Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.
They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.
The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party’s future.
Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day.
Their fear is that Democrat candidates riding on Mr Obama’s popularity may win the nine extra seats they need in the Senate to give them unfettered power in Congress.
If the Democrat majority in the Senate is big enough – at least 60 seats to 40 – the Republicans will be unable to block legislation by use of a traditional filibuster – talking until legislation runs out of time. No president has had the support of such a majority since Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election. President Reagan achieved his political transformation partly through the power of his personality.
…
A private memo on the likely result of the congressional elections, leaked to Politico, has the Republicans losing 37 seats.
Ed Rollins, who masterminded Ronald Reagan’s second victory in 1984, said the election is already over and predicted: “This is going to turn into a landslide.”
A former White House official who still advises President Bush told The Sunday Telegraph: “McCain hasn’t won independents, nor has he inspired the base. It’s the worst of all worlds. He is dragging everyone else down with him. He needs to deploy people and money to salvage what we can in Congress.”
The prospect of defeat has unleashed what insiders describe as an “every man for himself” culture within the McCain campaign, with aides in a “circular firing squad” as blame is assigned.
More profoundly, it sparked the first salvoes in a Republican civil war with echoes of Tory infighting during their years in the political wilderness.
One wing believes the party has to emulate David Cameron, by adapting the issues to fight on and the positions they hold, while the other believes that a back to basics approach will reconnect with heartland voters and ensure success. Modernisers fear that would leave Republicans marginalised, like the Tories were during the Iain Duncan Smith years, condemning them to opposition for a decade.
Mr Frum argues that just as America is changing, so the Republican Party must adapt its economic message and find more to say about healthcare and the environment if it is to survive.
He said: “I don’t know that there’s a lot of realism in the Republican Party. We have an economic message that is largely irrelevant to most people.
“Cutting personal tax rates is not the answer to everything. The Bush years were largely prosperous but while national income was up the numbers for most individuals were not. Republicans find that a hard fact to process.”
Other Republicans have jumped ship completely. Ken Adelman, a Pentagon adviser on the Iraq war, Matthew Dowd, who was Mr Bush’s chief re-election strategist, and Scott McClellan, Mr Bush’s former press secretary, have all endorsed Mr Obama.
But the real bile has been saved for those conservatives who have balked at the selection of Sarah Palin.
In addition to Mr Frum, who thinks her not ready to be president, Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan’s greatest speechwriter and a columnist with the Wall Street Journal, condemned Mr McCain’s running mate as a “symptom and expression of a new vulgarisation of American politics.” Conservative columnist David Brooks called her a “fatal cancer to the Republican Party”.
The backlash that ensued last week revealed the fault lines of the coming civil war.
…
Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin’s critics as “cocktail party conservatives” who “give aid and comfort to the enemy”.
He told The Sunday Telegraph: “There’s going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?”
Mr Frum thinks that Mrs Palin’s brand of cultural conservatism appeals only to a dwindling number of voters.
He said: “She emerges from this election as the probable frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. Her supporters vastly outnumber her critics. But it will be extremely difficult for her to win the presidency.”
Mr Nuzzo, who believes this election is not a re-run of the 1980 Reagan revolution but of 1976, when an ageing Gerald Ford lost a close contest and then ceded the leadership of the Republican Party to Mr Reagan.
He said: “Win or lose, there is a ready made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin is not the new Iain Duncan Smith, she is the new Ronald Reagan.” On the accuracy of that judgment, perhaps, rests the future of the Republican Party.
I wonder how many old Tories were calling IDS the new Thatcher in the wake of the rise of Blairism.
Look, there’s nothing wrong with liking Sarah Palin. But to proclaim anyone to be the new Ronald Reagan misses the point entirely. There was only one Ronald Reagan, and that was the man himself, and that’s what makes him special. Republicans who yearn for the political environment of 1980 are just as silly as Democrats who think that if we erect barriers to trade, we can all work in the economy of the 1950s again. The world has changed since 1980. There’s no Soviet Union to run against. Most Americans today don’t feel that government is the main impediment to living a halfway decent middle class life. And Americans no longer fear that a liberal government is forcing social change on them, as American society is changing from the bottom up. Reagan and Thatcher were candidates whose ideas fit the issues of their time, but three decades later, the Anglosphere is facing different sorts of problems that require a different sort of response and a new set of ideas. British Conservatives took more than a decade to figure this out, and I suspect Republicans will too.
