National Review and Hillsdale College hosted a panel yesterday entitled 'The Future of Conservatism' with panelists Ross Douthat of The Atlantic, David Bobb of Hillsdale College, Gene Healy of the CATO Institute, and Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg of National Review.

Underscoring the influence of David Brooks' bi-weekly column, the parameters of the debate revolved almost exclusively around Brooks' column from November 10 entitled 'Darkness at Dusk' in which he described the current debate amongst conservatives as split between 'Reformists' and 'Traditionalists.' Brooks wrote of the Traditionalists as conservatives who believed the Republicans sold out their small government principles to win elections, which ironically caused them to lose. Reformers, said Brooks, seek a modernized conservatism willing to use government "to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety." David placed Ross Douthat, Ramesh Ponnuru, himself, and a few others in the Reformist group and placed Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as leaders of the Traditionalists (perhaps to imply something about the latter group's intellectual capacity).

Ross Douthat described his own 'Reformist' philosophy as pro-family - with the philosophy that government can be used to strengthen this bedrock of American society. In the process more Republican voters would form as single and divorced individuals vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Douthat outlined three traps facing the right: Demographically, Douthat said the Judis/Teixeira theory of an Emerging Democratic Majority may ultimately prove true. The McGovern coalition of educated whites and minorities are increasingly Democratic, while Republican groups such as white men are declining. Douthat argued that the second trap, socio-economic, is the result of an economic growth in America that has caused high inequality and stagnant wages among the working class - good news for political liberals. Third, Douthat said conservatives have failed to apply old views to new principles. In debates such as climate change and public school reform, conservatives have largely stayed out of the debate while the only struggle has been between liberal reformers and entrenched special interests.

Gene Healy, the token Libertarian of the group - and thus a Traditionalist - admitted he knew nothing about winning elections and didn't care how to win them. Conservatives, he argued, should try to convince people of their views, not try to be relevant or cool. His arguments were summarized by his question, "When did it become the public intellectual's role to see what ideas can pass politically?"

Ponnuru, shifting back to the reformist viewpoint argued that conservatives forget that innovation is a conservative tradition. Reagan adjusted from Goldwater on taxes, socialism and others. Citing Reagan's famous quote, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem," Ponnuru noted that conservatives forget Reagan's preface, "In this present crisis..." Something is wrong with a political movement, he claimed, that deems our economy as great while wages remain stagnant. This election was a case study, he explained, of how out of touch Republicans and conservatives are with problems of everyday Americans.

Jonah Goldberg, who will probably be the first and last conservative panelist ever to cite 'Jaws 2' in making an argument, rebuked what he saw as the Reformist tendency to act as an army of 'Karl Roves' rather than pushing politics to the right as conservatives, not Republicans. The purpose of conservatives, echoing Healy, is to say what's true even if the result is defeat. Goldberg also noted that the failure of George W. Bush (he could have also mentioned John McCain) had already proven that the Reformists' desire for bigger government conservatism does not work politically or in implementing policy.

Despite this overwhelming negativity about the current state of conservatism, there was one point of optimism touched on by both Douthat and Goldberg. As Douthat noted, the Democratic tent has grown enormously larger over the last eight years. It now encompasses (especially among the young) almost any individual opposed to Bush's performance as president. There is hardly a unified set of principles from which these various factions agree on. As Peter Beinart wrote in Time last week, there are cultural issues in Obama's coalition that will significantly divide different groups. Obama, as many have agreed, was a blank slate from which people placed their differing desires for change. Thus, the argument goes, the overflowing Democratic tent is now bound to see real fissures open up as Democrats finally implement their own ideas. Goldberg inadvertently touched on this point when he used this quote from Edmund Burke: "Example is the school of mankind." While the Democrats have grown with the unpopularity of Bush, Goldberg seemed giddy with his declaration, "Okay Democrats, now govern."

In summation, Brooks noted that the panelists displayed a greater detachment from the Republican Party than he'd seen in years past. But it was the Reformist/Traditionalist debate among conservatives that appears likely to continue as long as conservatives remain in the political wilderness.

Greg Bobrinskoy is an Associate Editor at RealClearPolitics.

06:14 PM | Permalink

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? That's what reports are saying. According to officials, Obama has narrowed the possibilities for secretary of state and Senator Hillary Clinton is among those being strongly considered. Some officials are even calling her the favorite.

