How did the US help create IS/ISIS/Daesh?

Russia Says U.S. Policies Helped Islamic State, Interfax Reports

U.S. actions in the Middle East helped Islamic State to gain influence, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said, according to Interfax.

The strengthening of Islamic State “became possible partly due to irresponsible U.S. politics” that focused on fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad instead of joining efforts to root out terrorism, Medvedev was cited as saying in Kuala Lumpur on Sunday. President Barack Obama earlier on Sunday said that Russia is facing a strategic choice as Assad can’t stay. The Obama administration declined to comment Sunday on Medvedev’s statement. [...]

Another article I read earlier in the week, would seem to support the idea of bad US policy being partly responsible for helping create IS (Daesh). This is from an interview with Robert Ford, former US ambassador to Syria:

Why we’re not doing a better job destroying ISIS, according to the former U.S. ambassador to Syria

[...] Looking back on our policy toward Iraq and Syria, did the Obama administration do enough?

Well, the administration I think made one major mistake in both countries. Which is that it didn’t seek to implement policies that would help address underlying Sunni-Arab grievances. For example, Assad's unbelievable brutality in Syria. Removing sarin gas was a small step, but the regime still uses chemical weapons. On the Iraq side, there was a similar problem. There the administration in 2010 strongly backed Nouri al-Maliki returning as prime minster. There were some in the administration who thought that was not a good idea because he was very sectarian, but the administration went ahead anyway.

The problems that Maliki caused among Iraqis combined with Bashar al-Assad's actions in Syria created this devil’s brew that is the Islamic State. The administration is trying to address it now. They finally dropped their support of Maliki, and they’re trying to address it in a very narrow way in Syria, but it got very bad before the administration started to make changes. [...]

Sunni Muslims in both Syria and Iraq were not being represented, so they joined forces and became IS/ISIS/Daesh.

The Russians have an interest in solving this, because it's unfolding on their doorstep, and they don't want it spreading to the large Muslim population in their own country. And while Assad has been brutal, he was also fighting Sunni Muslims, many of them brutal, who became IS/ISIS/Daesh fighters.

Assad and his followers are of the Alawite Muslim sect, which are more westernized than the Sunnis. The Alawites are only around 10% of the Syrian population, whereas the Sunnis are about 74%. Historically,Sunnis have persecuted Alawites. The Sunnis outnumbered them and tried to take over, and Alawites defended themselves.

The Alawites have Iran and Russia as allies, who support keeping Assad in power.

The US got rid of Saddam in Iraq, and destabilized it. The US got rid of Qaudaffi in Libya, and destabilized it. Now the US is demanding the removal of Assad. Is it any wonder the Russians support him? Perhaps they have had enough of the US destabilizing the Middle East. One only has to look at a map to see why it matters more to Russia; it affects them more directly by proximity.

If the US wants to try to negotiate the eventual removal of Assad, they can try. But to insist on it as they are doing may be a mistake, because Russia and it's allies don't want it, and it looks as if they are going to try to use the UN to support that position as well. If they succeed at the UN, and can't be persuaded to change their minds, then continuing to insist on Assad's removal just becomes a block to further progress. Maybe the US needs to be more flexible and bend a little?

Russia may try to go it alone, but they may ultimately find they need more allies. Ideally, we should have a coalition to fight IS/ISIS/Daesh. Russia it seems, does not want to join a US led coalition. Fine, even understandable. But Russia may well find that few want to join a coalition lead by Russia.

The US and Russia would be stronger working together. But it won't happen unless both sides can learn to bend, to compromise on particular areas of concern they each have, that they currently can't agree on. That must be overcome before they can work together. Can they do it? Will they?

     

A So-Called "RINO" Tells it the Way It Is

Frustrated Senator Olympia Snowe Gives Obama an ‘F’

If there were ever a Republican for President Obama to work with, it was Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. She was one of just three Republicans in the entire Congress to vote for his economic stimulus plan in 2009 and even tried to work with him on health care, but in an interview with ABC's Senior Political Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Snowe makes a remarkable revelation: She hasn't had a face-to-face meeting with President Obama in nearly two years.

Snowe said that if she had to grade the President on his willingness to work with Republicans, he would "be close to failing on that point." In fact, Snowe, who was first elected to Congress in 1978, claims that her meetings with President Obama have been less frequent than with any other President.