Starting on November 5th, however, it’s war.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Enough of your damn cyncialism, I am sure not going to let Conservatism die. It will come back.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Stuff like this is why I hate politics. Nameless aides who lack the courage to put their own name on the ballot covering their own asses. Sickening.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:37 am
People don’t think government is the biggest problem because, since Reagan, the GOP has done a pretty good job of keeping the growth of government in check. A term with Obama trying to push high tax rates, expensive programs, and big deficits will leave America longing for some fiscal responsibility.
As for Social Issues – I will not be part of a party that bends over backwards to abortionists and those intent on destroying the traditional family. Why do you think I’m a Conservative? People may not believe that the government is forcing social change, but that doesn’t mean that they are open to legitimizing every off-the-wall, socially-destrutive liberal policy out there. Americans are still evenly split on abortion, with a majority opposing complete abortion on demand, and the SUSA poll from CA shows that, even in on of the most liberal states, Gay Marraige is not a popular idea – even among young voters, who actually have less opposition to the amendment that those in the 50-64 age group.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:44 am
politics are cyclical, and just as quickly as bush went form a 90% approval rating to a 28% approval rating, obama will too. mccain even in defeat will win 45%, which is no small number. the next 4 years have to be about sway 5% of people who voted for barack to switch to republican. who is best to do that will be what the repubs do the next 4 years. that and winning back governors mansions across the country in 2012 is what we need to focus on.
and palin is not inevitable. i doubt she can get through a 2 year campaign and 10 debates in a primary if she doesn’t improve drastically. romney, as of today, could pick her apart. jindal would be even newer and fresher and smarter. gingrich seems like he is going to run, and though i hope he doesnt win, would do well to help shape the debate. and there is always petraeus, who like eisenhower, could be recruited to save the GOP after years of left-wing dominance.
and of course, situations dictate a lot of what happens. we were on our way to a win before the financial collapse. maybe when bibi becomes israeli PM again, and israel and iran head to a point of no return, we’ll find out just how wise barry hussein really is.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:51 am
While I agree with DaveG in some aspects, I disagree that Reaganism/Thatcherism is inapplicable to present times.
The idea that government has to get out of the way of individual entrepreneurship is been proven again and again, in dozens of countries, across centuries. That will never change.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Summary: To compete with Democrats we need to be Democrats. Sounds like a plan.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I believe that Sarah Palin is our Reagan, Thatcher and Churchill, rolled up into one. She has the unique ability in 2012 to have the name ID and gravitas (from being VP nominee) to run as both an Establishment backed candidate and as a rogue guerilla insurgent candidate, not unlike Buchanan and Paul. If she gets McCain’s email and fundraising rolodex and builds a grass roots fundraising apparatus based in part on Paul’s insurgent run, her money and grass roots support will be unmatched. Palin has a vision for the country and the future of the GOP and Conservative movement. She will likely be unbeatable in 2012, if she starts building her operation now – her latest swing through Iowa certainly wont hurt her chances either.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am
JA Pruce, and other Palinites…. please answer this:
Palin nearly always scores with the lowest fav/unfav rating of all 4 candidates. Usually the only negative one. In dozens of polls.
Isn’t that a screamingly obvious problem for Palin 2012? Hello??
October 26th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Be circumspect when anyone tries to draw parallels between our system of government and the British parliamentary system. Theirs is highly centralized, with no comparable executive roles to those of our state governors; it would be as if we could only select presidential candidates from the House of Representatives. The British parties, too, are extremely centralized and much more like those of Europe, where you have to be a dues-paying member to have a voice in the party. Nothing in the rest of the world compares to the open primaries that we hold in the US. So all the predictions of “civil war” within the GOP are far too dramatic.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I’m sorry but if McCain/Palin go down in flames in just a week she’ll have a snowballs chance in hell of capturing the nomination 4 years from now.She’d be better off running for re-election in Alaska serving out a 2nd term there and then maybe jumping into things come 2016 or 2020.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
There are other aspects of Reagan that still need to be emulated, to win, as well:
1. Reagan did not attack metropolitan people or intellectuals, per se. He attacked liberalism. He WAS an intellectual himself, having read all the books and magazines on the right.
2. Reagan knew how to keep SoCons in the fold without scaring the bejesus out of seculars.
3. Reagan was optimistic, cheerful, funny in the face of hard times. Capitalism is inherently optimistic and futuristic. Dour candidacies don’t win.
