American people don’t want small government, they want COMPETANT government. There is a fundamental problem in running to take over something that you think constantly fails and is never the solution.

Great observation…

Again…I don’t think Palin is stupid…I think the choice was stupid and she clearly wasn’t ready for primetime…but the ball is in her court, she is going to garner a lot of attention over the next few years…it will be interesting to see if she can unstupid herself and properly prepare for a run in 2012.

As Geek and others have pointed out, the Republicans have to refocus and really start pointing to the differences between them and the Dems beyond the wedge issues that permeate elections.

1) Palin is too stupid to be President OR Governor of Alaska. Byrd – when asked what papers she reads, she answered “all of them.” When asked about any policy other than abortion and oil, she is stumped. She was picked for her chromosomes, and a poor choice it was. America is better off if she fades away now that we are bored with her.

That being said, Chris Smith – why infer that stupid people can run Alaska, but not a “real” state (my fingerquotes, not yours). Red states deserve good governance too. Isn’t Obama supposed to unify? The population of your state does not represent the complexity of its governance, or the ability it takes to lead.

2) The joke used to be that the R’s built the military, and D’s used it. That worked with Reagan vs. Clinton. Not so much with Bush. I think both parties have met the limit of interventionism.

3) We (Conservatives) have officially lost the “small government” debate. It turns out (as George Will pointed out) that desire for low taxes and lots of government services are endemic to human nature. To put it another way, people want lots of stuff and don’t want to pay for it. Reagan preached small government and low taxes, and wrecked the deficit. Bush 43 put the nail in that coffin. Conservaties want low taxes and small government, but are unable to provide it, because they are human. Republicans (of which I am one) need to realize that the American people don’t want small government, they want COMPETANT government. There is a fundamental problem in running to take over something that you think constantly fails and is never the solution. The American people want Social Security, Medicare, welfare, a Dept of Education, an emergency management system, a strong military and they don’t want to pay for it. If conservatives aren’t going to stand by their guns and actually cut these things (and abolish the Dept of Ed), then we can’t just let them drift along poorly, but cut taxes so we don’t pay for it.

The current crop of new governors, who are actually doing this, should make the GOP the party of competant good government that we actually pay for, and have it solve policy problems with conservative solutions. Too much to ask?

Historically, Democrats were more interventionist than Republicans and in recent years, Republicans have taken over the interventionist mantra and upped the ante militarily.

As to big government, I use the term as I am talking about how the GOP should be framing the debate.

I hear such descriptions of the Republicans, but I think that’s their frame, and not really objective.

They can stick with the conservative intellectuals–on both sides–or the conservative reactionary anti-intellectuals, again, on both sides. The former road leads to redemption, the latter to Democratic hegemony until the get their heads out of their asses. All the evidence suggests the the future belongs to the arugula-eaters, whomsoever they may be, and more, that America circa 2008, is definitely not a “center-right” country.

She has appeal with a regional and cultural sect of the Republican party and I think her positions and general unserious persona leave her outside the mainstream in American politics. Aside from the fringe voters who find it more important to “identify” with a President as someone they could have a beer with.

Since you agree that both Republicans and Democrats share a big government ideology, doesn’t it make more sense for the GOP to rally around a traditional small government conservative and form an opposition party that actually differs on substantive (non-wedge) issues from the Democrats?

She has a lot of appeal with traditional Republicans…I also think Ron Paul could have that appeal as well if he recrafts his message.

I think both parties share the “big government ideology.” See Obamaplans…

It took the Dems 12 years to get over the Carter disaster…it may take Republicans at least 8 to get over the Bush disaster…the only difference is, Obama’s win wasn’t the landslide or mandate for change as Ronald Reagan’s in 1980…heck, I don’t think Obama is even going to have the number of electoral votes as Clinton in 1992…this means if Obama doesn’t have strong showing in his first term, the door is wide open for the Republicans in 2012.