When she announced suddenly in February that she was not going to run for reelection - after three terms in the US Senate and a previous 14 years in the House of Representatives - colleagues and commentators alike were stunned.

"I think a lot of the frustration frankly in our party, in the Tea Party challenges or even Occupy Wall Street is really a reflection of our failure to solve the major problems in our country," said Snowe. "It's become all about the politics, and not the policy. It's not about governing, it's about the next election."

So has this Congress failed the country on those critical questions?
"Absolutely," Snowe asserted. "You have to sit down and talk to people with whom you disagree," said Snowe." And that is not what is transpiring at a time when we desperately need that type of leadership."

Sen. Snowe admitted that her party has changed since she entered politics, and that she is a rare moderate in the Republican caucus. That said, she is adamant that her core beliefs are as Republican now as they ever were.

"I haven't changed," she said. "I represent what I think is a traditional Republican… a limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, individual freedom and liberty."

THAT is the old-fashioned, traditional kind of New England Republicanism I admire. But sometimes it seems that nowadays, the GOP is being dominated by "Dixicrats", former Democrats who have made a conversion to Republicanism that is only skin-deep. They want to re-make the party into their own image, and "drum-out" anyone who won't conform to that image. Their favorite tool is the "RINO" label. It's enough to make Reagan turn over in his grave.

There is a video of the complete interview with Snowe at the link. She goes into more detail, such as how Ronald Reagan used to talk extensively and often with Tip O'Neil and other Democrats who opposed him, and how that was one of the things that made him a great president who was able to accomplish things.

When asked about wether she would support a candidate such as Santorum, if he is nominated, she said that, despite disagreeing with him on a number of issues, that of course she would support him if he's the candidate, because she's a Republican.

It's worth watching the whole interview, I was quite proud of her. I am so SICK of this talk about drumming RINOS out of the Party. A certain shrill, intolerant core of the Republican party wants to turn the GOP into the "Incredible Shrinking Party", drumming out divergent opinions with various "litmus tests". It's a loosing plan, given that the majority of voters are non-ideological swing voters, who are not particularly ideological. THEY will decide the election, not UBER Conservatives.

The GOP needs to build a coalition of various kinds of Republicans (like Reagan once did), and build a platform with planks that most of us can agree on, and that is also wide enough to accommodate and have appeal to swing voters.

I've always been willing to compromise with fellow Republicans with some different views than mine. And I have. The problem is, I seem to often be waiting for that consideration to be RECIPROCAL. Without it, there is no coalition. And no hope of winning enough to make a difference.
     

The GOP is presently a large minority. Will it stay that way, or can it grow into a coalition?

GOP's choice: Purity vs. power?

[...] The message is clear: Republicans need to work hard on a reform platform that attracts both conservative and moderate voters.

Armey and his friends have a reason to feel comfortable sticking to their conservative line. Gallup just announced a survey that showed that conservatives make up the largest voting bloc in the country, 40 percent.

But, and I hate to break this to my conservative friends, in America, 40 percent of the country is not enough to gain a working majority in Congress. Without the help of moderate and independent voters, conservatives will stay in the minority, keeping the reins of power in the hands of liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Conservatives seem to be mystified that these liberals hold the reins of power even though they make up a small minority of the country. Most polls show that only about 20 percent of the American people consider themselves to be liberal.

But it shouldn't be any mystery. It is all about building a majority coalition, and the Democrats for the last two elections have been better at it than Republicans.

In order to build a governing coalition, the Republican Party must exhibit one over-riding philosophical trait: flexibility. What makes sense in New York and New England may not make as much sense in South Carolina and Texas. I know this is blasphemy to hard-right activists. But it shouldn't be. Building coalitions is an essential party of any democracy.

Having political flexibility doesn't mean becoming a sell-out or a squish. It does, however, mean having an understanding of our unique political system, where sometimes it is better to vote with the head and the heart rather than just the heart. [...]

That 40 percent of people who call themselves conservative, includes a lot of libertarian minded people who are fiscally conservative, but more moderate, not rigid, on social issues. But as the article points out, even 40 percent is not enough to win.

The Dems made a coalition. Where is ours? Where is it?


Also see:

The return of the angry independent

     

What does the term "Conservative Republican" mean anymore? Can we all get along? SOON?

I love this cartoon because it cuts both ways. Conservatives would say it shows McCain is too liberal. But many moderate Republicans would say that some conservatives are so far right that they've left the Republican party, and now need to be "reached out" to. Me, I'm hoping John can reach BOTH ways.