Whenever the GOP is to win again, it will need to incorporate these aspects of Reagan, as well.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
As to the apostates like Brooks, Frum, Noonan, DaveG, the Kitchen Sink, Godknowswho, etcetera, and so on…
All the anti-Palin bandwagoneers protest too much the good governor’s “social conservatism.” These folks are projecting the born again evangelical Dubya onto her, even though there is no evidence to support their fears. That’s right, Palin’s record of governance has not produced any signs of a person on a SoCon crusade!
What I find disturbing, as someone who generally isn’t a social conservative, is the near-total closed-mindedness and even intolerance of all the supposed social non-conservatives in the GOP or leaning towards the party. That Palin lives according to her apparently social and cultural conservative beliefs makes her intolerable to some. These Palinophobes are simply fighting the last war, the Culture War, out of a reflex rather than out of thoughtful reflection.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
The Party of Yesterday
October 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Those would be party architects who favor jettisoning cultural and social issues have it completely backwards. The Republican party is not losing because it is the pro-life party that supports marriage. The Republican party is suffering because their fiscal policies make the Democrats look conservative and their economic policies always seem to be focused on the wealthy and the Fortune 500. Case in point? How many Rush Limbaugh listeners know that since 1979, the average income of the bottom quintile of wage earners is up 6%, the middle quintile up 21%, and the top 1% of earners’ income is up 228%?
THAT is why the Republican Party is suffering. It is blind to the fact that supply side economics is not trickling down like it is supposed to. So when you combine fiscal liberalism, corporate welfarism, economic elitism, and foreign adventurism, you lose elections. What segment of political ideology is on the ascendency? Pro-life, socially conservative Democrats. If the GOP listens to the likes of Frum, DaveG, and Metro, it will allow the Democratic party to rebuild the New Deal coalition. The only thing keeping the GOP halfway viable right now are Conservative Catholics and Evangelicals. Give them a reason to walk, and you resurrect the party of Alf Landon, with similar results.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
MWS, not a bad argument, but a ridiculous one in the big picture, where leftist economics has ruined countless economies, and rightist economics have produced America and other havens of productivity upon which all of civilization depend.
Also, I’m not advocating kicking the SoCons out, even though it may seem like it when I’m angry. I’ve advocated a number of ways for the coalition to survive. And for all those attempts, I pretty much never hear SoCons arguing for how to keep the EconCons in the party. It doesn’t matter if your numbers are bigger, because both camps are necessary to reach 51%.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
The problem with the republican party is this idea that one has to abandon one wing to satisfy the other.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
In no meaningful sense are modern British Tories “conservative”. The Tories didn’t “modernize”. They moved drastically to the left and even then, it’s taken a decade of unpopular Labor rule to get them in a position to win a majority. Hailing the so-called Tory revival as a sign that moving to the left “worked”, is rather like hailing Obama’s “juggernaut” as a sign that the Democratic Party needed to become drastically more liberal to win a national election. The GOP does need to modernize and some of that will demand shifts in ideology, but most of the renewal will come about on narrower grounds. It continues to be inexcusable that, from the standpoint of campaigning, the GOP’s entire domestic agenda revolves around a series of unimaginative tax cuts. I supported Mitt Romney in the primary precisely because I felt we needed a GOP standard bearer who’d speak to a pressing domestic concern like health care. But, it doesn’t require a significant ideological shift to develop a more robust health care agenda. It just requires inventive policy makers and a candidate willing to talk about this stuff. We also need to work on our image problem. Win or lose, Sarah Palin’s presence on the ticket will have altered the “rich white men” image of the GOP. In 2012, I’d very much like to see a GOP ticket without any rich white men. Palin/Jindal. Palin/Pawlenty. Jindal/Pawlenty. Pawlenty/Jindal. There are all sorts of narratives we could promote, in an attempt to sell “New Republicans”.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Two points:
1) On Palin – she doesn’t have the experience to be President now, and, I really doubt she will in four years. One term as governor isn’t much, particuarly in Alaska. Heck, I doubt that Mitt Romney would have been able to get very far w/o having a couple decades of business leadership.
In my opinion, Palin may be sunk – fruit picked too early usually spoils since it can’t be put back on the vine. If she is going to make a comeback, she needs to go back to Alaska, finish this term, then run for another, and then maybe look towards a Senate Run. If, in a decade or so, she is still popular, still conservative, and has put together a good strong resume and list of seriosu accomplishments, then she could make a good nominee. But not now.