Obama offering Clinton the position of secretary of state exemplifies the notion of keeping your friends close and your enemies -- not just close -- but under your thumb. The last thing Barack Obama wants is a supercharged Hillary Clinton potentially causing trouble in the Senate. (The last thing Hillary wants is to be under a man's thumb, I thought). If she accepts the job, she's shackled to his administration, which is smart if he wants to fend off attacks from the Clintons in 2012 -- a win for Obama and Democratic Party unity.

It's all politics, shrewd politics. So is Obama's upcoming meeting with John McCain. The President elect ran on bi-partisanship. Now the onus is on him to deliver. But most importantly, he wants shore up two terms early. And he can do that by mollifying his detractors and appeasing potential opponents.

If Hillary doesn't accept the job she looks like a sore loser, unwilling to cooperate. But Obama is smart enough not to publicly ask her without knowing she'll accept.

I'm not sure why she would want the position. Sure it's prestigious, but if she signs on Obama will own her. She will serve at his pleasure. In the Senate, nobody owns Hillary, especially now. She is poised to assume the role of lioness in the Senate in Ted Kennedy's absence. And secretary of state may seem old hat for the former First Lady. She likely considered herself Madeline Albright's boss when Bill was Commander in Chief.

To the Senator's credit, she is the most hawkish out of the names being floated thus far.

My hunch is the Clintons have already brokered a deal with President elect Obama. The question is, is this it?

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican political commentator and Foxnews.com contributor. Her commentary can be a found at Foxnews.com and www.andreatantaros.com.

07:40 PM | Permalink

The next generation of the Republican Party is Governor Sarah Palin, despite the political malpractice of the McCain camp, and the current rumblings of the old guard (emphasis on old) of the GOP establishment.
 
In this year's election she was our most valuable player, and like any MVP her political athletic ability is a force to be reckoned with. She has youth on her side which will make her viable for the next two decades (at least). She possesses the supernatural ability to draw tens of thousands to a rally.  Her fundraising potential is boundless and her biography is politically seductive. 
 
She is slightly damaged from the Presidential election, not by anything she did, which is why it is possible to overcome the hurdles, the naysayers and heal her two biggest bruises:
 
First, the one trick ponies on the McCain campaign tried to staff her as they did George W. Bush: as a propped up, stilted, artificial attack dog and full throated conservative, because McCain needed that base to succeed. But this is not the real Sarah Palin.  Most Alaskans will vouch for that, especially the Republicans.
 
Palin is a populist powerhouse who has spent years taking on her own party's corruption. She seemingly works better with Democrats to put points on the board for the benefit of her state rather than get locked in the partisan gridlock and posturing that cripples male politicians. She is razor sharp and savvy when it comes to maneuvering. (Too bad she outmaneuvered her McCain handlers too late).
 
Second, Team McCain was fairly anemic when it came to assets this election cycle, but one thing they did have on their side was time. Instead of choosing Palin earlier in the summer which would have given her weeks for preparation on issues like national security and the economy, they shoved her into the fray before she spent sufficient time grappling with complex national issues. Imagine the Couric murder board taking place in early summer and not late fall?
 
Time is now on her side. Here's what she needs to do:
 
Give major policy speeches. She dazzles the audience when she addresses the energy issue. This is a logical starting point.
 
Campaign and fundraise on behalf of Republicans. It will be imperative for her to build an army of allies. The next RNC Chair should be her first priority.
 
Begin to harness the power of her grassroots support. I'm fairly certain Palin doesn't have access to the McCain fundraising and grassroots lists of this past election, which is why she needs to create her own. Palin has millions of Americans at her beck and call. She needs to start organizing this asset by collecting names, emails and phone numbers.
 
Write a book (on substance, not moose chili). It's time to get serious. The snowmobiling was cute for a while but the current state of our nation requires thoughtful policy and real deal solutions. We're faced with crisis of ethics. As someone who cleaned up Alaska, she should write about the lessons she learned and apply them to kitchen table concerns.
 
Get some ink in her passport. Obama has very little but was somehow inoculated from criticism after he took a highly publicized trip east. She should do the same, frequently.
 
Do a weekly radio address. The topics should be major issues of national importance.  She should do the research and writing herself.
 
Appoint herself to the US Senate. If Senator Ted Stevens is elected -- and then kicked out of the Senate by his colleagues as is widely expected, which can be accomplished with a simple majority vote -- Stevens' temporary replacement would be appointed by Governor Palin.  Imagine Hillary, McCain and Palin on Capitol Hill and Obama and Biden in the White House? It would be Shakespearian! What better way for her to shake up the Senate, stay on the national stage and keep an eye on the party?
 
