainly doomed, as a party, as a political entity.

I already know the tired old argument about lowering ourselves to their level.  How's that working out for us so far? Are we getting heard?  Are we getting any air time? Does anyone even know we exsist except to point us out with derision?  Man-O-Man we have to hit them at least as hard as we're getting hit.    

A few comments

I have no idea what Scarborough is talking about which is because he has not idea what he says sometimes.

I have also heard that the Republican Party is not "inclusive." I don't think inclusive is what we are seeking. we are seeking to "engage" people and then convince them.

Finally I saw that Jeb Bush said that it is time to stop living in the past by continually invoking the legacy of Ronald Reagan. There is over a generation of voters who were either too young or were not born when Reagan was President. We need to be contemporary and relevant in our dialogue of conservatism as we were when Reagan was running.

Howdy GNY... Just out of

Howdy GNY...

Just out of curiosity was Jeb speaking at one of these rip-roaring, crowd-drawing, Open Tent-Town Hall Meetings to get the repubs back on the track thing...which includes the likes of McC?

Clueless...all of them.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Yeh. He was at one of those

Yeh. He was at one of those town hall meetings. It was with Canter and Mitt. didn't know that McCain was even invited after that great showing he had in November.

 

It is by definition "conservative"

It is by definition "conservative" to protect and defend our God given rights to life, liberty, and property against all enemies foreign and domestic.  But in a country increasingly inhabited by oppressive Socialists and would-be overlords, we who stand on our feet must seem like revolutionaries to people who live on their knees at places like MSNBC.

What's with Noel lately?

No disrespect, but it seems like Noel has started to fall for the 'conventional wisdom' that the GOP is failing because it isn't inclusive enough. Nothing that Joe Scarborough says is all that interesting to me, and his position as the house 'conservative' at MSNBC makes him suspect to me tp begin with. Referencing the alleged surplus left by the Clinton's and carping about the deficit left by Bush, while not acknowledging the outlays for rebuilding after 9/11, the waging of the wars in Iraq and Aghanistan, and the rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf areas of Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina is in keeping with the MSNBC line of reasoning that everything Bush did was wrong.

First it was Noonan, now Scarborough...whose next? Referencing Specter, McCain, or Snowe as a principled voice of conservative thought?

ae

ae,

What's with Noel lately?

Why don't you ask him?  ns

Okay Noel

What's with you lately? First you give us a post about how thought provoking Peggy Noonan's column that accused the GOP of trying to "shrink" the Party was...even though absolutely no one has advocated shrinking the Party. All we conservatives want is a Party that holds true to what it claims to be, and does not abandon that in an effort to gain either 'moderate' voters or to simply win elections.

Then you give us this post that holds Joe Scarborough up as some staunch conservative spokesperson tha we should listen to. But why should we listen to the house conservative for MSNBC? The very fact that he has hung on at that outfit for so long brings his credibility into question with many of us from jump-street, and his points in this little exchange doesn't build his credibility at all. We already know that the GOP spent too much, and we already know that they turned their backs on some conservative principles. But we also know that much of the Clinton era "surplus" was spent on retooling the military after 8 years of benign neglect by the Clinton administration; then we had to rebuild the smoking ruin left in Manhattan after 9/11 (not to mention the payouts to the families of those killed in the attacks), followed by funding the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, and the post-Katrina cleanup/rebuilding of the Gulf Coast. That went a long way towards wiping out the "surplus", and should have been articulated in the post. And we also know that the GOP has not been led by a conservative for years, because GWB was not going to be mistaken for a principled conservative by anyone but liberals or pseudo-conservatives like Scarborough who see anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky as a 'conservative'.

But it seems to me that you are highlighting voices like Noonan and Scarborough in an effort to cast them as voices that we should be paying heed to them. But like many other conservatives, we don't see either of these people as having anything to offer to the conservative movement. Noonan has been coopted by her Manhattan liberal elite friends and has been pretty openly antagonistic towards many conservatives and their ideals. And Scarborough sounds more like a low rent Bill O'Reilly populist type, trying his best to sound like a conservative while not offending his liberal masters at MSNBC. And your treating like they are important voices that deserve a serious hearing in the conservative community strikes me as odd, especially at this site.

If you respect these people and feel like they have a lot to offer the conservative movement or the GOP, then great. But just know that most conservatives are not interested in their opinions, epsecially if they are echoing the sage liberal advice to the GOP that we should simply become like the left, throw open the doors to the 'big tent', and pander to moderate voters simply to gain political power. I reject that out of hand and say this: I would rather hold fast to my principles and lose an election than to sell them out for a temporary political fix. We have tried that before and it has never worked, so what makes anyone think it would work now?

I am now officially off the soapbox.

ae

ae,

Well, to begin with, looking at the comments here and in the Noonan thread, I wonder how many people actually took the time to read the entire transcript of Gillespie and Scarborough on MTP, or Peggy's complete piece. I think potentially the majority of readers saw the names involved and chose to bash them, or read a bit of each and reached conclusions.

You know, there's nobody I agree with all the time, and if I set that as my criteria, I couldn't read anybody else's writing, watch television, or listen to the radio. The GOP right now is in a lot of trouble, but not for the reasons the MSM are claiming. I have my own views about the Party's current problems as you might imagine. However, I don't consider myself such an expert as to be willing to shut out the views of others regardless of whether or not I agree with them.

I didn't necessarily agree with Noonan's piece, but thought it compelling enough to share with my readers. I didn't put a gun to anybody's head demanding they read it, did I? Furthermore, regardless of the points she made that I don't agree with, I do feel it's a marvelous piece because it makes people think; I never pass up something that challenges my thought processes -- how 'bout you?