Really, I know there is a lot of love for Palin, but if she were a Democrat, and running as OBama’s VP, we would be blasting her for having so little experience.
—-
Now, on Social Issues – yes, Reagan was able to combine social conservatism with independnt appeal, and I think is where the GOP will go again. Americans are not in favor of Gay Marraige, and they aren’t in favor of unrestricted abortion. Social Issues can still be winning issues for the GOP if we correctly make the case that the strength of our country is rooted in the socially conservative values that help to create strong TRADITIONAL families and raise healthy future generations.
Those who want to chuck social issues from the platform need to wake up and realize how important our cultural strength is to the country’s survival.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
MWS, to complain about those statistics is to advocate Robin Hood policies. MWS, a spread-the-wealth-around socialist Republican. We’ll see how far that gets you in the party.
By the way, if that 6% is true, it does not account for the increase in standard of living that comes from technology. From having cell phones, personal computers, the conveniences of the internet, etc, etc.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The most recent IBD/TIPP, Battleground, Gallup and now Zogby polls belie this scenario. To boot in the state polls offered up by the most reputable sources (Rasmussen, Mason-Dixon, and Strategic Vision) at least one of them shows McCain leading in the battleground states of Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio. With regards to Virginia Mason-Dixon (MD) shows McCain only 2 back, SV shows McCain only 7 back in Pennsylvania when he was 14 back 2 weeks before, Rasmussen shows McCain only 4 back in NH when he was trailing by double-digits 2 weeks before, and Rasmussen shows McCain back by 5 in Colorado, before Sarah conducted 3 rallies there. To paint so bleak a prospect for McCain’s chances to prevail and to predict an Obama landslide is just not justified by the numbers generated in the last 3-4 days, unless you are mesmerized by the MSM fraud polls that show Obama with a double-digit lead. These so-called political operatives should know how to read the numbers better; but they choose not to do so, because to admit a possibility of a McCain upset would be counterproductive in advancing their agenda to destroy any vestiges of Reagan conservatism.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
#18, I agree it’d be fantastic not to have rich white men on the ticket.
#19, SoCon arguments can win THIS way: (1) Present them in a more secular, or at least ecumenical, way, a la Reagan, rather than as the triumph of fundamentalist Christianity. (2) On abortion, campaign on restricting more later-term abortions rather than scaring people on sacrificing women’s liberties to day-old embryos. (3) On gay marriage, offer civil unions as a compromise while opposing gay marriage. You’d win handily this way. Oh, and (4) Start talking about issues OTHER than these two things. Ya know, values consists of a whole lot more than the absence of abortion and gay marriage.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Again you people are incredible. McCain is on the verge of reaching the MOE with one week left to go in the campaign and you admit defeat and want to enter a rebuilding phase. That’s like a football team within a field goal of tying the lead with 7 minutes left to go in the game saying that the odds are insurmountable; yes we have a superstar QB (Sarah Palin) but we can’t possibly prevail. Let’s focus on scouting for next year. Ladies and gentlemen McCain has been picking up steam since the last debate and clearly has the momentum (recent state polls) on his side; with the undecideds apparently not going to Obama en masse as of now, McCain is looking good. Go ahead and analyze the numbers. I think you should come to the same conclusion I have or at least admit that the election is not over yet.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I think that 2012 (granted, it’s a long ways out) might end up being Sarah Palin vs. Charlie Crist with a very fractured base vote. Would be a very interesting primary.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Metro,
On Palin-
I’d say her unfavorables aren’t a screamingly obvious flaw at all. What do those favorables look like among likely Republican primary voters? Last I checked, a good 2/3’s of registered Republicans had a “very favorable” opinion of Palin, while anohter quarter had a favorable opinion of her. Her “very favorable” number was twice as large as McCain’s. Now McCain isn’t, perhaps, the best example of a base pleaser, but it’s not as though there are a ton of prospects on the horizon who are beloved by the base. Romney has worse favorables then Palin overall and among the base. Huckabee ditto. Rudy won’t run. Who does this leave? New people, who will need to generate a movement from scratch, when 3 heavyweights are competing for the nomination of an incredibly hierarchical party. Who among the current class of GOP governors will run? Crist? Hoeven? Sanford? Pawlenty? Can you imagine any of these folks drawing 70k in the Villages on a cold September morning? It’s possible that one of these people could pull it off, but there aren’t any particularly obvious prospects. I’ve said it before: if Jindal doesn’t run, it’s a race between Romney, Huckabee, and Palin. In that contest, Palin has a pretty darn good shot.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
” McCain is on the verge of reaching the MOE with one week left”
Nationally, maybe, though I think that represents a selective reading of the polls (BHO is still up 7 in the RCP avg.).