Ronald Reagan did. He's now lauded as a "great conservative", but I remember when he was president, there were conservatives who complained he was too liberal. Reagan thought it was great if he got 80 percent of what he pushed for. Yet some on the far right continued to badger him to push for 100 percent.

Any politician who always gets 100 percent of what he wants has usually got a name like Mussolini or Hitler. 80 percent is pretty darn good. When you live in a democratic republic, you have to compromise, even when you hold a powerful position. And to even reach that powerful position, there has to be compromise and cooperation even within ones own party.

Reagan achieved his position by reaching out to conservatives. But not just Republican conservatives, but Democrat ones too, as well as moderates and independents. It was a true coalition, and it worked.

But that was 30 years ago. Times change, as do people. I'm hoping John McCain can also reach out to a wide range of voters and form a contemporary Republican Coalition, because we are going to need a big tent to win this one.

But this also begs a question: who ARE Republicans nowadays? What IS the definition of a conservative? Depending on who you talk to, you might get a very broad -or very narrow- answer.

I find this latest article from Gallup.com somewhat disturbing, but perhaps at the same time revealing:

Republicans Split on Whether Huckabee Should Drop Out

[...] The results show that there is no strong majority sentiment on the part of Republicans that Huckabee should leave the race. Forty-six percent say he should drop out, while 49% say he should continue.

According to media reports and many political observers, one of McCain's biggest challenges at this point is to woo the conservative wing of the Republican Party. It is not surprising, therefore, to find some differences by ideology in views of Huckabee's staying in the race.

Conservative Republicans say Huckabee should stay in the race, by a 54% to 42% margin. Moderate Republicans, on the other hand, say by a 57% to 38% margin that Huckabee should quit.

Gallup Poll Daily election tracking data show that about a quarter of Republicans nationwide continue to support Huckabee. Another 5% support Ron Paul or Alan Keyes, and 9% volunteer the name of another candidate (such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Mitt Romney) or don't have a choice. That currently leaves McCain with the support of about 6 in 10 Republicans nationwide.

In general, McCain's nomination support is lower among conservative Republicans, and higher among moderate Republicans. But the differences are perhaps not as large as might be expected given all of the attention to McCain's presumed problems with the conservative wing of his party. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The poll also goes on to give graphs and figures giving a breakdown of people's church attendance, how often they attend, and who they support in the Republican primaries. It's interesting.

But the thing that keeps jumping out at me, if the Gallup poll data is to be trusted, is that 1/4 of Republicans are Huckabee supporters. Now to me, the only thing I see conservative about Huckabee supporters is their anti-abortion and anti-gay positions. In most other ways they seem like Big Government Nanny-State Democrats to me. If they are now 1/4 of the party, and the Republicans are supposed to be the "conservative" party, then what does that say about the present state of conservatism in America?

I've also been hearing it said that McCain wouldn't dare choose Huckabee as Veep, because "conservatives" wouldn't like it. Yet is seems that at least 1/4 of Republicans nationally would like it. And 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans want Huckabee to continue running?

This just begs the question; if John McCain is going to form a coalition and pull the party together, what kind of coalition is it going to be? How will the 1/4 of Huckabee Republicans be accommodated? And what about other Republicans who don't like Huckabee but consider themselves to be conservatives of various kinds? What would this coalition look like, and how would it work?

To tell you the truth, I hope we find out... soon. I know a lot of folks are waiting to see who McCain picks as Veep before they will consider offering their support. Yet no matter who he picks, there are bound to be folks who will be dissatisfied. An effective coalition will need more than just a good Veep choice. Different segments of the coalition will want their particular concerns addressed, and that will have to be negotiated. Compromises will have to be made. Yet I believe it IS doable. I just hope it all starts to gel sooner rather than later. If conservatives only start to offer their support at the last minute like they did for Mitt Romney, it could end the same; too little, too late.

In a coalition, nobody gets 100 percent of what they want. But hopefully, we can all get what we NEED. If that happens, I'll be very happy.
     

Republicans, Dinosaurs and Tent Sizes

I didn't particularly want to vote for George Bush in 2004. But he was the candidate for the party, and I voted for him. The alternative was unacceptable.

