« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

GOP Classic

By: patrickmillsaps (Diary)  |  December 9th, 2012 at 02:06 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Growing up in the South means that you were raised on Coca-Cola. We don’t just call Coke, “Coke,” we call every soda made “Coke.” We believe Coke tastes better in a glass bottle than it does in a can. Every true Southerner has tried the unique concoction of drinking Coke with peanuts (in the bottle). We love Coca-Cola.

However, in the early 1980’s, Pepsi starting outselling Coke. After a few years of hand wringing and worry, on April 23, 1985, the Coca Cola Company—and this is still emotionally straining as I write this–abandoned its century old formula and introduced—sigh—“New Coke.” Oh sure, the consultants said it would be a great idea. The experts believed Coke needed to make a change to compete with Pepsi. Even the polling of focus groups told Coke executives that America would overwhelmingly prefer that new, sweeter mixture. It flopped.

The public outcry was immediate. Protests were organized. Op-ed pieces were written. Hundreds of thousands of angry calls were received by the company. One former Coke executive told me that the new formula “was the best worst decision an American company had made.” The experts, consultants and polling were shockingly wrong. Less than three months after New Coke’s introduction, the company announced the return of the original nectar of the gods in July 1985.

Later, it was determined that notwithstanding the taste tests and the science, the company underestimated the visceral impact such a change would have on its loyal generations of drinkers. They had kicked out the old family dog in favor of a new puppy. Coke was a constant through wars, civil unrest, changing economies, a changing culture, and according to the commercials, Santa Claus’s beverage of choice. The company learned that you just couldn’t change who you are.

Yet, that’s what many in the GOP want to do. The experts, consultants and strategists are wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth trying to come up with the New GOP that can beat the Democrats in the next four years. The problem is that we’ve allowed some of the same people tinker with GOP Classic for a decade; and there are not enough folks who remember the original formula.

Republicans made their first significant alteration to their successful recipe when they abandoned their healthy skepticism and economic concerns of existing entitlement programs by managing the largest overhaul and expansion of Medicare with the creation of Medicare Part D. Not only did we seem to forget we were the party of smaller federal government, but we also seemed to forget our belief in the free market economy. A Republican Congress prohibited the Federal government from negotiating discounts with drug companies in this program.

Apparently, this was a subtle enough change that those loyal to GOP Classic didn’t revolt.

Some time passed, and the “leaders” of the party of Lincoln decided they needed to tinker again. Somewhere a long the way, “they” decided the GOP needed to adopt the language of the Democrats. Very subtly, Republican candidates began referring to the “middle class.” This was akin to Coke abandoning “It’s the real thing,” or “I’d like to buy the world a Coke,” for whatever ad campaign Pepsi was running at the time. The moment my party started to referring to the “middle class,” we gave up on a core belief and gave credibility to the artificial class warfare of the Democrats. Sure America has low- middle- and high- income earners, but the moment we acknowledge a class, we give up on the truism that we live in a country that with hard work and a refusal to quit you can be poor today, rich tomorrow, and (after you pay your taxes) somewhere in the middle next week.

Again, nobody seemed to care.

Our candidates running for federal offices then started promising that they had plans to create jobs. This was like trying to swap a Coke for a Diet Pepsi—it just didn’t taste right. GOP Classic was when Reagan told us the government was not the solution to our problem but rather government is the problem. Apparently the New GOP is trying to sell the intellectually confounding concept that the Democratic government is not the solution to our problem, rather, a REPUBLICAN government is  the solution to our problem. That’s like telling folks that drinking a diet shake WITH their meal will help them lose weight. This idiocy has gotten so bad that some GOP “strategists”—whatever they are—recently blamed the loss of Romney’s presidential bid, in part, on the success of our Republican Governors, observing that states with GOP governors were doing better economically hurt Romney’s message. Apparently there is no room for Federalism and State’s rights in the new GOP formula.

These job promises may have been that one ingredient too many. The culmination of this experimentation has created a situation where the people who have always believed in the party that ended slavery, got our nation out of Vietnam, and reminded us that we are a “Shining City on a Hill,” no longer recognize what they are drinking.

The post mortems of the Romney loss will continue ad nauseam. The critics, experts, Tea Partiers, moderates, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, strategists, talking heads, contributors, pundits, consultants, Evangelicals, Right-wingers, Catholics and Mormons all have their particular issues which they believe will be the silver bullet to “fix” the GOP. In dealing with the fiscal cliff, we have so few Republicans in Congress now who have ever actually run a small business (or remember when they did); they struggle to articulate solutions to problems they have never personally experienced. (The Democrats have fewer still but this is not about them).

None of these will work until our party remembers the formula for GOP Classic. We believe in a smaller federal government. We believe in strong state and local governments. We believe in the free market. We believe in the individual. And we believe in freedom. Everything else is marketing. That’s the real, real thing.

Patrick Millsaps is the former Chief of Staff for Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign and can occasionally be seen on CNN as a commentator.  He is a partner with the Hall Booth Smith lawfirm.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • teardownthiswall

    I will add another New Coke GOP product–nation building. Beginning with the war in Iraq and then Afghanistan, the GOP began embracing nation building.

    • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

      But at least we do a better job of it than the democrats–case in point: Afghanistan and Iraq (Bush) vs. Egypt (Maobama). BTW: Love your handle.

      • tomcatdriver

        “But at least we do a better job of it than the democrats” if the comparison is Egypt and Iraq (Afghanistan will do when we leave what it would have done had we left a month after going their, go back into what it was) the jury is still out. I thought I was done with the Mideast after three years in Iraq, but just recently got back from a 3 week trip which saw 1 week in Egypt talking to people I knew in the Egyptian Air Force and 2 weeks in Iraq doing about the same.

        It is unclear how either country will in the long run (ie 5-10 yeas) work out. Iff I had to bet which country would become (if any) the equivalent of what India was to the British (ie a country which embraces democracy long term), I would probably put 100RS (rupees) on Egypt.

        Egypt has far more stable institutions. But both are trying to do the same thing…replace authoritarian governments with their form of democracy.. It is a messy process as the US has shown. The money I am willing to wager is exceedingly little.

        In cost to the US of course there is no comparison. Egypt was pretty cheap all the way around in terms of US participation.

        The “best” example of US nation building has been the Philippines. It took however about 100 years to really be sure where that one was going.