As for the Scarborough/Gillespie transcript, this was actually a much different segment than I believe most here perceived. Do you disagree with Scarborough's point that the Republican Party in the past eight years has been radical? We approved the largest expansion to Medicare in history, did NOTHING about Social Security, did NOTHING about illegal immigration, spent like drunken sailors, and approved TARP. Is that the GOP being conservative or radical?

After Bush was re-elected in 2004 adding to majorities in both chambers of Congress -- something that hadn't been done since FDR in 1936!!! -- we had a chance to realign this nation as conservative for many decades. But we blew it, and now it's possible that generations of Americans are going to be worse off as a result INCLUDING my kids and grandkids. Talk about missed opportunities!!!

Honestly, I think people completely misunderstood what Scarborough and Gillespie said Sunday, or they're so angered at Scarborough that they'd disagree with him if he said the sun rises in the east.

For myself, I really enjoyed the discussion between Gregory, Gillespie, and Scarborough on Sunday, and wanted to share it with my readers in case they had missed it. Do I agree with everything they said? Well, once again, I don't agree with everything ANYBODY says. But, I'm not willing to shut out anybody's ideas at this point because I don't believe anyone has a monopoly on good sense. Surely what's happened politically, financially, and economically in the past eight months supports this view. :-)

If we in the minority Party think we have the luxury to ignore Republicans because we don't agree with everything they represent, I think we're in a lot of trouble. The Reagan Democrats didn't agree with everything conservatives stood for at the time, but they agreed with enough of what Reagan stood for to bring him to power.

The bottom line to me right now is Republicans, after departing from conservative positions the past eight years, don't seem to stand for anything Americans can hang their hats on. We did a terrible job the past two elections of elucidating a world view that inspired voters. Frankly, I think our message right now is muddled and out of focus.

Do Noonan and Scarborough have the answers? I don't know -- but I'm willing to listen.

In closing, people should understand that, especially on weekends when things are slow around here, I might cover something only to generate discussion and stimulate the cranium. It doesn't mean I support or agree with what's presented in the piece I'm covering. Instead, I might just want to bring it to people's attention because they might find it as interesting as I did.

You think that's wrong of me?  ns

Noel

First of all, do not take my comments as some sort of personal attack upon you; I was just surprised at the focus on people that many conservatives deem to be something less than true conservatives.

Scarborough may be right that many of President Bush's ideas could be seen as radical, but he is seen as a compromised voice to many of us. I used to watch Scarborough Country, and for awhile I watch Morning Joe, but Scarborough's willingness to attack his own Party and stand aside while others did so turned me off to him as an honest broker. Like I said, he began to strike me as an O'Reilly wannabe who was doing his best set himself up as being above the fray, and who was too willing to cede ground to the liberal point of view without offering a spirited response.

As for Noonan, she holds no water with me and other conservatives because of her seeming condecension towards us in the grassroots of the Party. She shares more in common with the Rockerfeller Republicans who have run the GOP into the ground than with the man she so famously served as a speechwriter. And her ideas will not gain traction with the base because they generally call on the GOP to move to the center to attract voters, instead of attempting to bring the center to the Party. We in the grassroots see this as a further selling out of what are supposed to be the core principles of the GOP in oder to broaden the base and win elections. But as I said earlier, what is the point of winning elections if you have no principles that you stand for.

And there is nothing at all wrong with listening to other voices and getting different perspectives. However, the fact is that many times the different perspectives we in the GOP listen to attempt to move us away from what we are supposed to represent (smaller government, fiscal restraint, strong national security) and more towards the moderate/liberal viewpoint that sees nothing as more important than winning the next election.

I agree that the GOP has departed from its conservative roots, and that the Party relied more on trying to scare voters about the opponents (Pelosi/Ried in '06; Obama in '08) than telling them why they should vote for the GOP candidates. The message is muddled and unfocused, but I don't think a 'moderate' voice like Noonan or a 'populist' voice like Scarborough has any answers for what really ails the Party at this point. Noonan would have us continue to drift left in order to get to the center, and I really don't know what Scarborough offers other than criticisms of the GOP.  That's why I, and others, tend to discount the ideas these people offer for the GOP; they seem to have an agenda other than actually restoring conservatism to the Party.

And I well understand that you are not advocating every idea they have; my initial comments were just to poke a little fun at you. I also understand that you have to post on weekends and that you post things that you figure will draw some interest. That is you job, no?

I would also like to thank you for taking the time to engage in this conversation with me, and in your respectful treatment of me. I realize that you have other things to do, so I honesly appreciate the time and thought you put into your response to me. Have a fine day, and I'll see you in the comments section!

E.Edwards aka AE

Small Differences can have Big Consequences

Humans and chimps share like 99% of our DNA, so that 1% is obviously HUGELY important.  So a RINO who votes with me 80% of the time is stabbing me in the back in one out of every five votes.  Since most votes are silly or procedural and are passed nearly unanimously, then that 20% suddenly looms much larger.  In tight votes this is even more impactful. The O-Stimulus was just one vote but look at the impact it had.

Liberal: remove all that's Right, and this is what's Left.

Want a quick synopsis of

Every Op-ed Ever written and interview Ever given by a Lib or RINO about "what's wrong" with the Real  Republican Party?

Republicans need to be more like Democrats than even We Democrats are. That way, They'll keep Losing and We'll keep Winning elections, since We're better at being Democrats than They are.

Or ever Will be, btw. That's our"problem".