Leak: For them, Norquist is a RINO

OK, folks, I have no idea how politics is done, so this was eye-popping. You see, to be infulential (I mean influential) in politics, you have to host a weekly members-only strategy session where you talk about who's not pulling their weight, who stabbed you in the back, what words to use to attack someone, and what everyone has to accomplish before next week.

This is like Journolist, but for conservatives. The problem is that there's more than one of these members-only conservative networks. Norquist has had one for twenty years, but now there's an upstart that hates Norquist as a compromising-squish-establishment-fake-conservative. Wow. The right keeps moving so fast that we normal people can't keep up with what's extreme nowadays.

The people behind this ultra-conservative scout troop include Justice Clarence Thomas's wife, defunct representative Allen West, Ted Cruz, and a bunch of, ahem, journalists from Breitbart.

How do we know this? Someone got hold of documents from their private Google site and leaked the whole thing to Mother Jones. Just as I keep saying, whatever you want to hide, it ain't gonna stay hidden.

A good introduction is here, but be sure to read the long version to find out how the powers-that-be craft the news memes you can't stand. One. More. Second.

Oh, and they hate Karl Rove too.

Image: motherjones.com

Extra. Why are we bombarded with so many talking points? Per the Leesburg grid:

"Where this really gets interesting is when you're covering points faster than the opponent can create them. This puts them 'behind the eight ball,' and they never seem to create their own ideas; they only respond to yours."

Please, God, no, it's actually designed that way.

Update 7/30/13. Jonathan Bernstein of PlainBlog (still fascinating during these doldrums--great job!) says:

"Really? You're telling me that the same right-wing kooks who were publicly hyping Benghazi! and publicly urging Boehner and Issa to 'make this supposed scandal a top-priority' were...also doing the same thing when the TV cameras weren't on!"

He makes a valid point--none of this is particularly surprising or a scandal. I still found the information fresh, especially to know who's in the group and who's not.

Short: Newt Gingrich rescues the GOP

OK, only in his own fantasies.

I was researching CPAC (particularly who controls the conference schedule), and I found this gem of incomplete thinking. Here is the short version:

• Karl Rove shouldn't try to pick the GOP candidates because he's on a losing streak. And he shouldn't soak up all the GOP money!
• Rich GOP donors shouldn't try to pick the winners just because they have wads of cash.
• Don't shoot all the consultants.
• Get wonky data types like the Dems had and start testing the GOP messages.

The first three recommendation are negatives--what NOT to do. Really, when you're short of ideas, this doesn't help because you need suggestions of what TO DO. The last suggestion is the most ironic, however. Really, all the GOP needed was a bunch of data-crunching nerd-whizz-geniuses, and they could have won?

Maybe he's right--after all, the Oakland A's management used nerd-genius ideas to build a winning team on the cheap. Still, I can't imagine what whizz-bang ideas would help the GOP sell their moldy old ideas that tax cuts equal a booming economy because we've lived the 2007-2009 cycle disproving that. Maybe they would use the nerd-geniuses to identify some sidelined GOP ideas that are winners, but that doesn't seem to be the plan since the general GOP declaration is that their ideas are good, goshdarnit!

Not even Gingrich can follow up on his ideas, like this one:

Latinos worry about getting health insurance and health care. A Republican candidate who had a better health idea could have had great appeal.

This observation dead ends with ... nothing. The GOP has policy problems that nerds or other magic potions won't cure. It's the policies, stupid. Work on them.

 Trying to dress up the GOP as winners

Image: news.cnet.com

Extra. Another post on the same site irritated me with different rhetorical fallacy.The author argues that you shouldn't worry about mass shootings because the numbers are too small--you really need to focus on shooting deaths in urban areas. Here's some truth there, except maybe we can work on improving both situations. So why not?

Poof! Most of his argument is shot down. Does he really want to rely on such a weak argument?

What not to say, conservatives

The conservatives are trying to have a constructive discussion about how to improve their campaign message. They've mostly decided that their ideals are correct (a premature conclusion), but they sorely need to tweak the message.

