Citizens for the Republic

Marc Ambinder reports: "Fed up with neocons, theocons and convict cons, a group of former aides to Ronald Reagan want to reanimate the Republican Party by reviving the organization that brought Reagan to power," namely Citizens for the Republic, which "was funded with seed money from Reagan's failed 1976 presidential bid and supported his political travels over the next several years."

The head of the outfit will be Craig Shirley so this post-midterms op-ed he wrote explaining his view of where the GOP went wrong, slamming "steel tariffs, prescription drug benefits, a League of Nations mentality, the growth of government and harebrained spending, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, the increasing regulation of political speech in the United States and endemic corruption."

Comments

I'm kind of curious to see whether or not the Bush Jr. Republicans finally burned out the US' 30 year fascination with Reaganite / New Right notions, so more power to 'em.

Posted by El Cid | October 5, 2007 2:42 PM

I wonder who it is who betrayed these guys. How many of them said in public, "This Bush guys a loser. Don't vote for him."?

They all supported Bush. They never uttered a peep of protest until the country threw up in its mouth last November.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 5, 2007 2:45 PM

Well, this is to be encouraged. It's a set of positions you can debate, rather than a tribe to which you pledge your identity. It'd be a healthier country if the GOP weren't totally insane.

That said, what the heck is a "League of Nations mentality"?

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | October 5, 2007 3:05 PM

I wonder if these bring back the past Republicans have looked at the demographic trends of the U.S.

The rapid growth in the Hispanic community was going to make the Republican party irrelevant in a couple of decades no matter what. The incompetence of President Bush just sped up the process.

The real question for policy wonks is how will the U.S. operate as a one party state.

Posted by superdestroyer | October 5, 2007 3:06 PM

If they kick out the neocons and theocons who the hell is left?

Posted by Col Bat Guano | October 5, 2007 3:14 PM

"If they kick out the neocons and theocons who the hell is left?"-Posted by Col Bat Guano

The idle rich and the non-idle rich. They have their differences though.

Posted by Njorl | October 5, 2007 3:20 PM

That said, what the heck is a "League of Nations mentality"?

"League of Nations" always makes me think of a comic book, so maybe they mean a comic-book mentality, which I could agree with here.

Posted by live | October 5, 2007 3:21 PM

Col Bat Guano:

The Convict Cons!

Republicans like their leaders dumb, mean, and corrupt. Convict cons are the GOP's base essence.

Posted by A different Matt | October 5, 2007 3:23 PM

By "League of Nations mentality" I assume they mean Woodrow Wilson style do good interventionism as oppossed to realism. In other words one of the ways the right will rehabilitate the GOP post Bush is to pretend that Bush's invasion of Iraq was for purely humanitariam reasons and you shoul pay no attention to WMD, War on Terrorism or any of the other reasons Bush actually used to justify the war, which they all supported at the time.

Posted by Eric K | October 5, 2007 3:30 PM

Re "the increasing regulation of political speech in the United States and endemic corruption."
------------
Clarify. Does this group of Republicans have a problem with "endemic corruption" --or with "the increasing regulation of ..endemic corruption."??

Posted by Don Williams | October 5, 2007 3:39 PM

Well, it sounds great when they say they're fed up with Theocons, but then I can't help but notice that Brett Bozell is involved. WTF?

Posted by Princess Sparkle Pony | October 5, 2007 3:41 PM

As a real conservative, there is no way I'd ever vote for neocons like Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Gingrich or Romney. Unless a conservative gets the nomination who's tough on immigration (Tancredo, Paul or Hunter), I'm voting third party, probably Constitution Party or America First Party.

Posted by Bede | October 5, 2007 3:44 PM

Well, at least he got corruption right, if not any of the other topics.

Posted by bob | October 5, 2007 3:54 PM

"'neocons, theocons and convict cons"

This was always the definition I had for Reaganites back in the 80s. I thought the preceding 'Fed up' was a typo.

Posted by Ricky | October 5, 2007 4:42 PM

What's left after you remove the convicts, theocrats and imperialists, Col. Bat Guano ("if that is your real name"), is the suburban middle class in various sunbelt states who are finally beginning to wake the fuck up, as well as doubly dissillusioned Reagan Dems in the Northeast.

They're coming out of their New Right fog. It's going to be a bitter awakening.

Posted by Ben Cronin | October 5, 2007 4:49 PM

superdestroyer -

The real question for policy wonks is how will the U.S. operate as a one party state.

It won't be a one-party state for long (if it even makes it to that point) - the Democrats are more than capable of being their own opposition party.

Kidding aside - the US political system is biased towards two parties. If the GOP goes down the drain completely, a coalition will form to fill the vacuum. One can only hope it will be a healthier coalition than the one that currently makes up the GOP.

Posted by NonyNony | October 5, 2007 7:27 PM

NN,

There is nothing inherent to the two party system. California is quickly becoming a one party state. The Republicans have no chance of making a come back but there is zero sign of any divisions in the Democratic Party.

If California can function as a one party state to the point that the Republican governor has to act the same as any Democratic govenor would have.

The govenor is too large, too invasive in all areas of society, and taxes too high for any segmet of the population or the economy to be out of power.

It is more likely that the U.S. will become a one party state because of the size of the government.

Posted by superdestroyer | October 6, 2007 6:25 AM

so its safe now for some Republicans to criticize. New meaning to the term "political courage".

Posted by della Rovere | October 6, 2007 4:51 PM