But even assuming he can come back nationally, the electoral comeback that he would have to pull off – with as little money as he has…I just don’t see it. The problem is that, by pulling back to the Bush states, Obama only needs to win Ohio, Florida, or Virginia +1 to win the election – he leads in all three of those states, and could get his extra votes from NC, IN, CO, NV, etc.
—-
MetroIndependent – Most Americans are religious, a vast majority are Christian, and a majority attend church regularly. I’m not sure Reliigous faith within the GOP is what is scaring off voters.
As for your abortion suggestion – the problem is that the vast majority of abortions, the VAST MAJORITY, happen in the first trimester. To make any substantial progress on the issue, we have to start limiting abortions in the first trimester, including the first month. We have to start limiting the REASONS for abortion, not just WHEN they happen.
I think there would be – and I think the polls support this – significant support to stop “abortions of convenience” – basically, rape, incest, and medical reasons. Thats it.
We cannot, as a society, continue to send the message that money or convenience is a good enough reasons to whipe out significant portions of our future generations.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Metro,
“Also, I’m not advocating kicking the SoCons out, even though it may seem like it when I’m angry. I’ve advocated a number of ways for the coalition to survive.”
I’ll concede that, but the fact is that if you look at Congressional races- a good barometer for what mix of various ideologies is working and what is not, given the smaller constituencies and the greater diversity of candidates- you would have to concede that Republicans like you (socially liberal, economically conservative, and foreign policy hawks) are dropping like flies. They simply aren’t resonating with voters. Something like half of the hard core pro-choice part of the Republican House lost their districts in ‘06. There is virtually nowhere they are showing electoral strength, and yet some (not necessarily you) would have us model the party on what has become a political endangered species. Looking at this years Congressional races and ‘06, we see a lot of socially liberal, economically conservative Republicans losing to socially liberal, economically liberal Democrats. We see a lot of socially conservative, economically conservative Republicans losing to socially conservative, economically populist Democrats. That is why Democrats occupy about 60 of Bush’s districts, and Republicans only about 6 of Kerry’s. The common strain of the losing Republicans is that they lost tough with middle class concerns. Yet if we make supply side economics the lynch pin of party orthodoxy, we are establishing the very thing that is losing elections as the bond which holds us together.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Metro,
“MWS, to complain about those statistics is to advocate Robin Hood policies. MWS, a spread-the-wealth-around socialist Republican. We’ll see how far that gets you in the party.”
No, to complain about stagnant wages in a growing economy (looking at the totality of the past 29 years) is to raise a concern that a lot of people have, and to ask the question, what is our economy for? If it grows and grows and grows and yet most people’s lives and economic security barely move, what is the point of that? Your sneering dismissiveness of a legitimate question is the sort of attitude that has got the GOP in trouble in the first place. Let’s see how far your Let-Them-Eat -Cake social darwinist Republicanism gets in you an election.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
If Palin is so popular, why is she third in a three-way race?
October 26th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
#25: Matthew, Republican primary voters look at fav/unfav ratings among the entire electorate as part of their choice. Republicans, especially, have always been smart about nominating someone who was electable in the general.
#27: MWS, again, not a bad argument. However, the Republicans you name who lost were NOT supply-siders. They were moderates on everything, and I agree with you that moderates do not have much appeal. The bigger problem is that economic conservatives have lost the ability–the rhetoric–to explain why their policies benefit everyone in all income levels. It’s not the positions, it’s their defense–or lack thereof. But it shouldn’t be too hard to come up with ways to explain why it’s better to be toward the bottom of the economic ladder in America, than in a more socialized economy such as Europe.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
BTW, as a start-up entrepreneur I made so little money I didn’t have to file taxes in several years, and then immediately jumped into the top bracket. Those are the kinds of stories our candidates have to tell (or better, BE).