To the world outside the conservative bubble, this looks suspiciously like denial, or yet another plan not to change anything. (Some are hoping it's a sign that the GOP has entered the first phase of death.  Let's see, the phases are "denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance," right? Somehow I think breathing will stop before 'bargaining' begins.)

However, according to RedState, some tweaks to the message are still out-of-bounds. RedState derides a young conservative for deriding Rush Limbaugh, while ignoring the constructive ideas in the 10-page article. According to RedState "Thou shalt not publicly castigate Limbaugh." I can be certain this applies to Limbaugh and not every Republican because another headline on the same day was "I am very disappointed with Governor Rick Scott."

Another post on the same topic meanders around to giving Karl Rove the benefit of the doubt concerning his mission to nominate better (less verbally vulnerable) candidates. RedState must have rethought their initial attack on this project, which they labeled as anti-grassroots. So Karl Rove has qualified permission to speak.

The most reasonable post they had on messaging was from February 2012. It is specific in its critique of the 53% meme:

What we’re essentially saying is that the income taxation model is unfair to 5.3 out of 10 of us and so we are going to stand toe to toe against the 4.7 other people and totally say that to them.  And we don’t care if it alienates them because screw them, they aren’t paying taxes anyway and on top of that, we can win even if it’s only with 53% of the vote, so who needs ‘em? 

What should the attitude and the message be? This much more appealing one:

We’re just one society, and it’s all overtaxed and you could afford to do more if you kept more of the money that’s being taken from you.

So what is the lesson for conservatives who want to learn how to deliver the message better? It's hard to suss out. Part of the message seems to be that Limbaugh can say anything stupid or obnoxious, and you must put up with in reverent silence. For all others, check with RedState to find out how far you can go.

 Image: zazzle.com

Grand political strategies of our times

Hat tip to commenter Anastasios for this topic. He wrote:

The GOP thinks that they are well-entrenched in the House and time will eventually bring them back into power with a well-timed recession or a major Dem mistake... The Dems acknowledge the mid-term danger but believe the GOP is slowly being throttled to death by demographic and social change, and that by about 2030 the left will have grown strong enough that the dreams of conservatives will be forever dead... In any case, neither side is trying to get things done, but to set agendas for when their expected futures come about. Whatever happens with the sequester and the budget is merely a blip in the sweep of the longer-term strategies they are pursuing... At this point I don't think either party finds it in their interest to minimize problems. [Emphasis added by MP.]

I don't know whose agenda the future will favor, but his point spurred me to think about grand political strategies of the recent past.

 The Permanent Republican Majority

Back in 2001, or even earlier, Karl Rove envisioned a permanent Republican majority. That wasn't so long ago, but I still had to remind myself how it was supposed to come about. In a nutshell, the GOP would build a coalition of reliable, motivated supporters who would vote in larger percentages than the general public. This coalition was conservative (social, fiscal, and foreign policy) with pro-business and evangelicals being in the forefront.

Rove was very solicitous of the concerns of evangelical and conservative groups. But he also needed to make sure that the GOP blind-sided by bread-and-butter concerns, so education and Medicare were also on the radar. I recall reading the Medicare Part D came about because Rove didn't want the Dems to have the lack of medication coverage as an issue.

Of course this dream didn't survive the debacle of the Iraq war, with all lives lost, money borrowed and wasted, and arrogance that it was going well. The dream, already dead, was killed even deader by the financial crisis of 2008. No wonder I had to research to remind myself how 'the permanent Republican majority' was supposed to work.

The Obama plan?

This is much more speculative (meaning I have no data to help me determine either way), but perhaps Obama has a similar plan for a permanent Dem majority. The Dems tend to be favored when turnout is high, which means that they gain the most from turning irregular voters or non-voters into regular voters. Obama's 50 state strategy and local campaign offices that stay open and active through the off-years are aimed at this pool of irregular voters. I think the major drives to sign people up for food stamps and Medicaid also aim to turn irregular voters into regular voters.