        Back to lurking

    • viperscale

      I agree. I think the one thing that us conservatives need to realize is that defense spending and nation building spending are two entirely different things, and yet they are labeled as one and the same. As soon as conservatives like Rand Paul suggest that there is a lot of room for spending cuts in the D.O.D., Republicans suggest that he wants to cut actual defense spending. This couldn’t be more false. I think real defense and nation building should be separated into different Departments.

      “You can’t always make education better by throwing more money at it, you can’t always make your country more safe by throwing more and more money at the military”–Rand Paul

      • commonsenseobserver

        Department for Nation Building? :P

        I think that belongs in State rather than Defense.

        • viperscale

          I simply said that so voters would have a clearer view on what “defense” actually meant

          • emptypockets

            Nation building like charity should begin at home. And like charity, is best accomplished by private individuals and private sector businesses working together , with the least interference from any part of government. People guided by the American Dream, sustained by faith in God, embracing personal responsibility…this was the “original formula”. Back when we all knew it wasn’t Right vs. Left. It was Right vs. Wrong.

          • viperscale

            That’s why Foreign aid has to go…Republicans “say” they do not believe in government stimulus to help the economy when they give foreign aid to other countries to “help” their economy.

          • commonsenseobserver

            Not really. The difference is, those countries don’t have to pay for it themselves. ^^

      • hart65

        There is a definition that the role of the military is to “Kill people and break things.” As a Vietnam combat veteran I had mixed emotions when I first got in-country, what with all that hearts and minds stuff. In retrospect, I think we should retro-name DOD to Department of War, and use overwhelming force when our way of life is threatened. George Washington gave us this advice in his Farewell Address:
        “If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is
        not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”
        Use covert ops for “external annoyances” and declare “Boots on the ground” and “Proportional response” oxymorons.

        • vandalii

          That’s what it was until 1947. The National Security Act of 1947 began to split responsibilities in the aftermath of WWII and finally amended the Act in 1949 to call the new re-org the Dept. of Defense.

          I ‘spect that after WWII, we thought we wanted to be done with “war” defined as “preparing to be the aggressor”, thinking we’d all just get along now, and just need a little “defense” now and again. Nobody really wanted to be so mean as to say we had a Department whose function was to prepare for and execute war. After all, didn’t we just finish the War to End All Wars that popped up shortly after finishing the last War to End All Wars? Hmm. Gotta wonder what was going thru people’s minds — we weren’t getting better at anything except how best to kill one another… But let’s just call it “defense” instead of “war”. It sounds nicer.

          And having learned absolutely nothing from the failure of the League of Nations to prevent world-impacting conflict, stepped right up the plate and whiffed again with the UN.

          We don’t learn so quick :-(

        • diamondreo

          Thankyou for bringing back Washington’s, and many others from that time’s feeling about National Defense. We must always have a Defense proportional to our economic standing in the world, but what they sought is that we kept it ‘close to the vest’ though it might and probably would be immense as we grew in prosperity. Since it hasn’t been tried for a while now, no one knows what that looks like, or how effective that would be. But potentially, it would be a way to satisfy many more hawks and doves than the way we’re doing things today…and probably a lot cheaper yet even more powerful in the most important ways. Of course, it wouldn’t be set-up for nation building.

    • reddog53

      Ironic that your name bespeaks of a successful venture in that regard. Reagan’s challenge, along with our low-key support and private sector, has re-made Eastern Europe to be a better place. All things are shaped by forces that are not fully under control of anyone, so there is always room for criticism of the result — but we’re better off with Eastern Europe the way it is now. We also seem to have done a pretty good job with ‘old Europe’ in the 40s and 50s, only to allow socialism to creep back in with a gentler face in the 70s.

      With respect to Iraq and Afghanistan, even though our execution there was flawed, the events in Libya and Egypt show that when you remove power, something else sweeps in — and if you aren’t participating in some way, it will only be worse, not better. Colin Powell was right in that regard “if you break it, you buy it,” even though I disagree with much of the rest of his world view.

      • commonsenseobserver

        Buying it doesn’t mean keeping it. When you buy something after you break it, you usually don’t keep it anyway.

      • johnnytentpeg

        Hmmmm.

        Don’t remember “buying” Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Dresden.

        Believe those folks rebuilt for themselves just fine.

        • vandalii

          Umm, not much for history, are you? The “winners” helped the “losers” rebuild. They didn’t do it on their own.

          • commonsenseobserver

            The US could help the Japanese rebuild because the Japanese didn’t happen to have some kind of military insurgent resistance, and we retained existing constitutional structures in some places.

    • Samsara

      Absolutely Right.

      And I will add another, the unpaid-for tax cut. I am not interested in arguing about how tax cuts pay for themselves. Economist Leonard Ayres was correct, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and this is a free lunch argument. If you want to cut taxes, you have to balance the books. You can’t depend on economic swings or market bubbles to make up the difference, because in the long run the upswing becomes a downturn, and then the debt goes up.

      I like the “Coke Classic” analogy. Another I think appropriate is the “steroids era” of Republican politics, where the GOP went on the borrowing “juice”, and was able to cut taxes without having to fight for lower spending. Now tax cuts are off the table because of decades of deficit juicing.

      And of course, I know the Democrats are worse, but at least they never pretended to be conservative.

      • commonsenseobserver

        Well, tax cuts obviously pay for at least part of themselves, but we do need to make sure that they are mostly funded, if only to shut people like Obama up.

        • RedWhite_and_Truth

          Still talking about tax cuts being funded? That’s liberal-think. It’s OUR MONEY. Make the government do with less.
          (Not withstanding the fact that we haven’t had a true tax cut in forever & 12 days.
          BTW, if you think any action by us will convince Oblameo to shut up, you do not understand out (political) enemy very well.

          • hayekwasright

            Hey, l think we should replace discussions of tax cuts being “funded” with talk about existing federal revenues being justified if they are to continue. But Maybe That is Just Me.

          • commonsenseobserver

            Precisely.

            If you want to make the government do with less, you need spending cuts as well as tax cuts.

            Starving the beast is not a workable option without a balanced budget amendment.

        • UpLateAgain

          The ’03 Bush tax cuts resulted in the greatest revenues this country ahas ever seen. The revenues would not have been greater if the cuts had been less than they were. ‘Funding’ tax cuts is a complete misunderstanding of how free-market economies work. They are NOT zero sum. There is no cause and effect. One segment of the ecomony does not lose if another wins.
          Tax cuts either produce more revenues or less.
          Tax increases either result in more revenues or less.
          “Paying for tax cuts” is an attempt to tie the effect of spending on how much money the tax cut or increase brings in. It’s a separeate and WHOLLY unrelated issue.