That’s what our economy is for. For hope. For the implementation of new ideas from our entrepreneurs — the results of which make everyone’s life better.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I think the biggest key to Republican victory in the next couple of cycles is to offer solutions on domestic issues. Thankfully, oil prices have dropped at the right time to rob Obama of what could have been a big re-election argument in four years.
the GOP can no longer stake its future to being the party of defense issues, they can still play a major role (we would be wise to oppose a cut in the nuke stockpiles that they are talking about), but we have to offer a plan to get the economy back up and running, to improve education, to get more people covered by health care, etc.
During the primaries, I liked Romney, because I thought he had a kind of conservative competence that the country needed. I don’t know if he will be the nominee in four years, but I think that kind of conservatism w/ experience on domestic issues is what we need to look for in four years.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Dave,
You and this article are right on the money. Sarah will be seen to be the leader of the Whigs, campigning to be a candidate running against a more moderate Lincoln Republican, whoever that turns out to be. An Obama presidency , 4 years from now, will not seem so leftist to the American voter then, as the voters themselves largely are skewing the direction of the both major parties. Four years from now, a Republican nominee will have to be more centrist, perhaps right of center, but still able to appeal to all the voting categories that we are missing this election. It is not enough to just appeal to a conservative base….that’s not nearly enough to be remotely successful in 2012, let alone this year.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Contrary to popular belief, steady income over time is a pretty good sign that inflation is low in general. The top end of the spectrum has experienced a bubble commensurate with that in the speculative mortgage-lending sectors. I’m sure that bubble is popping as we debate right now.
Also, for all of Dubya’s big-government, entitlement-growing sins, he gets no credit amongst liberals and populists for making the income tax scale the most progressive it has ever been. Bush took millions of workers off the income tax rolls altogether.
A major reason for wage “stagnation” has been skyrocketing health insurance costs. The Democrats will make this problem worse because they are approaching it with the sledge-hammer of government monopoly.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
The test of a good VP nominee is for his or her fav/unfav numbers to take a hit by the end of the campaign as the VP is traditionally the attack dog. As far as Palin being in 3rd place this far out, just remember that Obama was down by about 20 points to Hillary last year.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“An Obama presidency , 4 years from now, will not seem so leftist to the American voter then, as the voters themselves largely are skewing the direction of the both major parties”
eh…..not sure I agree with that. If Obama does win, and does do what he wants to, he is either going to run up huge deficits or put a huge tax hike into place. That would almost certainly be the shot of liberalism that the country hasn’t seen in 32 years.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Metro,
“That’s what our economy is for. For hope. For the implementation of new ideas from our entrepreneurs — the results of which make everyone’s life better.”
But that’s the very question I posed earlier. When the bottom quintile is up 6%, the middle up 21%, and the top 1% up 288%, can you honestly say that “everyone’s life is better” in any kind of proportionate way? I believe in capitalism, but I reject the notion that the laboring class should take a permanent stance of eternal gratitude for labor. While it is true that labor would be nowhere good without capital, it is equally true that capital would be nowhere without labor. The top 1% relies every bit as much on the bottom 99% as the bottom 99% relies on them (if not more so). I think it is unrealistic to expect the working and middle class to simply sit around being grateful for whatever scraps fall off the rich man’s table, ESPECIALLY when the middle class is now being expected to shoulder the burden of the current economic collapse and bailout Wall Street. The middle class reserved only a fraction of the upside, but are taking on the bulk of the downside. If the public and middle class are expected to shoulder the burden of the financial collapse, I would think they should get a bit more on the upside as well.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
“The test of a good VP nominee is for his or her fav/unfav numbers to take a hit by the end of the campaign as the VP is traditionally the attack dog. As far as Palin being in 3rd place this far out, just remember that Obama was down by about 20 points to Hillary last year.”
Thats fair enough, but Palin has significantly more name recognition now than Obam did in 2004. Obama had just won the election, and had little record for people to go on. Palin, on the other hand, has nearly universal name recognition, and within the GOP, its probably all that much higher.
Also, the Democrats have a habit of sending dark horses to the nomination – Carter, Clinton, Obama. Really, only Mondale and Gore weren’t surprises. The GOP, on the other hand, usually sends the early favorite to the general election. Even McCain, who many wrote off in June, was the early pick to win. See below:
1976: Ford is nominee, Reagan is second
1980: Reagan is nominee, Bush I is second
1988: Bush I is nominee, Dole is second
1996: Dole is nominee, Buchanan is second
2000: Buchanan doesn’t run. Bush is nominee, McCain is second
2008: McCain is nominee, Romney is second
2012: ???