We are now facing a similar situation with John McCain. I will vote for him also, despite some misgivings about some things, because the alternative is still unacceptable. Yet I keep hearing conservative "purists" focusing only on what they don't like about him, completely ignoring his conservative voting record or any of the clearly good and conservative things he has done and promises to do, and generally having a hissy fit.

The Republican party is floundering. The people who are lining up to support McCain aren't doing it "just to gain money and attention"; that's patronizing. Could it actually be that they want the Republican party to WIN in November? Could it actually be that even if McCain doesn't represent their own beliefs 100 percent, they still understand that politics is about compromise? Could it be that they understand that if the Democrats get in, the damage they can do may be irreversible? That they will appoint many Supreme Court Justices? That NOTHING will be done to secure our border?

With a Democrat President and Congress, a massive amnesty will be granted to millions of illegals, solely on the Democrats terms. Illegal aliens may even eventually be allowed to vote in our elections... and it may be a long, long time before a Republican President or Congress is ever elected again. And if and when it does happen, the party could be completely unrecognizable from what it is now.

If the conservative purists continue to harangue and malign the Republican party because of McCain, he will at some point be compelled to take them at their word that they will never vote for him, and he will be forced to seek and rely on support from elsewhere; from further left in the party, from the Huckabee supporters, from independents and conservative Democrats. If he succeeds and wins, the purists may find themselves marginalized in the party, without a voice. Perhaps permanently.

If the purists succeed in sandbagging their own party and we lose in November, the Republican party becomes marginalized. Perhaps permanently.

I hear the anti-McCainites saying "Forget the top of the ticket, just work to get conservatives elected in Congress". That sounds good in theory, but is it realistic? According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Feb. 8-10, 2008, only 41% of adults likely to vote this November say they would support the Republican candidate running in their congressional district. 55% say they would vote for the Democratic candidate.

Combine that with the fact the many Republican seats are becoming available as current members retire, and there aren't enough Republican candidates running to fill them all. Of course we must try to retake Congress, but realistically, the math is not on our side. You'd better believe the Democrats are doing the math. Shouldn't we? What do you think will happen if the Republican party is marginalized?

When I was a waiter in San Francisco, I used to overhear conversations of Democrats who had just come back from vacations to Cuba or Vietnam or some other commie worker's paradise. They would lament to their friends over dinner that America's biggest problem was it's two party system; in their "educated" opinion, only ONE party was needed. "If only the Republican's could be done away with, and sent to re-education camps like they have in Cuba".

They would all have a good laugh about that. But then more seriously, they would say that the next best thing to that would be to have the Republican party become marginalized and ineffective. And they believed the best way to do that was to hope for and encourage the most inflexible and ideological people in the Republican party, the purists, to take control of it. The benefits of that scenario would be twofold, because it would:

1.) Drive away moderates and independents, keeping it a small tent and thus making the party smaller.

2.) By letting the extreme right dominate the party, it gives the Democrats something to rail against, something to use to whip up THEIR base and get them out to vote.

They believed that with the Hard Right firmly in charge, the Republican party would continue to shrink in power and influence, until it could eventually be abolished as "unnecessary". Extinct, like the dinosaurs. The key was to just make sure the Republicans did not enjoy popular support. No big tents. No reaching out. Just inflexibility and intolerance in the name of ideological purity.

It looks to me like we are seeing the Democrats dream-come-true. The Republican party fractured and splintering. Purists calling everyone who disagrees with them RINOs. Huckubee supporters taking perhaps as much as 1/4 of the Republican vote, while the party's lead candidate, who has a realistic chance of winning in November, is not only not receiving sufficient support, but is actually being attacked by a significant portion of his own party. All to the great joy of Democrats.

Ideological purity and inflexibility is a losing strategy. We NEED a bigger tent. We can all agree to disagree about some things. We can respect our differences without kicking each other. We can form a coalition of the willing. Lets do it. Let's make a difference while we still can. We need to adapt to reality... or die. You can argue with reality, but you can't win against it. The choice isn't a hard one for me to make.


Related Links:

GOP Yet to Rally Around McCain

Politics and war - getting things in proportion

Democratic Party's Image More Positive Than GOP’s

GOP Identification in 2007 Lowest in Last Two Decades
     

Back to reality... where to from here?