          • commonsenseobserver

            Paying for tax cuts with spending cuts is the natural conclusion of a starve the beast strategy (which, unfortunately, has been ignored in our zeal for tax-cutting).

            Even if tax cuts do bring in more revenue, number one, the Democrats will still blame them, and number two, it doesn’t remove the need for government spending cuts which would have been a lot more convenient if paired with tax cuts in the first place.

            The problem isn’t revenue itself, nor is it only a lack of revenue, but it’s the bloated size of Washington. Tax cuts do little to solve that on their own.

          • Brookhaven

            Bingo! The problem is spending.

            No matter how much we reduce taxes to stimulate the economy, we’ll never stimulate it enough cover the current level of government spending. We’ve reached the tipping point where we can no longer just “grow” our way out of debt.

            We have to seriously talk about cutting the size of government.

      • Sirithil

        Now hold on there, you’ve gone and adopted another liberal premise: that tax cuts are a government expenditure. The issue with this notion is that it implies that government has first dibs on every dollar you earn. When you accept the premise a tax cut is spending, then by the same logic a tax hike becomes a spending cut… and the liberals have put y’all back in chains.

        Say it with me, again, and again, and again:

        The Revenue Side Is Not The Problem.™

        • edintexas

          I think you both are speaking of the same topic, just looking at it somewhat differently. Samsara apparently wants to “pay for” tax cuts with cuts in spending (although you have to kind of read between the lines to find that idea). He agrees the revenue side isn’t the problem, but he also believes that Republicans erred in cutting tax rates without also cutting spending. Just my $0.02.

          • Samsara

            edintexis, you are correct sir. and to sirthil, repeating fuzzy math does not make it correct. I want a balanced budget meaning Revenues = Expenditures. I also want a smaller government, but simply cutting taxes without cutting spending, and then declaring victory is a shortcut that will not work.

          • UpLateAgain

            You are nonetheless equating tax cuts with increased expenditures. There is NO cause and effect between the two (Okay…. I’ll concede that in Democratic legislatures there appears to be.)
            When Democrats say tax cuts have to be “paid-for” (by decreasing spending), they are presuming that the tax cuts will result in decreases on the revenue side of the leger. They may or may not…. but usually don’t. Usually they result in revenue increases. Historically Democrats look at these increases as justification for more spending…. but there is no reason-to beyond politics. The increased revenues could be used to pay down the debt…. as could monies saved from spending less on a continual basis.
            And the citizen who is taxed less does better as well.
            Our fiscal problems could be solved just with spending cuts. They will only be enhanced with tax increases. They could be solved with spending cuts and tax increses as well……… but probably not as rapidly, and if Democrats have control… not at all… because they do, in fact, equate tax increases with additional spending….. even when the increases result in less revenues.

          • hart65

            It’s OK to “want” a balanced budget… as long as the balance point is included. Left unchecked, this Administration would balance the budget at 25% of GDP. Example: If we were to balance the budget at the historical 18% of GDP, we would need additional revenues of $126 billion and spending cuts of $980 billion. That’s a proposal conservatives could make: first decide on the balance point as a % of GDP, and then the debate shifts to the best ways to raise the needed revenues to support a government that is right-sized, and grows only as GDP grows. This could easily take 10 years… and even so, it would give the American people some hope.

      • http://www.mattmodleski.com mattmodleski

        Albert Einstein said, “Setting the example isn’t the main means of influencing another, it is the only means.” In modern history the GOP hasn’t shrunk the actual size of Government from a spending perspective; their deeds don’t align with their words and they have lost the trust of the American people.

        The Coke example works only to a point. Loyal brand followers (WWII Vets in the case of Coke) can be relied upon to carry the brand as long as the objective set can be met with the numbers of people still loyal to the brand. Once the core brand loyalists are outnumbered by people who aren’t loyal to the brand, the brand runs into trouble in trying to reach bigger objectives.

        The strategic challenge for the GOP results from, (yet extends beyond), the fact that they don’t do what they say. The result of not doing what they say nets the same result from GOP loyalists that Coke got with “New Coke”, people loyal to the brand are abandoning the brand by staying home (GOP turnout this election cycle). The larger challenge is to articulate the value of the brand to “non-brand loyalists” in ways that are meaningful to those new customers. This is the primary reason the GOP is failing, the establishment can’t stand on their leadership of core GOP brand beliefs and they are incapable of connecting with most of America.

        The answer is non-establishment candidates running in the primaries who are funded in non-traditional ways. I’ve thought a lot about this and it’s doable!

        God bless.

        • vandalii

          Well said of the brand example. Loyal brand enthusiasts of GOP (i.e. registered Repubs) that will continue to stay Repubs regardless are a small minority. And, aside from the crazy GOTV from the left registering gazillions of mostly non-voters (except when Obama showed up) as Dems, the same can be said of the Dems.

          The trick is getting the person that just wants something to drink standing between two soda machines to buy your brand.

          As Erick has stated in previous postings, the Coalition that showed up in 2008 is *not* the Democratic coalition — they were missing in 2010. They showed up in 2012, too … for Obama. So there’s a lot of soda drinkers out there that liked the Pitchman from Pepsi better than whatever was in the other machine (New Coke? Coke Zero? Dasani water?).

          I know a lot of folks on this forum don’t much care for Ms. Coulter any more, but have to give her props for doing her homework. She’s pointing toward the shifting demographics in our nation as the source of our angst and she’s right. We’ve really put nothing in front of hispanics that overcome the hysteria of having a minority candidate to vote for. Poll after poll shows the hispanics align with Coke Classic on the issues. So how do we get the issues back into the conversation? Everything is based on emotion. That’s one of the reasons that Debbie W-S was so successful as chair of the DNC — she was consistently passionate, even when lying through her teeth. She knew this election was about emotion, not about facts, issues or even the economy. Make sure that “white man’s party” gets continuously vilified and your loosely knit coalition of minorities that would rather knee-jerk the word “racists” than discuss issues will overwhelm the more monolithic Repubs. We saw it happen in 2008 and 2012. Gotta figure out how to work the demographics back to our favor.

          • http://www.mattmodleski.com mattmodleski

            I think we need leaders who have lived what they believe (not perfectly mind you) because you can’t sell something that you don’t passionately believe. Once you can sell the value of conservatism in terms that make sense to everyday people, and do it with passion, you’ll have the right formula for success. America is waiting to be led and I think most Americans are ready for the truth….the problem is nobody will tell them.