If Dems can keep these voters coming to the polls, and sign up even more, they will have an electoral advantage. There's little the GOP is doing to woo these voters away, and they don't have an equivalent pool to tap. Lots of people think the GOP is screwed. So it would seem unless the Dems revert to being their own worst enemies through overreach.

Triangulation

I can't end this reflection without mentioning the Clinton strategy of triangulation. Under this strategy, Clinton negotiated a successful reform of welfare. He also avoided the fate of many old-line Democrats (turned out of office in 1994), and won reelection in 1996. Though it wasn't a 'grand' strategy, it worked well for Bill Clinton. Hillary wasn't so lucky or adept, and the Dems gave the nomination in 2008 to someone friendlier to the traditional left.

Successful planning

I notice that political strategies don't have as long a shelf-life as their supporters hope. I also notice that I can talk about strategies without talking about principles or deeply held values. Of course, deeply held values probably don't have a long shelf-life either as political strategy, or a successful strategy at least.

Deja vu

Image: amazon.com

Seeking new conservative voices

With the failure of the conservative message in the 2012 election, I wondered who was going to rise in the GOP/conservative circles. Of course I'm not the only person wondering. It's a topic all over the conservative blogosphere.

Ted Cruz

I already covered what was written at HotAir, but I thought one prominent voice was missing from their list: Ted Cruz, the Tea Party favorite who's the new senator from Texas.Ted Cruz is a staunch conservative, but also a smart one who sidesteps the gotcha questions. This is his statement on Akin and Mourdock's statements on pregnancies resulting from rape:

"I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals. I would note that it seems the media is never asking Democrats what their view is, of say partial-birth abortion …"

Cruz isn't likely to be caught on tape denying abortions to rape victims, though that is his stance. He also hones his message to the bare essentials, and thereby avoids those inconvenient, painful details, such as how many government employees would be added to the unemployment roles, or how voucherizing Medicare will affect the care provided. Though he wants to be a major voice, I'm not sure he'll succeed without grappling with at least a few of those messy details.

Erick Erickson

A stronger voice is Erick Erickson, the editor of redstate.com. He's just moved from being a commentator on CNN to Fox News. He should have a big megaphone there, but he's got quite an independent streak that Roger Ailes may not tolerate. And the simplest way to deal with independent speech is not to give it airtime.

Whatever happens on Fox, Erickson still has redstate.com as a platform frequently listed among the top ten conservative blogs. I checked it out at length for the first time, and I was pleasantly surprised at the clarity of the writing and the enforcement of civil conduct in the comments. Redstate had several interesting posts about how the GOP should deal with the reality shifts from the 2012 election. It was both strategic (new goals) and tactical, and much more intelligent than the equivalent on HotAir.

So I'll be reading much more Redstate, reading less from screaming reactionaries on HotAir, and still checking National Review to see whether they'll continue to ignore the war (or skirmishes) between the base and the GOP establishment in its Rovian avatar. I'll also read Keith Hennessey, a suggestion from commenter Truth > Spin, for an economics-based conservative view.

Image: politicalirony.com

Update 2/15/13. Oh dear, Ted Cruz seems to be a jerk (term I prefer to the more usual epithet 'asshole'). Even RedState commenters think so.

Must see TV: Changes at Fox News

This post is prompted by articles about Fox News temporarily sidelining Karl Rove and Dick Morris. Hooray!

I've been expecting some changes in Fox News. The spark for this thought was a comment on Plain Blog:

...Limbaugh's show will embrace diversity iff he can add at least one new diverse listener for each angry white guy that leaves in disgust. -- CSH

I replied that it was possible for Fox News, but highly unlikely for Limbaugh. The path for Fox News would be more anchors like Shep Smith and different marching orders for most of the Fox talking zombies, who are too numerous to name.

Orders from the Top

That Fox News runs on marching orders dictated on high is well documented, besides being obvious from viewing. (Just one example from my viewing: Joe Trippi, a Democratic campaign manager, talked about the Romney campaign without ever mentioning doubts about whether Romney tax reform math actually adds up. Why would he pass up that opportunity, except that he can't if he wants to keep his regular paid gig?)