October 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
MWS: I don’t know if your figures are accurate. But talk to someone old enough to remember what it’s like being middle class or lower middle class in 1979, and compare it to today. Imagine a life without computers, the web, cell phones. Without the myriad of things in the supermarket or Walmart that did not exist then.
But, let’s get real. Money doesn’t grow on trees. So, you’re proposing stealing from the rich to give to the poor?
October 26th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Metro,
In other words, trickle down economics is hard to sell when in people’s real life experience they see their wages rising on a fraction of the rate of GDP growth, and when they are being told by the supply siders that we all share the risk, while only a few reap the profits.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
What else did a middle class family lack in 1979? The ability to call grandma without paying 25 cents/minute. Movies in the home for family entertainment. A massive list.
All due to entrepreneurs.
And you’re wrong. Entrepreneurs can always find labor. Laborers cannot advance without entrepreneurs. There was a 1,000+ page argument about this, about what would happen if the men of the mind went on strike, published in 1957, called “Atlas Shrugged.”
October 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I’m all for having everyone make more money, but really, is one worker on the line or one office employee worth as much to a company as the CEO or CFO is?
October 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Metro,
“So, you’re proposing stealing from the rich to give to the poor?”
No, though I do believe in a social safety net. The current position of the Bush administration is to “spread around the risk.” That’s a pretty tough sell when people know that the bulk of the growth has gone to a relative few. But if trickle down does work, why the enormous disparity in wage growth? If “computers, the web, cell phones” should be enough for the middle class, shouldn’t that be enough for the rich? Or are only the rich “entitled” to benefit from wealth creation, while we all share in wealth destruction? The numbers, by the way, come from the Congressional Budget Office.
Incidentally, did you favor the bailout?
October 26th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
“Atlas Shrugged”
Ayn Rand?
I have no use for libertarians.
—
Anyway, while I agree that good management is harder to find than good labor, I’ll also point out that the real assest to a company from the middle class isn’t a workforce, but a consumer force.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I’m not for spreading around the risk. I was for the bailout for the same reason that limited-gov’t Tom Coburn wrote he was: It was an emergency and the results of teaching the patient a lesson would be more catastrophic than the emergency surgery. Especially when the gov’t played a large part in causing the crisis.
So if you don’t believe in stealing from the rich to give to the poor, then what exactly are you proposing about this inequality?
To ask why what the middle class have shouldn’t be enough for the rich is simple Marxism.
MWS = Marxist Wealth Spreader
October 26th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Matthew,
“I’m all for having everyone make more money, but really, is one worker on the line or one office employee worth as much to a company as the CEO or CFO is?”
Funny you should bring that up. In 1979, the top 1% earned 23 times more than the bottom quintile and 8 times more than the middle class. In 2005, they earned 70 times more than the bottom quintile, and 23 times more than the middle class (after tax). Wages for the bottom quintile went up about $1600 in real terms, the middle class up $11,000 in real terms, while the top 1% was up $781,000 in real terms.
Trickle down, indeed.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
MWS, you state that growing income inequality is a problem as if it is a fact. Why is it a problem?
October 26th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Metro,
“And you’re wrong. Entrepreneurs can always find labor.”
I was speaking of labor and capital collectively, meaning that having a billion dollars doesn’t do a lick of good if there aren’t people to make your crap.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
MWS: There is no possible universe where there aren’t people to make “crap.” Why are you calling it “crap” when you’re bemoaning not having enough of it?
There are many possible universes where there are no entrepreneurs. Most countries have scared them away to America. Now you wish to remove the last bastion for our existence. And then do what, without us?
You’re a parasite. The moral equivalent of an ungrateful child on Christmas morning.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Metro,
“MWS, you state that growing income inequality is a problem as if it is a fact. Why is it a problem?”
Obviously numbers will fluctuate from year to year, but this is way beyond statistical “noise.” So what is wrong with it? As a conservative, I recognize that enormous income disparity leads to economic, political, and social instability. If things continue as they are unabated, we are headed to either true socialism, or a police state. Look at other countries with enormous income gaps (say in Latin America and Africa) they’re elections are between real Socialists and quasi-fascists, and the rich have to live in neighborhoods with iron bars, rottweilers, and guards carrying machine guns. I also have a moral problem with it. I don’t begrudge wealth (I’m fairly well to do myself), but the rich need to understand they didn’t get that way on their own, and those who made them wealthy (such as their laborers) have a moral right to share in the bounty.