          • perdido

            Oh, America is being led alright… led right down the shi**er.

        • perdido

          Mattmodleski,
          You are exactly correct. It’s been mentioned and noticed and that’s why Republicans got a crappy turn-out this year. They talk the game, but as we saw 2001 -2006 (we they were unceremoniously dumped) they don’t actually cut spending.
          Real, actual conservatism works every time. This business of “Common Sense Conservatism ala Heather Wilson (NM) or any other variation of the recipe (GOP-Zero) doesn’t sell.
          You,Sir, are correct. Republicans are not running true conservatives. And they and we are paying the price.

      • dreadnaught61

        Tax Cuts don’t need to be ‘paid’ for! Tax Cuts don’t reduce money to the Government they INCREASE it! Ask any business person how you increase revenue and they’ll almost unanimously tell you to reduce the price. The lower the price (tax) the more volume you’ll sell. Do you think Macy’s, and WalMart, and McDonald’s, and any others, really LOSE money when they have sales (tax cuts)?? They’d never have them if that were the case.

        • Samsara

          A sale is not a tax cut. Tax cuts do boost revenues for a time, but unless you also cut spending the savings disappear during the next economic downturn. There is no free lunch.

        • commonsenseobserver

          I would have thought one of the main selling points of tax cuts was forcing government to pay for them with spending cuts.

          • UpLateAgain

            Only if the cuts are so large as to decrease revenues. If they merely stimulate the economy and revenues increase, then the spenders look at the increased revenues coming-in and justify increased expenditure.

            But there is no requirement the two go hand-in-hand. I’ve worked in local government where taxes were cut, revenues were increased, and the city put the money into as rainy-day fund rather than spend it.

          • perdido

            Still don’t get it, eh? Pity.

        • tomcatdriver

          “Ask any business person how you increase revenue and they’ll almost unanimously tell you to reduce the price”

          excellent example because it illustrates the imit to which you can reduce the price. A business cannot reduce the price of a product lower then the cost of providing it. Volume doesnt matter when you reach that point.

          When that happens you have two choices if you want to keep cutting prices, identify cuts to lower the price you have to pay (ie find programs to cut) or go ahead and cut prices as a going out of business sale.

          There is no free lunch.

      • UpLateAgain

        You couldn’t be more wrong. If a tax cut results in increased, rather than decreased revenues, the tax cut has been paid-for. The whole concept of “Paying for tax cuts” assumes a static economy, where one segment loses if another wins. Free market economies are NOT static. That’s the whole point.

        • commonsenseobserver

          It’s not really “paying for the tax cuts” as much as “pairing spending cuts with tax cuts”.

    • celador2

      And it sucks.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Yeah, boy we were stupid to meddle in foreign affairs and tell Gorbachev to tear down this wall, teardownthiswall.

      Boy that Reagan was a real goof.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        Try and be serious for a minute and not just sarcastic. Do you really equate our recent bumbling in the near east with our decades long opposition to international communism? I certainly do not.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          I don’t think saying the words ‘nation building’ should make a reasonable person recoil in fear, the way you people do.

          You don’t debate, you just use your magic words and whine, totally detached from any sense of.. you know, the entire history of America before 1991.

          • commonsenseobserver

            I don’t know, I thought Bush had a well-thought out position in 2000, against nation building while committing to Reaganite peace through strength.

    • skorrent1

      Nonsense! If there was one thing that distinguished the post-WWII GOP, and particularly the conservative wing of the GOP, it was anti-Communism. This was in opposition to the leftist wing of the Democrat party. The main element in this anti-Communist effort was nation building, whether the complete reconstruction of Japan and the coalition of “West” Germany, the efforts in Europe of the Marshall Plan, or the various joint and unilateral aid programs throughout the world.
      All of these efforts at building nations after our own kind involved a “big government” component, but they received GOP support because the party, and especially the conservatives, recognized the national threat posed by a growing coalition of communist countries. What distinguishes our current faltering nation-building efforts is the refusal of our leaders, especially the current administration, but including the libertarian wing of the GOP, to recognize and identify the existential threat posed to the West by the growing coalition of Islamist nations. Thus we have the paradox of trying to promote “democracy” under the umbrella of anti-democratic Islam. It’s as if we helped install a Communist government and expected it to embrace the free market.

      • tomcatdriver

        What distinguishes our current faltering nation-building efforts is the
        refusal of our leaders, especially the current administration, but
        including the libertarian wing of the GOP, to recognize and identify the
        existential threat posed to the West by the growing coalition of
        Islamist nations.”

        the pivot point between US Post war efforts in Germany and Japan as opposed to Iraq is one word: Planning.

        Neither theater of action had a successful conclusion to the war as assured by 1943 but both Ike and Doug had large groups inside their respective commands looking hard at what “post war” Germany and Japan looked liked…so when troops conquered towns (as in Germany) or moved into towns as in Japan they knew EXACTLY what to do, who stayed (the cops and local leadership) and who went…(the political guys)

        There were no scenes in Japan or Germany of massive looting or infrastructure destruction. There were plans how to assembled both nations armies and return them to civilian life or keep some of them…

        Both “Ike” and “Doug” had time in the Philippines and their staffs studied those lessons hard. It paid off. There are other differences and those are important but those were all deal able with.

        The lack of planning in Iraq haunted us to the day the Iraqis finally said “leave”.

        • vandalii

          The bigger problem in both Iraq & Afghanistan is the assumption we had something to offer that they were interested in (other than dumping the present regime). Western-style democracy does not fare well in the Middle East by-and-large. In our ignorant hubris, we assumed they really wanted what we have with freedom and commerce. Bad assumption.
          The influence of religion in that region is such that even when they get the opportunity to vote, they choose what they know — Islamists (and the extremists hiding behind moderates’ skirts). We *did* rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure…and the extremists tore it down again. But in the end, dumping the USA was just as much part of the agenda as dumping Hussein. We just had big enough toys to get Hussein out for them. Then all they had to do was wait for a weenie to become president, tell the whole world what day the extremists could move back in and then take it from there.

          • tomcatdriver

            “The bigger problem in both Iraq & Afghanistan is the assumption we
            had something to offer that they were interested in (other than dumping
            the present regime).”