Fox News blew their election predictions. Their followers, naturally, are angry for being misled, especially since they were pancaked by election reality. The head of Fox News, Roger Ailes, is not going to take the fall for this when he has massive numbers of talking heads that he can blame.

Scapegoats

How did he choose Karl Rove and Dick Morris? I'm not sure. Karl Rove famously had a meltdown in election night and questioned the calling of Ohio. But note that Megan Kelly, not exactly the most independently minded host, pushed back hard, allegedly on orders from Roger Ailes.

I don't know what Dick Morris's particular offense was, unless it was always being a grotesquely inflated hateful windbag. In this appearance on Hannity on Nov. 12, you can see Fox backing away from Dick Morris.

The Real Fox News

Is Fox News starting its makeover? I'm guessing yes, but it's just a hunch. If their audience comes to realize that Fox is nothing but unreliable propaganda that leaves them unprepared for reality, that audience is likely to desert Fox in significant numbers. That is not a good business model, and the Fox broadcasting empire is principally about profit, not political ideology.

How do I know this? Because I saw their lineup of programs from the very beginning. It was low-brow and profitable, definitely far removed from any lofty ideals. I remember Married With Children. Its high purpose was to earn money, and that's what Fox News is for too. Anyone who thinks Fox News is just an extension of the Republican Party is forgetting first principles.

BUSTED!!!!

Image: FoxNews.com

Update 12/6/12. The Fox chief White House reporter says that some of the Fox guys have pushed the Benghazi too far. He also says that he personally doesn't follow marching orders. Um, yes to the first, LOL to the second.

This is a comment I published on Atlantic yesterday:

But I also have a pet theory that Fox needs to steer its viewers and the conservative center of gravity to a more realistic place. If they don't, the Republicans will keep losing elections and Fox will lose influence and viewers. Rebranding is not necessary for just the GOP, it's also necessary for Fox News. 

Update 5/10/16. Since this is in my top 10, it's still viewed fairly regularly. Therefore, it makes sense for me to point out that my prediction was way off. The fare at Fox News hasn't changed--still fodder for the angry conservative.  

Short: The most hated person in America

Karl Rove. Dems have hated him for a long time, and now it's the conservatives' turn. Here are some sample comments:

"And maybe the GOP should get rid of semi-criminal dinosaurs like Karl Rove."

"Karl=Pinocchio   News Corp needs to get this guy off the payroll."

 Image: addictinginfo.org

Bonus.  From the same comment page:

"UNFORTUNATELY….the majority of unknowing [Republicans], placed the religious far [right] in the driver’s seat…"

Actually, that isn't the quote. I edited to show how appropriate it would be to another current situation. Here is the exact quote:

"UNFORTUNATELY….the majority of unknowing Democrats, placed the religious far left in the driver’s seat….Rev Wright’s teachings, black liberation theology, alive and well in the White House."

We made the wrong choice

This is probably true much more often than we admit. I won't go into all the personal mistaken choices because their consequences are limited. But in politics, it's definitely worth talking about.

A slogan for this election is that IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF THIS GENERATION. (Note, there's now a lot of pushback against that idea, thank God.) When a lot of people were screaming that during the GOP primary, I considered the question seriously, and decided that the most important election of this generation was in 2000 (Bush vs. Gore). Unfortunately, we got the wrong one. I'll argue that with anyone, and the sane ones will be agreeing in about ... 2 minutes, or a lot less. As I don't want to waste my efforts on the insane ones, I don't have the argument very often.

So, we made the wrong choice in 2000. Actually, the popular vote favored Gore, but not enough to swing the electoral college in basically a 48%-to-48% tie.

Another wrong choice preceded that. The GOP establishment chose the wrong Bush brother. Jeb Bush was generally acknowledged to be the smarter and more serious one. But George Bush managed to block him out and sign up a lot of early supporters. Or perhaps I should give in to my speculation and say Karl Rove did these things.