With the doom and gloom of the current economic climate and total Democratic rule set in place to govern, the ground will be seeded for a Palin comeback in 2012, though it won't be easy. She'll have the far right behind her, but she must run as herself this time, as the pragmatic, centrist reformer she is to truly be successful.

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican political commentator and FoxNews.com contributor. Her commentary can be found at FoxNews.com and www.andreatantaros.com.

06:47 PM | Permalink

Dramatic Republican losses in the past two election cycles have been attributed to various factors. Yet the Republicans' decreasing support among Latinos should be among the most important problems to Republicans fearful of remaining in the political wilderness.

According to the Pew Research Center, whites represented 57% of Americans in 2005 with Latinos bypassing African Americans to become 14% of the population. By 2050, Latinos are projected to double in population to 29% with whites representing 47%. In the 2004 election, President Bush performed very well among Latinos for a Republican nominee, gaining 44% of their vote to Kerry's 53%. This year, Obama crushed McCain among Latino voters by a margin of 67 to 31 percent. The number of Latino voters increased by almost 25 percent compared to four years ago. According to the AP, 28% of Latinos polled had voted for the first time, compared to 12% for the entire electorate. Among these new Latino voters, Obama won by a resounding 76 to 23 percent.

One example of the power of the Latino vote is their influence in heavily blue states like Illinois and California. In 2004, Bush won a majority of white voters in both states despite losing them by double digits overall. The reason Bush lost was that he carried only 32% of the Latino vote in California and a meager 23% in Illinois. In the crucial state of Florida, however, Bush won the Latino vote 56 to 44 percent and carried the state.

In an increasingly diverse nation, Republican nominees will have to start winning astronomical percentages of the white vote to keep up with their drastically low support among Latinos and other minorities. Obama increased Kerry's percentage of the white vote by only 2%. He increased African American support from Kerry's 88% to 95%. Yet in states such as North Carolina and Virginia - where the African American percentage of the vote was high - their proportion of the vote was actually slightly less than 2004. Along with their increased percentage of the population and their rising voting numbers, Latinos were highly represented in key battleground states such as Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada.

In Florida, for example, there are many reasons Obama won the state other than increasing his support among Latinos. As the Miami Herald reported, Obama's campaign registered 200,000 new voters, put in 50 field offices, brought in 600,000 volunteers and poured $40 million into the state. However, we can see that by comparing Florida's results in 2004 and 2008, it was the Latino vote that turned Florida from red to blue.

In 2004, Bush won Florida 52 percent to Kerry's 47 percent. This year, Obama won the state 51 to 49 percent. Obama's support among Florida's white voters was the same as Kerry's in 2004. In the tables below we can see that if McCain had maintained Bush's share of Florida's Latino vote, he would have won Florida despite Obama receiving 10 percentage points more of the African American vote than Kerry.

In Colorado, McCain actually outperformed Bush's percentage of the Latino vote. Yet this was hardly cause for McCain to celebrate. Bush lost Colorado's Latino vote 68-30, while McCain lost their vote 61-38. To make matters worse for McCain, Latinos increased their percentage of the Colorado electorate from 8% in 2004 to 13% in 2008. In 2004, Bush won Nevada 51%-48%, this year Obama won the state by double digits, 55% to 43%. Latinos increased their percentage of the vote by 5 points, from 10% to 15%. And while Kerry performed well among Latinos in Nevada, winning over the demographic 60-39, Obama crushed McCain 76 to 22 percent. Once again, McCain's percentage of the white vote was only slightly changed from Bush's percentage in 2004 when Bush won the state. Obama changed Nevada from red to blue because of the Latino vote.

The most obvious case of McCain suffering from low support among Latinos is New Mexico. In 2004, Bush won New Mexico 50% to 49%. This year, McCain lost New Mexico in a landslide, receiving just 42% of the overall vote to Obama's 57%. What explains this 16 point turnaround for the Democrats? Hint: It's not the white vote. Bush won among New Mexico's white voters 56-43, with white voters compromising 57% of the vote. McCain was able to keep up with Bush's 56-43 margin among white voters with a 56-42 margin over Obama. But in 2004, New Mexico's Latino vote made up 32% of the vote and voted for Kerry 56-44. In 2008, Latinos increased their percentage of the electorate by 9 points up to a dramatic 41% of the vote. They also gave Obama a 13 point boost from four years ago for a 69-30 percent blowout. White voters comprised only 50% of the New Mexico vote this year, down 7 points from 4 years ago. In summation, although McCain was able to win by double digits among New Mexico's white voters as Bush had in 2004, McCain was still routed by 15 points because of the shift by Hispanics to the Democratic candidate and their surge in the percentage of the vote. Once again it was the Latino vote that proved the crushing blow for McCain.