            I’ll stick with planning as the big issue and I would modify your line to say “…is the assumption we could give them something that they had to earn for themselves”

            The most successful intervention by a foreign country in a regional civil war was the French in what we call “our Revolution” (it really was a civil war). The French were very careful. They started with “covert aide” which was very well implanted, then they slowly upped the anti to direct aide and only when the “Rebels’ had both a functioning army and a sort of civil government then did they move in with troops…but even there they were careful. They only helped Washington and only did things he couldnt do …the French always let Washington and his troops do the heavy lifting.

            At the end of the war the French simply left; they didnt garrison or do anything they just left.

            Then there was some group which had earned legitimacy.

            Look we are all just going to have to sit back and see how things work out; the strong people who ran various countries couldnt last forever and history is sweeping them aside…but I would note this

            In the end the least problem in the region is “religion”. It is a problem now but when things are changing in society some people tend to “move” toward relgion as a comfort. But in the end the era of organized religion affecting politics in a large way is ending almost world wide. The religious right in this country was pretty ineffective in the last election.

            Whats moving the needle overseas is the novelty of having to sort out what things “mean” in a democracy on their own. Its going to be messy and some people are going to die (as happened in ours) but in the end I would be more surprised then not if in say 25 years Iran, Egypt and Iraq are (in that order) both functioning democracies and functioning economies.

      • Brookhaven

        If you think the Democrats after WWII weren’t anti-communist, then you need to revisit history.

        Kennedy was, without doubt, the most anti-communist president till Reagan. Certainly more so than either Ike or Nixon (who were both OK with creating a balance of power and waiting things out–the Cold War was Ike’s policy). Kennedy wanted to take aggressive action to reduce the size of communism–and his thoughts were pretty typical for Democrats at the time.

        Up until the 1970′s, the Democrats were the hard-liners when it came to communism. The Vietnam war turned the Democratic party soft of communism, but that was a quarter century after the end of WWII. And that, IMHO, is an abberation.

        Historically, left-wing/socialist/centrally-controlled governments have had much more aggressive foreign policies than right-wing/libertarian-leaning governments. The more power/control we put in a centralized government (ie, the federal government) the more likely we are to engage in an armed conflict, not less.

        To quote Madeline Albright: “What’s the point of having this superb military if we’re not going to use it?” Give someone power, and the urge to use it becomes irresistible.

    • Brookhaven

      It would be more accurate to say the GOP has been BRANDED the party of nation building.

      Take your eyes off what the two ends of the parties (the far left and the far right) say and look at what the party office holders say. The hard truth is, that when it comes to foreign policy, there isn’t that much PRACTICAL difference between the two main parties.

      Obama talked a big game about rolling back Bush’s foreign policy, but as a practical matter he has pursued essentially the same policies. Enough so that Romney felt comfortable saying his foreign policy wouldn’t be that much different than Obama’s.

      Gitmo still exists, we sent more troops into Afghanistan we apparently were holding prisoners in our Benghazi embassy, & we’ve increased the use/development of offensive weapons like drones–all this occurred under Obama. How different, really, is this from Bush’s policies?

      • vandalii

        That’s the point. Coke Classic hasn’t been seen in the GOP for at least 2 decades so you’re just proving the point that New Coke and Pepsi taste about the same.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Dear Conservatives,
    Want to change the party? Then get “inside” it. Where you live. There are probably plenty of vacancies. The time commitment to be effective is minimal. Go here to learn more:

    http://precinctproject.us

    http://theprecinctproject.wordpresspress.com

    Please take your conservative values, principles, and voices “inside” the Republican Party where you live. Your voices are desperately needed inside the Party.

    Unite and organize, politically, locally. Win nationally.

    Thank you.
    CW

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      The ONLY way that conservatives can save the nation is with a courageous leader offering radical change with a bold, specific plan that drastically reduces government albeit with a transition period. more later

      • commonsenseobserver

        We’ve had lots of “bold”. No “specific”.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          Yes! and probably because the specifics touch so many people, ie voters, so close to home, so ubiquitous has become the reach of federal dollars over 80 years. We happen to live at the tipping point of what modern day liberalism wrought, and at the 4-year mark of their most radical President; but what brought us to this point built up slowly over decades and now we find an ignorant electorate that will settle for less Liberty.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Specific is what you do after you win. Bold is what you do to win.

          Leave the lengthy lectures for academia.

          • commonsenseobserver

            But people do need to know clearly what you stand for.

            For instance, the Tories kept talking about “change” and “radical reform” and “rebalancing the economy” and ‘sharing the proceeds of growth”, but while they did get lost in a muck of specifics on most issues, economic policy definitely wasn’t one, which contributed to a perception that they did not stand clearly for anything.

            We need both bold, headline-grabbing, concise pledges that can summarize our agenda, and also the substantive policy specifics to protect ourselves from charges of driving granny over the cliff, killing the poor off, or simply blowing a black hole in the budget. Romney provides a good example. Not specifying the base broadening measures and spending cuts exposed him to attacks of impossible math and heartlessness towards the middle class at the same time.

            We need pages full of substantive policies, like Bush’s 2000 book (Renewing America’s Purpose or something), which can be easily summarized into fewer than ten headline themes (like in the 2000 Blueprint for the Middle Class), without being stuck in the weeds like Gore-Lieberman’s 200 page book (Prosperity for America’s Families) or Australia’s John Hewson’s Fightback!. Something like Obama’s 2008 Blueprint for Change, or party manifestos around the world, in fact.

            For instance, from the 1990s, the delightfully bold, clear, and vote-winning Ontario Progressive Conservative “Common Sense Revolution”: http://www.poltext.capp.ulaval.ca/upload/on1995pc_plt._26122008_85110.pdf

            I think the Contract with America was pretty bold, specific, and effective too.

      • BA Cyclone

        Where do these leaders come from, and who will elevate them?

        Rather I think the average person who considers themselves a conservative needs to get inside the GOP and head it back toward the conservative side of the ledger — which is what ColdWarrior is trying to promote.

        I say we stop waiting for some leader to emerge and start being conservative leaders in the local & state parties where we live. You don’t have to be the next conservative President or Governor, but maybe you can help find someone who can be that person.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          The economic mess that ails us was created via laws passed in DC and can only be fixed there; and it appears that the process of ground up raising of conservatives fails too often after they are sent to DC and are there only a short time. its not a matter of either/or or “waiting”. We need for the tea partiers already in DC to speak the painful truth on how dire is our fiscal situation and the drastic measures required to fix them.

    • Sirithil

      I only regret that I have but one upvote to give for this comment.