(Side note: After Karen Hughes' statement that George Bush was intelligent, I withheld judgment for at least two years. Never in that time did I see signs of above-average intelligence from Geroge Bush. So when I say that he's not intelligent, or that he's an idiot, it's based on observation, not on bias. I'd trust him to deliver mail or teach high school or build web pages, but he wasn't smart enough to be POTUS.)

Why did we end up with the dumber Bush brother? Well, if you were a conservative businessman and you wanted someone malleable rather than independent, wouldn't you choose George over Jeb? Now, I live about as far from Texas as an American can, so I have no idea who are the powers behind the Texas GOP, but there's a track record there of not-so-bright governors, as Rick Perry reminded us. Someone, maybe more than one, maybe a group decision, chose George Bush as Republican nominee in 2000. Whoever you are, THANKS A LOT FOR SUCH A SHITTY CHOICE.

Photo: timesunion.com

Extra: The occasion for this post is Jeb Bush's announcement that he'd accept 10-1 spending cuts to tax increases. What a RINO.

The origin of Republican screamers

There's been another defection from the conservative media fold. He's not a name I know (Michael Fumento, huh?), but there's coverage by Conor, and the calling out is published by Salon. He's small potatoes compared to David Frum, David Brooks, Chris Buckley, and Bruce Bartlett, so it's not big news.

But the following comment got me wondering:

"Politically, how successful has the 'non-ugly' right been in the past? How likely is it that it would be more successful now? I would suggest that the popularity of the 'ugly right' is a consequence of the past failures of the 'non-ugly right' to gain any ground against the left."

Is this true? Using just my memory (translation: too lazy to research), I'm going to say that non-ugly did work. Reagan didn't call Carter a terrorist and neither did his vice-president. Not even close. Gingrich and the "Contract with  America" didn't ramp up the language that much (if I remember correctly). However, there was a strong uptick with Clinton, but then the GOP suffered for it in 1998.

I think the real change came with Bush. He campaigned as a guy who could work in a bipartisan way, and then he reneged big time even though he'd won fewer votes than Gore. Promises about CO2 vanished faster than CO2. The tax cuts weren't an inclusive piece of work.

And he didn't get punished with electoral losses for it, not in 2002 or 2004. So with Rove driving him toward the permanent Republican majority, he had no reason to back down and he basically never did. Neither did the other conservatives in media. Why should Fox News change when they're making so much money? The same for Limbaugh, Levin, or anyone else who was going loud and nasty. Why change if it's working?

Also, you can't just stop talking if you're in politics or the news business. You have to change to something, and that something better be consistent in tone and message. The Tea Party wasn't  really a change in tone or message, because their message is "we've got all the answers" and their tone is "you're with us or you're traitors." The only Republican who has found an alternative that works is ... Ron Paul. Is there someone else I'm forgetting? Some non-shrill, non-paranoid GOP message out there?

For the conservative tone to change, someone is going to have to be different and successful, but more mainstream GOP than Paul. That's another good reason to hope Romney fails. He's definitely not that new voice. The vacuum his defeat creates gives the new voice a chance to emerge. It might happen, it might not. Let us pray.

 A different animal would be a nice change.

Republican regret in 2008

The Tea Party narrative is that it sprang spontaneously in early 2009 when a number of conservatives saw what was happening in the new Obama administration and had to act to "Take Back Our Country." So far, I've found out that, unless you believe the Tea Party sprang fully formed in February 2009 (which I disbelieve based on knowledge of physical systems), the roots of the Tea Party lay before Obama was inaugurated and before the election of 2008.

Bush Crumble

The real roots of the Tea Party start after the Democrats gained control of the House and Senate in 2007. With Democrats in control of some of the government, the talk radio conservatives had targets with real power, not just straw men. The Republican nomination race started heating up by April 2007, with Fred Thompson as the conservative favorite. (Note: Most of my information comes from HotAir because the comments are readable, there is more discussion of differing ideas, and the archives are easy to navigate. Since it has links to Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit, pajamasmedia, and similar conservative sites, I took it as representative. Not being a conservative insider, that's the best I can do.)