The Editors of National Review Online have published an editorial, I'm going to repeat the whole thing here, because it's short:

The Comeback . . . Adult

Mitt Romney is a smart and talented man who has run a vigorous campaign based mostly on conservative issues. He vows to keep fighting all the way to the convention. But he took third place in several Southern states on Super Tuesday, a dismal showing for someone attempting to rally conservatives. He has our support. But it is now up to him to identify a plausible path to the nomination.

Sen. John McCain’s amazing comeback is a testament to the power of perseverance, conviction, and luck. It has been good to see his strength on Iraq rewarded. For the Republican nomination to be worth his having, however, he needs to consolidate his support on the Right — ideally, before the fall.

Doing that will require ignoring some of the spin coming from his allies on immigration. They say that McCain’s victories prove that opposition to amnesty is a losing issue. Actually, the anti-amnesty candidates — including Mike Huckabee, who has been running as a deportationist — have gotten majorities in most states. Even in Florida, where strong Hispanic support gave McCain a decisive win, the anti-amnesty candidates got nearly half the vote. McCain’s success proves that Republican politicians can survive supporting amnesty if they have compensating strengths. It does not prove that the issue helped him. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in the upcoming issue of National Review, conservatives cannot reasonably ask McCain to abandon his convictions on immigration. But they can ask him to say that he will defer any action on amnesty, or guest workers, until a few years after enforcement has been put into effect.

Immigration reform is the policy issue that gives conservatives the most concern about McCain. But they worry as much about his priorities as his policies, so he will not be able to win their support merely by listing all of the topics on which he agrees with them. Aside from his opposition to pork-barrel spending, there is no domestic conservative cause that McCain has taken up. We believe that a President McCain would prefer to appoint conservative judges, for example. But would he fight for them or cut a deal with Pat Leahy? That is the fear that underlies the complaints about McCain’s membership in the Gang of 14.

He has not always taken the lead even on national-security issues. Republicans in Washington want to extend and reform an intelligence-collection law, but Democrats are balking, threatening an interruption in operations. McCain’s voice would be helpful here, if he chose to use it.

McCain can win over most conservatives, but their support is not his by right. They will rally to him if he demonstrates that he believes that a broad range of conservative policies are among the things that are, to quote the title of one of his books, worth the fighting for.

The calm voice of the editors of NRO, helping us keep our eye on ball and focused on where it is in the bigger picture. Thank You NRO.


From Jim Geraghty at NRO's The Campaign Spot:
Hugh: Put Humpty Dumpty Together Before St. Paul

[...] Hugh is a party man, and a conservative, and a guy who keeps his eye on the long term. (Like him, I never buy into arguments that you win later by losing now.) [...]

Whatever our disappointments presently, let's keep our eye on the long term. That means using with whatever we have now, and making it work.


I think it's safe now to say the Reagan Coalition is dead. If you MUST have a post-mortem, try this one:
Religion and the death rattle of the GOP?

[...] So the South thinks it voted for a real conservative by voting for the Huckster? As I've said many times before, scratch a southern Republican, and you'll find a big-government Dixiecrat which is what Huckabee is. The Goldwater/Reagan conversion of Dixiecrats to Republican was skin deep.

What has amazed me is the depth of anti-Mormonism in evangelicals (not all - I know many who are practical and sensible when it comes to politics.) I find this completely illogical given that all religion is personal and subjective but then I'm not a domineering, authoritarian, dogmatic control freak as some religionists seem to be.

As for California: this is the first time that they have had a say in the primaries. In the 25 years that I lived there, it was all over by the time we voted in May and many people didn't even bother to vote. So far it looks like McCain is ahead with 44% (still not the magical 51%) but we won't know till tomorrow for sure. If I were Mitt, I'd concede now and not spend another dime of my own money on ungrateful and self-centered Republicans.

I've said before I'll settle for McCain. He could win against the Clintons but maybe not against the feel-good Obamania sweeping the country. Maybe the blundits are right and Americans are sick of Republicans and their endless pontificating and moralizing. [...]

The Reagan Coalition may have worked in it's time, but that was then, this is now. Now we have to form a new Coalition if we can. That coalition will consist of the willing. I'm willing, are you?
     

Is the Romney Surge the Last Chance for Evangelicals and the "Reagan Coalition"?

Dee at Conservatism with Heart has a good post at her blog about why she if voting for Romney today:

Why I'm Voting for Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday

[...] I will be honest and admit (as most of you are aware) that Romney was not my first choice. Yet, as I look at what is at stake in this November's election I think it is crucial that we pick the most conservative candidate for our nominee. I am a pretty loyal Republican and I like, probably 80% of our guys. Why we are somehow stuck with several candidates that are a part of the 20% is very frustrating, to say the least.

Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows that I have had HUGE issues with McCain for many years. The fact that he is now the possible nominee for our party is just beyond dis-heartening. It is like driving a stake through the heart of Reagan Conservatism. I cannot sit by silently while what so many of us have worked for is dismantled by someone as liberal as McCain. Therefore, it is expedient to support the one conservative left in this race, Mitt Romney. [...]

Dee is a conservative Christian, and I'm seeing more and more evangelicals rallying around Romney to oppose McCain. But will there be enough, and will it be in time? The polls keep showing McCain as far ahead. But the polls can be wrong; remember when the polls predicted that Hillery would lose New Hampshire? So I think it's more important to just vote, and see what the polls say later.

One of the links on Dee's post was about Huckabee as a spoiler. On that blog (Article VI Blog), I found an article by John Schroeder that was quite interesting, about the evangelical vote, conservatism and the Republican party, and how the evangelicals are about to lose their political voice, if they don't rally around Mitt Romney NOW. Here are some excerpts (bold emphasis mine):

What Is At Stake

[...] When I was first introduced the the idea via Hugh Hewitt and Robert Novak that Evangelicals would not vote for Romney because of his faith, one thought ran through my mind: “political suicide.” Only one thing could result from such a bias and that was the Evangelical political voice being cast to the side. I wanted to protect that voice. Thus my half of this blog was born.

As is almost always true in politics, the journey has been quite different than I expected, but I truly believe that the Evangelical political voice is now at stake. If Mitt Romney loses - far from a foregone conclusion - his religion will be but one of many factors in that event, and while important, I do not think it will have been determinative.

However, as the race has narrowed down to two and the spoiler, the conservative voice in the Republican party is at stake - everybody agrees on that, and Evangelicals are the energy, motivator, and banner carrier for that voice. Conservatives lose and Evangelicals are on the bench, if they are in the stadium at all. In other words, we stand on the precipice I feared from the beginning. The current electoral calculus is such that a vote for Mitt Romney is the only way to preserve that voice.

[...]

There is much discussion in this cycle by evangelicals of feeling like they are “taken for granted” by the Republican establishment. There is some truth to that, but there are two vitally important points I want to make.

The first point is - grow up. It is politics, not church. This is not about making friends and feeling good about yourself. It is about gathering enough support, meaning people, to your particular cause, concern, or issue. That is definitionally about “using” people. Once you have secured someone’s support, you have to move on to the next someone. Is that taking you for granted? In a way, it is, but no more so than your employer that fits you in a spot on the assembly line. And if you quit your job because you think your employer takes you for granted, all you really lose is a paycheck. Best have someplace else to go before you make that move, I don’t care how “hurt” you “feel.”

A brief personal aside on this point. Through the course of things it has been my privilege to meet Mitt Romney on multiple occasions. I have had extensive and personal conversations with some of his family. Over the years, I have met presidents of this country in intimate settings, and I have met presidents and potentates of many other nations. Almost all of these people have referred to me as their “friend.” When I was young, I thought that meant we were going to start hanging out and having beers together - yeah, right. But when Mitt Romney called me his friend, I knew that if time allowed, there might not be beer involved, but we could enjoy some conviviality. Simply put, the man is as genuine in his connection to the people he meets as the circumstances can possibly allow - more so than any individual of such position, and higher, that I have ever met. I can assure you, Evangelicals could never be “taken for granted” by Mitt Romney. They might get less attention than they think they deserve, but that is their problem, not his.

The second point is a far more important one. Party politics is how you get things done in this nation. In those rare instances where independents manage to get themselves elected, they are relegated to the role “the speech everyone sits through politely” or the “class clown” a la Jesse Ventura. Accomplishing things in government requires rounding up enough of the right people - yeah, it’s social networking. Political parties are the infrastructure necessary to build that network.

Political parties thrive on loyalty. If they cannot, at least from time-to-time, take you for granted, they have to move on to people and groups that they can depend on so that they can accomplish their goals. It is a simple exchange. You give the party your dependable loyalty and in return they give you the means necessary to make your voice heard.

[...]