  • fredrickm

    “…you can be poor today, rich tomorrow, and (after you pay your taxes) somewhere in the middle next week.”

    This is the truth. I don’t want to be guaranteed prosperity, only the liberty to find that prosperity myself.

    • celador2

      Ahh, the guarantee is the big liberty slayer in the creeping entitlement society. Mike Barone has an excellent op/ed on the rapid expansion of disabilty insurance as a lifestyle or career choce by men in their 30s and 40s. Workplaces are safer and workers healthier than they ever have been so perhaps physical danger and illness do not drive this growth in entitlement

      When Obama borrows trillions to hand out disabilty insurance or food stamps to millions of new applicants, Obama never worries about paying it back and someone gets a set guaranteed income for life and does not have to worry about a job.

      People who don’t have to worry about jobs scare me; their world view is incompatibe with freedom, its markets or personal institutions that form and reinforce communities in which we thrive and grow.

      And people who don’t have to worry about freedom of life choices vote for government solutions every time whichever party is hawking.

      Lets take a risk and keep freedom alive. Whack the liberty slayers at the polls.

  • raginpatriot

    The Ruling Class “Republicans” — whether officeholders, party officials or consultant class — care not about ideology, but maintenance of the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed. This is why they won’t recognize the folly of “New GOP,” for they never embraced, or even understood, “GOP Classic.”

    I now support individual conservative candidates, and give a monthly contribution to Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund.

    I do not support any GOP party apparatus, and if the GOP again nominates another “moderate” (e.g., Jeb Bush) I’m sitting out that race (I may vote in other races, but will “undervote” the top of the ticket by leaving it blank, or perhaps third-party as a throw-away, as I did with Perot in 1992 as a way of saying “read my lips” back to the GOP establishment).

    • zollistar

      Join me in my two-part, anti Ruling Class “Republicans” pledge:

      1. DONATE EXCLUSIVELY to individual, conservative candidates. Zero dollars — $00.00 — to the RNC or any of its off-shoots.

      2. WORK EXCLUSIVELY on behalf of individual candidates, which
      technology makes easy to do. I’ve worked on behalf of candidates (to
      whom I have sometimes donated) all around the U.S. sitting at home, at
      my computer,

      If enough of us do this, in due time the RNC and its acolytes will notice that:
      1. It’s losing worker bees (us!); and
      2. Its moderates (not us!) are increasingly voting for the Read Deal (i.e., Dems) anyway.

      In short, in addition to being the Party of Stupid, the Republican
      Party as currently led, is also becoming the Party of Irrelevant.

      help to make it really irrelevant. Soon.

  • Jack_Savage

    ” The problem is that we’ve allowed some of the same people tinker with
    GOP Classic for a decade; and there are not enough folks who remember
    the original formula.”

    What an excellent diary, and what a great analogy.

  • alaskaescapeartist

    If “Coke” doesn’t come back, make way for way for Mountain Dew (aka a “third flavor”)

    • Sirithil

      I’m pretty sure Mountain Dew doesn’t sell as well as either Coke or Pepsi. Neither would a third party. Down that road lies permanent Democrat rule.

      • Brookhaven

        Look up the history of 7-Up’s uncola campaign.

        7-Up was a small player in the soft drink industry. Then they created the uncola campaign. Not only calling itself the uncola, but giving reasons why it was different (clear, cool, refreashing). 7-Up went to #3 in soft drink sales (behind Coca-Cola & Pepsi Cola, but in front of all other Coke & Pepsi brands–like Sprite). When 7-Up abandoned the uncola marketing strategy, their sales fell off the cliff.

        How the uncola strategy could be applied to politics would make for an interesting study. One lesson is clear (imho): you can’t compete with the big-boys at the top with a “me too” strategy.

        • BA Cyclone

          Where does 3rd place get you in an election?

          See also: Ricky Bobby.

          • Brookhaven

            Consider it in relation to the “law of two” (another marketing theory).

            In any market niche, there is only room for two players–the main entrant (usually the one to establish the niche) and the alternative. All others will end up as also-rans.

            The iPhone established the smartphone market, and would be considered the main player. Android has established itself as the alternative to the iPhone (and now has over 70% of the smartphone market–sometimes the alternative ends up being more popular than the main player).

            If you divide soft drinks along flavor lines, then colas would be the main player. 7-Up managed to grab a huge share of the soft drink market by positioning itself as the primary alternative to colas (the uncola).

            You can’t become one of the two main players in any product category by emulating the primary brand (me too). You have to position yourself as the alternative.

            The GOP will only grow larger than the Democratic party by positioning itself as the clear-cut alternative to the Democratic party. It’s not doing that now, and thus will (imho) shrink over time (just as 7-Up’s sales shrunk after they quit positioning themselves as the clear-cut alternative to colas.

            I am not advocating a 3rd party. But, if a 3rd party arises that is a clear-cut alternative to the Democrats, it will draw off more than enough support to kill the “me too” party. If the GOP continues on its present path, this is exactly what will happen. Instead of issuing dire warnings about not starting a 3rd party (which will simply be ignored by anyone leaning that way), why not point the finger at the GOP and ask “why are you pursuing a strategy that will eventually result in a 3rd party and the GOP’s demise?”

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Third parties have never succeeded. Study history.

      • alaskaescapeartist

        Study my post….. not advocating, nor claiming its effectiveness.

  • reddog53

    If they give awards at RS for “Post of the Year” (and they should…) this would be my hands down nominee.

    Simply brilliant and spot on.

    There are, however, enough of us around that remember the old recipe and can figure out ways to “pair it with new cuisine” (If I can extend the analogy…) to make it relevant and attractive to the marketplace of ideas. I agree that we run risks trying always to identify with Ronald Reagan because that was 30 years ago…but we should be able to beat that rap by showing that the President is wedded to ideas over 70 years old that did not work and never will.

  • checkmate2012

    Great analogy and the GOP has lost it’s winning formula. The Republican brand name is so tainted now that I made a case to change the name to the American Party a few weeks ago. It’s time to get back to our founding principles and shed the Old in GOP. Why not start with a fresh name?
    (http://www.redstate.com/checkmate2012/?p=596)

  • Samsara

    Great analogy.

  • tomcatdriver

    “We believe in a smaller federal government. We believe in strong state and local governments.”

    One more delurk…This is an interesting piece. But I am curious who Patrick thinks “we” is (or are)?

    Reagan who is the greatest President of my life time (so far) and one of the top 10 in American history increased the size of the federal government at an enormous rate. Both Bush’s (41 and 43) followed suite. That Patriot Act is in my view one of the most intrusive pieces of legislation on civil liberties in the nations modern history.