By fall of 2007, the discontent with the economy, the looming mortgage crisis, torture scandals, and Bush cluelessness and over-promising had grown to the point that is clear that the country wouldn't vote for a Bush clone in 2008.

Pick the Un-Bush

McCain, the maverick who sponsored unRepublican legislation like public campaign financing, cap-and-trade, immigration reform, etc., seemed the most favored of the Republican candidates, at least by the general electorate. After more conventional conservatives--Thompson and Guilani--fizzled in early 2008, it became a two-man race between McCain and Huckabee. McCain won fairly easily.

However, most of the party supported him reluctantly. They hated his previous stance on amnesty for illegals immigrants. In fact, the most common epithet for him was McShamnesty. Huckabee was disliked even more for supporting more generous social programs and being too much a Christian and not enough a conservative. He was also blamed for blocking the only other credible challenger, Romney. This was a surprise to me, but here's a typical comment:

"Ok. Today I sign up on Mitt’s site and donate. If it is McCain v. Hillary in November I pull the GOP lever except for POTUS. That I leave untouched. 4 years of Marxism, then back to conservatism." - HotAir comment 1/29/08

It's important to remember that Romney was seen as a Mr. Fixit with fairly solid conservative credentials in 2008. The requirement for purity didn't exist then. In fact, Romney was a good contrast with the dumb, dependent-on-advisers Bush. He wasn't as popular with movement conservatives as Fred Thompson, but he was more on the ball with policy details. Also, this is before Obamacare became evil incarnate and damned Romney's Massachusetts healthcare program with it.

So in early 2008, McCain was on his way to the Republican nomination, but he was hated almost as much as this woman (image from the HotAir website):

Changing the One (We Hate)

By the February, McCain had sewed up the nomination, but the Democratic race was still going strong. Hillary was slipping from the most-hated throne as Obama ascended to it. By April, Obama was the one to hate, disrespect, and belittle:

'He wants people to believe that he can change the game, but in the three short years he has served in national office, he has done nothing to suggest that. John McCain actually has a track record of working across party divisions and trying to reach solutions on controversial issues; Barack Obama prefers to reserve his “political capital”.' - Ed Morrissey, 4/24/08

"It is all about being labeled in History books: 'Barack Hussein Obama, the First African-American President of the United States of America' THAT IS ALL. Why people can’t get it? Idiocy is rampant in America." - HotAir comment 4/24/08

Self-Awareness

There were flickers of self-awareness during the nomination process. Karl Rove was blasted for giving bad advice to Bush, but he could "only do so much for a guy like GW Bush." The first strong self-criticism came in May:

"Memo to the GOP: we don’t believe your rhetoric any longer. Oh, conservatives still want an end to corruption, a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, and spending discipline to go with lower taxes. We just don’t believe that many elected Republicans want those goals, nor do we think that current Republican leadership has any real commitment to them, either." - Ed Morrissey, 5/22/08

Even McCain's meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans and Obama's tax plan got some fair discussions.

First Tea in the Harbor

Everything changed with the Wall Street bailout. This is also the first fight in the Tea Party struggle, before it was called the Tea Party. More bloggers and their commenters rallied around McCain, and the vitriol flew at Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

"McCain’s got little choice other than to support the bill. But chalk me up as one who thinks he should demand a “clean” bill. That way, he can demonstrate that he’s casting a vote to protect the American people, not bloat the government even more with pork." - HotAir comment 9/23/08

"I wish someone would run an ad calling out Obama for what he is, a Marxist…The left has pounded home the “fact” that Bush was an idiot for eight years, and the average jughead on the street, it’s all he knows. “Vote against Bush”. The message needs to be changed to “Vote against Marxism”." - HotAir comment 9/30/08

"True conservatives should be against this 'crap sandwich'." - HotAir comment 9/30/08

After the first version of the bailout was defeated in the House, it passed on the second vote on Oct. 1. Votes for the bailout have since been an issue for Republicans facing Tea Party-backed primary challengers. Although at the time conservative opinion was quite split, afterward it was a stain on the record of Republicans if they didn't stand against the big-government bailout. This position ignores the financial crisis the country was suffering, but such nuance doesn't register with the Tea Party.