As things have turned out, Evangelicals have not refused, so much, to vote for Mitt Romney because he is Mormon, they have instead chosen to vote for Mike Huckabee because he is “one of us.” How much a role suspicion and bias against Mormonism has played in that somewhat more positive-appearing choice is a determination that will ultimately be up to pollsters and psychologists in the years after the election to determine. And while it may not be “bigotry” it is identity politics, and they are as suicidal as pure bigotry.

No identity group is sufficiently large to carry a presidential election. A coalition is required. What Mike Huckabee has done is peel off one section of the traditional conservative coalition, Evangelicals, and claimed it for himself. With the coalition split, neither Evangelicals or the greater conservative coalition can win.

The presidential candidate for a party leads that party. That leader is going to pay attention to and drive the agenda of the coalition that got him there. Not only are Evangelicals not part of the coalition that has gotten John McCain this far, McCain has in the past loudly and actively found Evangelicals distasteful. [...]

He goes on to describe the consequences of evangelicals leaving the coalition, the consequences for both evangelicals and the conservative movement as a whole, and Huckabee's terrible role in bringing this about. Huck is promising evangelicals something he can't deliver, and following him will lead to political suicide.

It's a well thought out article, and worth reading the whole thing, I think there is a lot of wisdom in it.

I'm not an evangelical, nor are all their concerns my own. But I do acknowledge that they have been vital in the past for holding the "Reagan Coalition" together. If enough of them pull out of that coalition now, it will collapse, and a new coalition will form without them. John McCain's candidacy is just the first sign of things to come. If you are unhappy about it, you can thank Mike Huckabee and his followers for that. If it's going to be turned around, it needs to be done soon.
     

Is the Reagan Coalition Gone? What's next?

It was often said that Fred Thompson was appealing to the "Reagan Coalition". JB Williams at AmericanDaily.com contends that it wasn't just Thompson's failure to unite that coalition that caused Fred to drop out, but that it was the Republican's failure to support an actual conservative:

No Conservatives Please

The Writing on the Wall in South Carolina - Thompson didn't fail the Republican Party. The Party that failed to present a conservative themselves, or support one even when conservatives drafted one, failed Thompson.

Shade tree political pundits, who worked around the clock to douse ice water on Fred Thompson’s conservative campaign for President, are busy with their “I told you so” follow-ups. For them, Thompson’s departure from the race is interpreted as hard proof that the candidate was indeed “too old,” “too unhealthy,” “too lazy” and “too disinterested” in winning or leading. But for those who know Fred best, those who drafted him and worked to support him, his departure confirms something quite different…something much worse.

Thompson is simply too Conservative

At a time in history when conservatives are referred to as only a “fringe” of the Republican Party, and when fundamental American values and principles are called “extreme right-wing ideas,” a truly conservative candidate can’t win.

Conservative candidates never do well in liberal strongholds like New Hampshire, where nearly 50 percent of all voters are registered Independent and even Republicans vote liberal, or Michigan, the labor union capitol of the United States. Losing in liberal stronghold states is no surprise; in fact, it’s more a confirmation of one’s conservative credentials.

But not so long ago, there was no such thing as “too conservative” for South Carolina and that’s why Thompson bet his farm on South Carolina. Due to how early primaries are scheduled in liberal leaning states, a conservative candidate must begin his quest for national office in South Carolina, the first traditionally conservative state to hold a primary.

The History Thompson knows too well

For any conservative (or Republican) to win a national election, he must unite at least two of the three primary branches of the Republican Party. History provides a vital lesson in this regard. [...]

I think this explains a lot about why Fred quit after South Carolina. But I still wish he had not quit so soon. Independents were allowed to vote, which skewed the results. The weather was bad for voter turnout. There were too many candidates on the playing field... oh well. It happened the way it did.

This article looks at the history of the Reagan Coalition and Republicans in elections since then. It's an interesting history, with lots of plausible explanations for what we are seeing now. It's not a really long article, and worth reading the whole thing. It's an education. But I won't necessarily agree with the conclusion.

The fight is not over yet. In the end, we work with what we have. I don't know if it's even realistic to talk about the "Reagan Coalition" anymore. That was then, this is now. Reagan created the Regan Coalition in his time. He's gone, and so is the coalition... as it was. Something else new could spring from the roots of that, but if it does, it will be NEW and different. Perhaps inspired by the former, but not the same as.

That is the reality. Lets deal with it, and keep moving forward. Something good may yet come of it.