    The Liberty Amendment http://www.libertyamendment.com/

    is the small federal government amendment and you dont see anyone but the Ron Paul folks embracing that. If the GOP were serious about a small federal government then it should propose serious efforts at reducing the size and scope of the government. But they seem as a rule to be for it in rhetoric while pushing one federal program after another particularly when it is in their home districts.

    David Frum, in his book Dead Right pretty much nails Mr. Newts trip from an advocator of small federal government; to someone who is embracing trips to Mars and lunar bases done by the federal government… everyone is for it in rhetoric but in actuality …not so much

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Ron Paul is insane.

    • celador2

      Newt has his heart in the right place as have been most his public service actions. Right groups and of course Congress can pressure him to stay within confines of a presidential job description.
      And for all his trips to the moon and state charter school envy well he do get carried away. I forgive all that as his positive ideas far outweigh the negatives. He would take on the federal judiciary in its sweeping GODESSNESS. He would redesign federal work force along a business model. I prefer Rick Perry’s promise to render the federal government irrelevant to my life, though.
      .

  • ua2

    Not sure if using coke is the best analogy to frame this article. Because it would mean ‘foreign conservatism’/'mexican conservatism’ is better and more pure than ‘american conservatism’.

    Coke started changing their mix by using hfcs instead of cane sugar in the 80′s and after the new coke fiasco, they never went back to the original coke but went subbed sugar completely for corn syrup.

    Foreign/mexican Coke still comes in glass bottles on demand and uses real sugar/cane sugar.

    so what you are saying is that the gop needs to go back to the original formula…and become more mexican? Isn’t that what they are trying to do now? ;)

    • celador2

      Whatever we are trying to do,
      The op/ed was wonderful and the images of that New Coke or Classic Coke all came back to me as I was on the side of Coca Cola. I also hate Pepsi. I think this lead article is one of the best I have read at Red State in terms of its images and economic message based on a market demand that is still a classic, Coca Cola.

      We also need a party that reinforces small government solutions including less top down stuff like prohibiting the federal government from negotiatng drug costs in Medicare. We need a party that works to hold more power and action where it belongs–in the states.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Heh, Newt Gingrich’s campaign Chief of Staff trying to lecture us.

    Are you really serious? That the problem with our messaging was talking about jobs rather than just cuts? 0_0

    One thing did catch my eye though- Medicare Part D. Most people did support a new prescription drug benefit, but it was originally supposed to be paired with much bolder reform of the program, and also a “trigger on new costs”. The RINOs and Democrats blocked the former (and then voted against the bill in the end, without suffering much for it), while the Pelosi Democrats repealed the latter. Yes, there were some good Conservatives who stood against the final product, but much of the opposition was also from Democrats who wanted a much more costly program and opposed the timid reforms (which was probably what gave them political cover). Meanwhile, drug prices are negotiated by the private insurers providing Part D plans, which satisfied both the free marketeers and the corporatists.

    Overall, it was a terrible trade-off politically, but then the Democrats could always have come up with something worse, and it’s always useful to point out that it was one of the few programs to come in almost 40% under budget due to competition and choice.

    • celador2

      Bush really expanded the federal government entitlement and he knew it was not cheap but special interest influenced his Medicare expansion anyway. The House GOP just rolled over much as did the Senate. It could have been done better or not at all.
      As a quote above says, throwing money at something does not make it better.

      • commonsenseobserver

        That is true, of course. The original proposal was actually quite good, but got severely watered down, at least according to Bush himself. But, as with everything in politics, it’s not black and white.

        Corporatism and party loyalty remain very powerful factors in D.C, and Bush really bungled it up by not using them to pursue real bold Conservative reform initiatives until when it was too late, in 2005.

        • celador2

          I agree and would like to see reform based on hindsight and what they learned from past mistakes. (There are times I miss Bush much) Free market solutions are often so innovative that their competition eliminates waste. Costs drop as a result with all those choices. From cars to health care market solutions drive the best we have to offer. He and Cheney knew that.
          Imo No one should cap where we go with free markets driving.
          But alas, ACA has a 15 member panel appointed to run Medicare top down, not private forces from the ground. This top down panel not market competition decides on cost control and fees for Medicare.
          .

          • commonsenseobserver

            I agree. I could accept the spending cap, and I do think market-based choice and competition could actually allow us to meet those targets which would be nearly impossible if IPAB controlled the thing through top-down rationing, but while Obamacare did contain some innovative payment reforms like bundled payments which may be good, the top-down approach works against a genuine reform based on competition and choice, with occasional tweaks through a transparent, democratic process.

  • mikelindell2

    Unfortunately, it won’t matter what the party stands for (in terms of winning elections), how it campaigns, or who it nominates until the media is fixed.

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      mikelindell2,
      Do you have any strategic plan for “fixing” the media?
      Thank you.
      CW

    • celador2

      Go over their heads and outside their arena. It has been done. Make them irrelevant to the outreach.

  • huskerred

    Great piece. Every Republican Congressman should read this before signing any ‘grand bargain’.

    • celador2

      Thumbs up!
      and a Merry Christmas to all–

  • Dave_A

    There is just one thing:

    There are some positions that have been taken, that are abjectly bone-headedly wrong…

    The ‘immigration solved on the border’ one being the most obvious…

    That needs to go… It’s the wrong place to look, and an impossible non-solution to a significant problem…

    • commonsenseobserver

      But the borders always have to be the first point of “defense”.

  • reggie1

    To me, the money quote is: “Reagan told us the government was not the solution to our problem but rather government is the problem….. New GOP is trying to sell the intellectually confounding concept that
    the Democratic government is not the solution to our problem, rather, a
    REPUBLICAN government is the solution to our problem.”

  • richtfan

    the issue is, in large part, marketing though. we have some of the poorest around in that department. our messaging is horrible. some of that stems from the candidates themselves, and some of it comes from a lack of genuine passion for conservatism. we really need to stop talking about the GOP and start talking about conservatism versus liberalism. the party talking heads would love for us to define conservatism as the GOP, but that simply doesn’t work anymore. we have no real top of the party because we just lost an election to a marxist/socialist/America hater. we are trying to define ourselves, and the party leaders are not doing a good job. i believe that Jim DeMint bailed because of the lack of leadership in the senate even at the minority level. mcconnell is a caver and will ultimately cave. just watch. demint is one of the few really principled conservatives that existed, but now he’s gone. somehow we have to get rid of the Rove wing of the party and get back to some Lee Atwater style politics. We need fighters, not appeasers.