Had McCain, the Republican Party's most Latino-friendly candidate, not won the nomination of his party this year, we might assume that Obama would have performed even better than he did among Latinos. This data speaks volumes about the future of the Republican Party in an increasingly racially diverse America. When Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton in 1996, white voters made up 83% of the electorate. This year, white voters compromised 74% of the vote. Latinos are still voting at disproportionately low numbers in comparison to their percentage of the population. One can assume that as Latinos become more assimilated in American society, the higher their percentage of the electorate will become. The future of the Republican Party depends on winning back their dwindling support among Latinos.

Greg Bobrinskoy is an Associate Editor at RealClearPolitics.

05:42 PM | Permalink

Win or lose on Election Day, one truth is absolute: The Republican Party needs a rebirth. I'm not talking about a few deep breaths, a reboot or even a makeover; I'm proposing one giant housecleaning.

Our identity is lost. When it comes to fresh ideas, we're bankrupt. Our strategies are stale, our talking points robotic and regurgitated, and our direction is unclear. We've forgotten how to communicate with the American people. Our message is adrift and our messenger-in-chief, George W. Bush, is bloodied and badly bruised. Scratch that: We don't even have a messenger (thank God for Rush Limbaugh, our wise political Sherpa).

The future of the Republican Party depends on an Obama victory. There, I've said it. I waited this entire cycle to express my concern, and I'm glad I did, because I now believe more than ever that my hypothesis is true. Call it tough love, call it treason; I call it the truth.

The campaign of John McCain has only solidified my argument. From day one it has struggled to find a clear and rationally persuasive theme. It has operated under an outdated playbook that focuses on personal associations (bafflingly, even in the throes of an economic meltdown). These moves worked in 2004, but to take one's eyes off the ball--that being the economy--for one moment in this election was truly his gravest error.

Sadly, the campaign has operated with gimmicky stunts, a snarky tone and the most stomach-churning of sarcasm. What did we expect? McCain's advisors are Bush's old guard. They're tired, divorced from reality and devoid of creativity. They failed to capitalize on McCain's strengths and grossly mismanaged Palin.

I find it all too perfect that it took a plumber to unclog the McCain machine's message constipation. Joe may have helped in the short term, but the need for major renovations remains. And here's how we'll do it:

As my Greek father always says: "The fish stinks from the head." If the Republican party is the stinky fish, then George Bush is its head. The nation doesn't have faith in how our party governs, thanks to its management - or perceived mismanagement - of Katrina and the war in Iraq. Republicans somehow got the black eye from a housing crisis that was caused by the Democrats' belief that every man, woman, child, dog, cat and goldfish has a right to a home, whether they can afford one or not. How did we get this black eye? Because we are the party in power - and the head stinks ... at communicating. Failing to correct the record would have been bad enough. But our inability to correct the record was a failure of monumental proportions.

The hybrid, hapless Bush/McCain operation isn't the only case for reform. Congressional Republicans are equally as guilty for our demise. To turn the ship around, Congress should be our starting point. All the bridges to nowhere, the support for bloated spending bills, entitlement expansion and unethical practices must be replaced with fiscal responsibility; a zero-tolerance policy on corruption and a one-strike-and-you're-out mantra. Yes, Senators Stevens, Craig and Vitter: I'm talking to you.

With McCain as President or back in the Senate, The Grand Old Party needs a new attitude, a new guard and a mobilization of the next generation. We must repackage our core values and ideals of limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility. Into this platform, we must incorporate new planks on alternative energy and rising college tuition costs. And we must have the cajones to take on retirement security.

Our agenda should involve reviving seductive issues like medical malpractice and American exceptionalism in education. We must churn out the best, most educated workforce in the world, but not through greater federal involvement and tired singsong saw of mo' money, mo' money. It is also critical that we expand our outreach and invest in talent recruitment to harvest a new crop of diverse candidates to seek office. The party of the old, white male needs to finally be over - so over.

Republicans, if we lose this election we cannot run off and skulk. We must fight (much harder than we are fighting today) for what we believe, and be vigilant and focused on holding the Democrats accountable.

Our nation will suffer under the trio of doom: Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Their incompetence will be showcased very quickly to the electorate and because of it Republicans will re-emerge stronger than ever in four years. I've never been one to believe we must lose an election in order to win, but only if we recalibrate and regenerate will we have a chance to rise again and lead this great nation.

