P.J. O'Rourke analyzes conservative defeat

The one thing he's absolutelty rigth about-abortion is settled.We have spent time an treasure trying to change this with nothing to show for it but the status quo.

It will always be legal, whether any of us like it or not.Even if by some miracle the SCOTUS overturned Wade, we'd have 50 states making alws pretty much in the exact way they currently are.

Better we spend our energy really trying to make it more unlikely-expansion of adoption programs, support of charities and education. And limit the abuses, like late term abortions, aprtial birth etc. And cut government funding. If abortion rights are based on some emanation or penumbra of an invented privacy right, why should the government pay for it?

And a special bucket of warm spit for the Catholic bishops of this country. Eitehr it's murder, in which case pols advocating abortion while being nominally Catholic shoul;d be excommunicated, or they should be quiet. Instead they continually speak that abortion is murder soto voce while allowing the Kennedys, Kerrys, Pelosis and Bidens to stick aorund for pop and circumstance. Take a stand or go away.

What a despicable article. Simply despicable. It's every bit as low and self-serving as the McCain aides who backstabbed Palin. There's no serious changes he's offering beyond more of the same, along with some groin-kicking to his former allies.

To use PJ's term, his attack on southerner is "gross" and borderline racist. It's Uncle Timmery at its worst. His attack on the "Southern Strategy" is a lazy repetition of the liberal line. The so-called "Southern Strategy" appealed to voters everywhere, north and south. It won votes in Selma and Seattle because it sounded respectable concerns about government interference, crime and quotas. What's more, the "Southern Strategy" effectively ended the debate on segregation. To join the GOP, southerners had to renounce any public advocacy for its return. It was, in fact, a healthy thing for the nation--or would we want to see another Wallace candidacy?

O'Roukes take on immigration is childish. How dare he attack restrictionists as "gross" while he frets about his lawn care? He provides no evidence of understanding what illegal immigration has cost the country in terms of bankrupted hospitals, rising crime and overburdened social services. Perhaps we should move 20 or so illegal aliens into the house next door too O'Rourke, and see how he feels after a month of 3 am pachangas and discarded beer cans.

PJ's take on foreign policy reminds me of those pathetic academics in the 90s who insisted that communism only failed because of a lack of zeal. Does he seriously want us to meddle in every country that evidences the slightest instability? Does he know how much that will cost in money and blood. It bloody well dwarfs what we'll be paying for this bailout.

No, dear commenters, the fault lies not with southerners, but with snarkmeisters like O'Rourke, who offer this sort of false contrition.

Grant you this much Franklin:

Screaming "LIBERAL" without any coherent rationale for why the GOP should hold the White House is not going to get it done. The only time McCain had anything remotely close to an idea was when an Ohio plumber tossing a football around with his son happened to ask Obama a question.American want to vote for something, not merely against something.

Also, McCain decided to go for the bailout and try to outpander Obama with "I'll have the government buy up all the mortgages". This could be the first time in American history that the Dems were plausibly able to potray themselves as more fiscally-responsible than the GOP.

If American political-conservatism actually bore any resemblance to P. J. O'Rourke, I just might be able to get on board. I'm especially, especially heartened by his acknowledgement that lower taxes does not equal fiscal responsibility.

O'Rourke's definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" in this article have pretty much nothing to do with the contemporary American distinction between Republicans and Democrats.

If American political-conservatism actually bore any resemblance to P. J. O'Rourke, I just might be able to get on board.

Why? Just call yourself a moderate Democrat and you're in your group. There's no real serious difference between what O'Rourke is saying and the DLC.

There's far too much equation between the conservative movement and the GOP going on in these types of critiques. The GOP under Bush and the neocons has been anything but conservative, as has been pointed out numerous times on this blog by any number of folks. If the libs don't get this, or don't want to believe it, so be it. We conservatives who do realize it though -- why should we listen to those same voices that screwed up both the party and the movement in the first place? If in the process of installing a light fixture the electrician blows up your kitchen, would you call the same guy to rewire it during the rebuilding process?

So let me get this straight. O'Rourke's conservative solution is to engage in gay sex, abort a few babes, mule a few illegals up north, and prowl about the world looking for monsters to destroy, and that will set conservatism back on course. Oh yeah, and raise taxes. P.J., seriously, too much weed was involved in the writing this article.

A) O'Rourke's comments about what we did wrong are largely true.

B) If we had run a young, attractive, articulate, charismatic candidate and employed the kind of slick visual marketing usually reserved for products and rock stars, not politicians, and had additionally emphasized only the most pandering, populist aspects of our party's platform to the utter exclusion of anything whatsoever that might even mildly troubling to anyone, anywhere... we would have won this election, anyway.

Young voters have not rejected conservatism. They have rejected old people with lots of character but no marketability. I admire John McCain's service and I voted for him, but he offered nothing inspiring and this election doesn't signify anything more than Clinton's victory over Dole. When McCain toppled Romney, I knew it was over. I'd seen it before.

Great rant: good thing no one tried to edit O'Rourke. (Unlike a lot of alleged right-wing humorists, O'Rourke is actually funny -- though I'm sometimes offended, I have to smile when he mocks lefty pieties, such as the idea that any immigrant would embrace scruffy hippie clothes.)

My favorite line:

"George W. Bush, at his most beneficent, said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship they would have to do three things: Pay taxes, learn English, and work in a meaningful job. Bush doesn't meet two out of three of those qualifications."

From the Calif. Literature Review http://calitreview.com/234

Kauffman is H.L. Mencken in high dudgeon, Samuel Clemens in wry observation, Will Rodgers in celebration of the American condition, and Michael O’Brien in emotive prayer.

Even if that hyperbole is short of its intended mark, I'm sold. Kauffman's book is now on my short list. Thanks, Rob.

B) If we had run a young, attractive, articulate, charismatic candidate and employed the kind of slick visual marketing usually reserved for products and rock stars, not politicians, and had additionally emphasized only the most pandering, populist aspects of our party's platform to the utter exclusion of anything whatsoever that might even mildly troubling to anyone, anywhere... we would have won this election, anyway.

Mitt Romney would have won?

Derek,

I just wrote a lengthy response to your comments which went into submission purgatory. Drat! Should have saved it.

Derek Copold hits the nail on the head in #2. This is simply more of the same old same old from the Jewish neocons at TWS. The neocons hijacked conservatism, lied us into a pointless, unwinnable war on behalf of Israel that has cost us trillions and made us not a whit safer. Then they run McCain promising more of the same.

And when they lose, they turn around and blame those "crackers", "trailer trash", i.e., the only people who do support them. Then they refer to people who are concerned about massive immigration as "slime", in other words, those "gross" white folks, AKA "crackers" and "trailer trash" to the neocons.

"Your Name"

What? Were the non-Jewish neocons any better? Really? Victor Davis Hanson, Rich Lowry, John Miller, Mark Steyn, et. al?

Whenever I read one of PJ O'Rourke's rants, I think of that faux-conservative, Stephen Colbert!
And I wonder: could O'Rourke be a Colbert clone?
Does he really believe what he's writing?
Or is he truly insane?
I really can't tell!

I used to love PJO, but hadn't read him for ages. I was pleased when someone sent me the link to this yesterday. I found it disappointing. It seemed adolescent, though I couldn't put my finger on why.