  • dsmurf

    ah yes, Coke vs Coke classic, now the CBO has said there is a GDP difference of a quarter point between the tax rates of 39.6 to 36, and lets not forget the expensing deductions, and then add “Affordable Care Act” taxes, and any GOPer who would vote for a tax rate rise, not that big a deal right?- may as well kiss his political career good bye- so much for bipartisanship in the 1986 fashion. This is small business and tax payers versus communist party endorsed leftist intransigence. If the GOP can’t figure that out, it may as well be big government Godzilla meets the shrinking tax payer pool advocates as Bamby in the next election. Certainly it can’t be that lopsided?

  • duanej

    Unfortunately, Milsap, you are only partially correct. While “they” decide diet Pepsi is the right formula, many of the millions of followers readily accept it as “the real thing”. We are or we act like a lost people wandering in the wilderness and we accept one false god after the next in favor of TRUTH. We pick leaders (Romney is just the latest example) who too eagerly embrace the language of the left. Whether it is because he is strategizing or not is irrelevant. Romney signed his defeat papers when he openly embraced Barack Obama’s national defense strategy in the October debates. If there could have been a more debilitating move, I struggle to imagine what it was. That was Romney’s chance to shine, to knock Obama off his perch and swing for the fences. Romney went soft forgetting that women like strong leaders, too. He may have come off more presidential, as the talking heads like to say, but ask him now if he prefers looking presidential to being president. In any case, he lost because he did not embrace the language of the right, he didn’t embrace the language of a leader, he didn’t excoriate and lay open Obama for his role in Benghazi. All of this he could have done with humor, but he opted for appearing moderate. Whether he is or not is now moot. But one thing is for certain, the loyal coke drinkers know the difference between coke and diet pepsi and we simply do not like to support diet pepsi at the cost of coke.

  • Guest

    Albert Einstein said, “Setting the example isn’t the main means of influencing another, it is the only means.” In modern history the GOP hasn’t shrunk the actual size of Government from a spending perspective; their deeds don’t align with their words and they have lost the trust of the American people.

    The Coke example works only to a point. Loyal brand followers (WWII Vets in the case of Coke) can be relied upon to carry the brand as long as the objective set can be met with the numbers of people still loyal to the brand. Once the core brand loyalists are outnumbered by people who aren’t loyal to the brand, the brand runs into trouble in trying to reach bigger objectives.

    The strategic challenge for the GOP results from, (yet extends beyond), the fact that they don’t do what they say. The result of not doing what they say nets the same result from GOP loyalists that Coke got with “New Coke”, people loyal to the brand
    are abandoning the brand by staying home (GOP turnout this election cycle). The
    larger challenge is to articulate the value of the brand to “non-brand loyalists” in ways that are meaningful to those new customers. This is the primary reason the GOP is failing, the establishment can’t stand on their leadership of core GOP brand beliefs and they are incapable of connecting with most of America. The answer is non-establishment candidates running in the primaries who are funded in non-traditional ways. I’ve thought a lot about this and it’s doable!
    God bless.

    • Brookhaven

      +1

      The GOP controls the budget process in the house, yet they still continue to use a budgeting process that calls “less than projected spending increases” cuts (baseline budgeting). Heck, when they had control of the house, senate, and presidency under Bush they didn’t reform the process.

      The only “benefits” of baseline budgeting are (1) it has a built in assumption that government will grow, and (2) makes it politically difficult to cut spending on any program (actually cut, not just lower the rate of growth).

      We will never win the war-of-words using baseline budgeting. Until we start using real budgeting rhetoric (where any spending increase over previous years = an increase, and only a cut of spending vs the previous year is called a cut) will we even have a chance at reducing the size of government.

      Yet, the GOP seems to prefer the baseline budgeting rhetoric (which guarantees government will grow). Which tells you all you need to know about the GOP.

  • willhen50

    There are a lot of democrats that think their party has been hijacked also. The democratic party of old never believed in a socialistic agenda or rich versus poor attitude. This new democratic party is so anti American in its views, values, and implementation of laws, JFK is probably rolling in his grave. I am confused, when I listen to the pundits talk about this “fiscal cliff” they say the republicans will be blamed, yet the republicans have proposed more revenue generating and cost cutting measures than the dems, and Obama says he will veto anything that doesn’t have the “tax the rich” item. Obama is not even negotiating with the republicans, he just wants it his way. So how will it be the republicans fault??????

    • aberdeenvet

      Because the MSM will tell them it is so, and the ignoramuses will wholeheartedly agree.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Did anyone see that ridiculous Keith Koffler piece saying that we essentially need to rename ourselves as liberals? While I do think that Mr. Gladstone would be very welcome in our party today, we are Conservatives because we stand for liberty, not just because it is some abstract concept, but because it has been proven to work and we believe that it will work in the future.

    We believe in natural rights because they have been tested and affirmed throughout the ages, not because we believe that we are some exalted philosophers or theologians.

  • rkinroanoke

    Well put. Unfortunately those who need to read this are too busy negotiating away my daughter’s future.
    Your last paragraph should have to be quoted by anyone running in a GOP primary in the run up to the midterms. – Oh and they should be connected to a polygraph so we can see if they mean it.

  • Guest

    Rush just mentioned this post

  • wlcjr

    The problem is that the GOP Classic does not believe in the things listed in the last paragraph. Ironic the “party of Lincoln” was mentioned as he did not believe in those things either. The GOP only looked like the party of small central govt because the Dems have adopted collectivism outright. Until the GOP resolves this major internal contradiction it will wallow in the mire.

  • mtmnd

    Conservatives have to come to grips with the fact that more and more prefer Mexicoke.

  • paxcat

    Great analogy!

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    If I read you correctly you are saying, get back to fiscal sanity, small government, and federalism or you will continue to lose! To which I say AMEN.

    But it should be noted that this was never the actual policy of the GOP. It was a policy forced upon it, for a while, by Ronald Reagan. Under the Bush’s the GOP went back to Rockefeller Republicanism, and those guys are more in charge now than they have ever been.

  • aberdeenvet

    I am sitting here drinking my MexiCoke Classic in a green tinged glass bottle bemoaning the loss of Classic Republicanism that I am afraid will never be seen again. Instead we have gotten the following, thanks to the now Un-American politicians:

    “We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”

    Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959