And if you favored the bailout, then you do believe in “spreading around the risk.” And I know from past threads you have no problem with CEOs making hundreds of millions of dollars for driving their companies into the ground. What seems to get your hackles raised is if the guy on the line makes too much. Of course, it’s perfectly acceptable for the guy on the line (and his kids) to fork out the dough to pay for that CEO’s stupidity, as long as the CEO himself doesn’t have to “suffer” by giving up a yacht or two.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
WTF, where did paying employees ever raise my hackles?
Backed into a corner, so you just make shit up?
October 26th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
*more
October 26th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Metro,
1. I was using crap as a substitute for “stuff,” some of which is crap.
2. Is there anything for which the rich should be grateful? Or are they simply entitled?
October 26th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Metro,
“WTF, where did paying employees ever raise my hackles?”
You equate any concern over growing income disparity with Marxism and Robin Hood. You state that any worker who wants to take a greater share of the growing pie is like an ungrateful child. You are the perfect caricature of Marie Antionette, and your attitude towards those “beneath” you would bring the Republican party the same fortunes as the Bourbon dynasty.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
The rich should be grateful to John Locke, the Founding Fathers, America, and all proponents of individual and property rights — in order to protect them from thieving ingrates such as yourself.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
No, I did not say that a working who wants a greater share is like an ungrateful child. They are ungrateful if they do not recognize that is the entrepreneurs, their ideas, capital, and risk-taking, that provides THEM with jobs and goods.
I want the lower classes to want more, to aspire to become an entrepreneur themselves, or for their children to.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
You have me 180 degrees of where I am re Marie Antoinette.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Metro,
“The rich should be grateful to John Locke, the Founding Fathers, America, and all proponents of individual and property rights”
But obviously, not their workers. I am a business owner too, but you have a perverse sense of entitlement. If you’re parents tried to teach you anything about gratitude or compassion, they seemed to have failed.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Their workers, too. Have you selectively ignored half of what I’ve written?
BTW, those principles do not result in wealth-transfer checks from the rich to the poor.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Metro,
“Their workers, too. Have you selectively ignored half of what I’ve written?”
Glad to see you concede that. When you were listing things the rich should be grateful for, you didn’t mention workers, and nothing you have written in this thread would lead me to believe that it was an unintended oversight.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Metro,
“wealth-transfer checks from the rich to the poor.”
That’s what the rest of us call “payroll.”
October 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
21.
1. I agree.
2. Not sure, asking people to give up on protecting a life they consider human is a tall order.
3. Tried that in Conneticut, see where it got us?
4. You are correct, to degree. they talk about them because they are important, but single issue-ing doesn’t get anyone far.
October 26th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Actually Civil Unions would never be an effective compromise. The Connecticut High Court has already set a precedent by referring to it as segregationist form of marriage, leaving it only a one-step-longer-route to gay marriage. Also, the reason so many oppose civil unions is the mere fact that it still gives homosexuals a protected status, which allows more situations in number and severity like we have had in MA schools, New Mexico Photography studios and California fertility clinics.
Asking someone to compromise on gay marriage is like asking us to use a Swedish econmoic system as a compromise with the communists. They both end with the same thing.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Our economy is structured in such a way through regulations and taxes to benefit finance at the expense of labor.
Welfare for the middle class is the last thing that would help workers.
Here’s what would:
Elimination or repeal of the payroll tax (really a two sided anti-labor tax), corporate tax. Replace those with taxes on property or consumption.
Stop wasting so much money on welfare and focus on infrastructure so our businesses can efficiently compete again.
Reform healthcare to allow more cost-savings and availability.
Our government has policies which warp our free market into a buffet for owners of capital. Entrepreneurs are a necessary element of our society. Simply rewarding owners of capital at the expense of labor through regulations and economic manipulation is Robin Hood for the wealthy.
A return to a pro-labor free market would benefit the working class at the expense of owners of capital and those who live off returns to property and not their own labor.
Our government has hand in income inequality because it has lowered demand for labor with
October 26th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Why would anyone bother reading the uk telegraph?
Uk press is a rag. Noone in Uk reads it why here?
October 27th, 2008 at 8:19 am
your gonna loose, lol, you asses have circled the religous wagons around each other and 4got about the rest of the GOP party, & now there looking at palin, and all her small town racist freaks, like were not some red neck, uneducated, bible lovin, evan freaks! lol This will last 4 a while, because without your new base, the party will stay fractured!