This goes more towards something that I think AJ, and possibly some of you, will agree with. It’s about a couple of quotes from Limbaugh at CPAC:

“Conservatism is what it is and it is forever. It’s not something you can bend and shape and flake and form.”

and

“Our own movement has members trying to throw Reagan out while the Democrats know they can’t accomplish what they want unless they appeal to Reagan voters. We have got to stamp this out within this movement, because it will tear us apart. It will guarantee we lose elections. We have to. You see, to me it’s a no-brainer. It’s not even something to me: How do you get rid of Reagan from conservatism? The blueprint — the blueprint for landslide conservative victory is right there. Why in the hell do the smartest people in our room want to chuck it?”

Now, seeing what I wrote above – as a Democrat, I have to say I hope the GOP does follow this advice. Don’t change, don’t adapt, don’t modernize your message – just stick with what you’ve been doing for the past few years. It’s worked out so well so far.

I’ve seen a LOT of support for these ideas at places like Hot Air, or Powerline, or RedState – and here. And it kind of baffles me – they seem to be saying, “So long as we keep doing the same things as we’ve been doing for the past 30 years, everything will change!” Eh? How does that work?

Reagan was a product of his time. No one would deny that. The point being that when it comes to elections party ID do not always tell the whole story. Look at the south. Most voters consider themselves Democrats even in states where Republicans dominate.

“But at the end of the day here’s the one statistic we all got to remember: the country’s changing. Ronald Reagan won in 1980 with 51 percent of the vote. We all worship Ronald Reagan. But if that election had been held with the current demographics of America today, Ronald Reagan would’ve gotten 47 percent of the vote. The math is changing. Anglo vote’s 74 percent now, not 89. And if we don’t modernize conservatism, we’re going to have a party of 25 percent of the vote going to Limbaugh rallies, enjoying every, every applause line, ripping the furniture up. We’re going to be in permanent minority status.”

Just something to keep in mind, when you think back to Reagan’s day.

When Reagan was it was a bigger gap than that.

A few years ago a poll was done {Patterico has it} in which a majority of Democrats said they wanted Bush to fail. We get that. But there is a reason why Obama keeps mentioning Limbaugh. He knows Limbaugh has high negatives with certain voters and he wants to tie the Republicans to him with those voters. He also wants to put the GOP in the position where political officials are somehow answerable for what Rush says…and of course certain people on the right are willing to see those officials fired if they do not stand up for Limbaugh. As if Rush needed defending.

My beef with guys like Limbaugh is that when the campaign was going on they could barely bring themselves to support McCain, he was not conservative enough for them. And that includes Rush….well I hope they are happy now.

But, it’s entirely possible that it’s way too early to judge her – the McCain campaign did a terrible, terrible job handling her inbetween the convention and Nov 4. She was obviously over-coached – it’s impossible for someone to learn as much about national and international politics as she needed to learn in such a short time.

If she is a true moderate though, then ironically she might have an even harder time in 2012 or 2016: I am having difficulty thinking of any prominent Republican moderate that isn’t currently being scorned by their own party.

Liberal used to mean more individual liberty. Now it means less. Now it means the government is for some reason responsible to see that you have enough to eat, have a proper home, have a cell phone, have a doctor available, etc. These are not the responsibility of your neighbors. It is a moral duty for a community to help its members but not one to support them from cradle to grave.

A government that provides these things is one admitting failure. They are admitting that they can not create an environment where people can achieve these things on their own without the government confiscating from some to give to the rest. Modern liberalism is fundamentally an admission of failure and it destroys communities, families, and the social fabric as people no longer need to rely on each other because “the government” (who has no name and no face) “takes care of them.”

Be happy to answer. Palin is not from the DC elite and is more like Bush (the latter) than anyone else. She has strong family values but doesn’t believe in mandating social conservatism via laws. She also attracts a ton of people from left of center to the right. She drew more people than Obama did in the debates.

She is a moderate, don’t let the spin fool you. While she believes in marriage and the family, she didn’t send her daughter packing when she was pregnant.

She also took on a very powerful and corrupt GOP senator. In that manner she is just like McCain.

She is not a knee jerk amnesty hypochondriac, she believes in a strong national defense. What’s NOT to like!

The base is going to have to deal with another W – who is a strong conservative but not a radical winger. Palin was spun as a far right winger to give the far right some face saving way to support the ticket.

As long as the GOP can be a big tent party with the far right in exile it can come back. Palin can actually pull this off.

Did I mention she draws ENORMOUS crowds? The women’s vote is enormous – take that from the Dems and they cannot win nationally.

I swear this is a legitimate question: what is it about Sarah Palin that makes you so convinced she is the future of the GOP? You’ve made it pretty clear in your three posts here that you think the party needs a more moderate and more open-armed approach – what have you seen from her that convinces you that she thinks the same?

I understand that she’s overwhelmingly popular amongst the GOP base – but you usually speak of the base rather derisively. What has she done that makes you so convinced that she can bring the GOP back to prominence?

I find Rush echos many of my thoughts. I like him. I recognize he is not a politician, he can say what is on his mind because he doesn’t have to think about an election. He is a radio guy with a great memory, grounded in history, and from a middle American family. He has become more prominent because he and a few others are the only voices expressing the republican point of view except for Fox. MSM is a turn off for many Republicans.

By the way, I can’t stand Levin or Hannity either. Levin comes across to me as rather moronic though outspoken and every once in a while there *is* a gem in that load of gravel but only once in a while. Lately I have been listening to Glenn Beck more. I do catch about 30 minutes of Rush but during a time that is mostly commercials and don’t really get to hear much of what he has to say that day.

But honestly I can say … if you don’t listen to Rush for most of, say, a month, you aren’t going to get a lot of the context of what is being said because much of what is said on any given show is part of an extended conversation that has evolved across several days. Unlike Levin or Hannity that produce a “stand alone” show each day. Rush has more of a continuing conversation going on that spans several days or even weeks and something he says today might be a reference to or expansion on something said the day or week before. This makes that statement mean one thing in that context but it could mean something completely different when cut out of that context and pasted on its own.

I used to listen to Rush regularly but don’t have the time anymore. Most of the hardcore Rush haters I have come across are people who either have never listened to him or have only listened once or twice for a brief period. To really understand the show, you really do have to listen for a while.