To be clear, this is not an endorsement of Barack Obama. This is recognition of an opportunity for our party. I believe Senator Obama is troublingly unqualified. His punitive wealth-transfer dogma will lead our country into further economic ruin and his ingenuous, popularity-contest approach to foreign policy will jeopardize our global gravitas.

John McCain is tested and ready, and though I suspect he'd have a challenging time governing as President while simultaneously leading the Republican Party further into the wilderness, he is a much more comforting and sensible option.

The GOP has suffered from adversity, but lucky for us, adversity never leaves people where it finds them. It's up to us to control our fate. Now is the time to conduct an honest self-evaluation on the state of our union and stand ready to perform significant alterations, win or lose the White House.

The right's been getting it wrong. An Obama Presidency presents us with a chance to change, not our values, but our behavior and the way we govern. It's up to us to have the courage to do it.

Get ready. A renaissance is in order.

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican Political Commentator and Fox News.com contributor. Her columns can be found at www.andreatantaros.com and at FoxNews.com.

01:37 PM | Permalink

When John McCain won his party's nomination earlier this year, many conservatives reacted disapprovingly. They had not voted for McCain. They had split their votes so evenly among the other conservative nominees (especially in South Carolina and Florida) that McCain won by default. However, some of these Republicans kept themselves upbeat, or were told not to sit this election out, because McCain's electability in the general election was said to be far higher than his Republican opponents.

A key component to McCain's electability was his moderate stance on the immigration issue; a stance which would allow him to heavily contest the Latino vote as President Bush did with 44 percent of their vote in 2004. Bush's increased support from Hispanics was crucial to his victory over Kerry. In Illinois and California, Bush was trounced by 9 and 11 percentage points, respectively. Yet Bush still won a higher percentage of the white vote in both these states. The reason he lost was because Kerry won an overwhelming percentage of the Hispanic vote. In California, Bush won only 32% of the Latino vote, in Illinois he won a meager 23%. Yet in Florida, a state Bush pulled out a crucial victory in, he won the Hispanic vote by a 56-44 margin.

Many hypotheses have been given for why McCain's primary campaign collapsed last summer. Explanations range from blaming McCain's campaign manager Terry Nelson for creating a bloated apparatus it could never financially support to McCain's history of low fundraising dating back to the 2000 Presidential campaign. But the key reason McCain's campaign fell apart was that it directly coincided with his bold stand for comprehensive immigration reform in the face of extremely strong resistance from conservative Republicans in Congress, conservative talk radio, and the conservative electorate. Conservatives publicly opposed what they deemed the 'amnesty bill' more than almost any other bill in recent memory and it was McCain who took more of the blame than any other Republican.

When McCain's political career had been in jeopardy, he chose to stand by the Latino/moderate-Republican community and took on the conservative base he would desperately need to run for President. Conservatives stopped donating to his campaign and his once front runner-like operation fell apart. But for a variety of reasons, mostly pure luck, McCain came back and eventually won his party's nomination. There was no reason to believe that if Obama was to be his opponent, McCain could not garner significant Latino support.

In February, when McCain had won Florida and looked to have become the presumptive nominee, Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal wrote that McCain was the best pick for his electability. He could "stem the flood of Hispanics from the GOP. His new immigration strategy was on display in this week's debate: He'll talk about the importance of securing the border, and say no more. With this he hopes to mollify conservatives, and will leave it to others to remind Hispanics of his record. Florida was a useful test case, with Mr. McCain winning more than half the Hispanic vote. Another quarter went to Rudy Giuliani, who has since thrown in with Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney got 14%."

Now, a day before Election Day, the Latino vote is polling heavily against McCain. A Zogby poll showed 21 percent supporting McCain with 70 percent for Obama. Another poll by the Pew Hispanic Center found 23 percent supporting McCain and 66 percent supporting Obama. The man who has won numerous awards from Hispanic organizations in his political career and garnered 70 percent of the Hispanic vote in his last Senate race is set to lose this election when stronger support from the Latino community, especially in states such as Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Florida, would place him in much better position to win.

The theory that Latinos who heavily favored Clinton over Obama in the Democratic primaries would move to McCain has not materialized. If anything, the primary seems to have strengthened their self-identification with Democrats. The lack of support from Latinos is not the only reason McCain may lose tomorrow. But it's a very significant one.

Greg Bobrinskoy is an Associate Editor at RealClearPolitics.

07:04 PM | Permalink