The campaign just got nastier after that bailout passed with both candidates supporting it. Obama was called a socialist, marxist, black liberationist, empty suit, elitist, the ONE, and media-anointed messiah.

 Regroup and Reload

With the economy in crisis, the expectations of late 2007 came true, and the Democrats sailed to  victory, winning the presidency, more seats in the house, and what looked like a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The one bright spot for movement conservatives was Sarah Palin. She was almost uniformly adored by the conservative blogosphere. They loved that she was the attack dog against the evil socialists in general and Obama in particular. After the election, McCain went back to being panned as a fraudulent conservative.

The day after the election, the movement conservatives actually rallied. There was a gracious concession to the election victors, but only in the polite right-leaning press. In talk radio and the conservative blogosphere, Obama was slammed as viciously as before.

Jeff Flake, an Arizona congressman, summed up the loss this way in the polite press:

Let's face it: We Republicans are now, by any reasonable measurement, deep in the political wilderness... Today the party is defined in the public mind by the Bush presidency... I suggest that we return to first principles. At the top of that list has to be a recommitment to limited government.

Most House Republicans opposed the recent bailout and will be in a strong position to promote economic freedom over central planning ....As surely as the sun rises in the east, the Democrats will overreach. As long as we Republicans... get back to first principles and work like there's no tomorrow, we've got 'em just where we want 'em.

In the impolite talk radio and blogosphere

Limbaugh: "But do you know what the Democrat plan for your 401(k) is?... So far, this is not Obama yet ...the odds are that it will sound attractive to [Obama] because these people are all about expanding government coffers."

Limbaugh: "I do not want unity with President-Elect Obama! ... By the time all this is all over, 57 million Americans will have voted "no" on this stuff! I, for one, do not think it wise to abandon 57 million Americans who want no part of an Obama agenda..."

Jason Lewis: "We are the 'leave us alone' crowd, so naturally we don't gravitate towards government. Unfortunately, you've got this well-funded, merry band of committed socialists who look at government for power. We need people committed to defending free-market capitalism."

MacRanger: "This is a call to fellow conservative bloggers to join together in a coalition with one goal, to return the White House and the Congress to true conservative Republican control.
Let’s get to work!" MacRanger also published his first birther post only after the election, on Nov. 9.

HotAir comment: "Perhaps he doesn’t realize that too much change could bring revolution also.
Ya feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?"

HotAir comment: "If I hear one more person say 'wait ’til he’s been in office a while before you judge him,' I’m gonna smack that individual right in the mouth. If by now, you cannot discern HOW Obama will govern from his past actions,and statements, then ya gotta have the sentience of a fence post.

HotAir comment:  "We can sit here all day and comment on this blog, but we’re preaching to the choir here! The elites in DC and NYC don’t even know we’re here! The left thinks the right voted AGAINST The Big O because of race! They don’t EVEN know how we feel, what we stand for, or the fact we’re highly intelligent people... We’re going to have to get off our butts and away from our computers and take it to the streets. We need a ring-leader obviously! Some one give us a date or series of dates, locations, and tell us what we’re marching for on that particular day (we have so many things to protest), and we’ll do it!

The last comment sounds like the Tea Party, doesn't it? The ideas of no cooperation, stone wall opposition in Congress, and constant vocal hammering were already in the talk radio and blog media well before Obama was even inaugurated. The transition to street protest just got the ideas out in the open where non-conservatives could see it. That was easy to do. Some local conservatives, already networked and already steeped in the language, needed only to organize conservatives from their local areas. The ideas, the talking points, many of the tactics, and the enthusiastic troops were already poised in 2008. They just needed a name and a date. And they got those on Feb. 19, 2009.

The Tea Party may have the narrative that the small-government conservatives slumbered during the big, bad Bush administration, but awoke just in time to hem in the socialist threat from Obama. That's a convenient story if they want to paint themselves as heroes, when actually they were deaf, dumb, or collaborators while Bush pissed away 8 years and trillions of dollars that we can't get back now.