Is there a secular shift to the right? Perhaps — but I don’t see it. Can I quote the French on this website? Plus ca change, rien ca change…

no.

You can see it culturally: from anything-goes 1960’s and 1970’s to the retro-1950’s Reagan years to the boomer excess of the Clinton years to the conservatism of the Bush II years. You can see it in how politicians dressed and what their image was: from Bobby Kennedy (long hair) to Jimmy Carter (wore $200 suit in his inaugural walk to be a common man) to Reagan (a tux) to Clinton (golf shirt) to Bush (always wears a tie in the office). I think you can also see these shifts in how the country feels and votes. Popular opinion moves like an ocean liner – changes slowly but is irresistible once it does so – and I think that the last six or nine months has been the tipping point.

I’m not trying to get mystical on y’all – I’m only trying to make the point that I think common opinion is shifting from the foci which elected Bush (social conservatism, faith, emphasis on character rather than policies) to foci more congenial to the left (emphasis on the weakest members of society, a more inclusive social philosophy, secularism). To use one example: I would be shocked if the gay marriage thing is a hot button in 2008 – I think this is something which is much closer to mainstream acceptance and much further from a wedge issue. I would be equally surprised if the people stranded in New Orleans did not have the same visibility as a political symbol in 2008 which the Twin Towers did in 2004. The questions will be different and the solutions will be different.

I think this is a tectonic shift which moves imperceptibly and is obscured by the noise of day-to-day events. I have no proof to offer and no rationale except my own observations. My crystal ball is often cloudy – hey, I can barely remember where I park my car at the mall – but I think that when viewed from the vantage point of ten or twenty years from now, 2005 will be remembered as the year that the country reversed course yet again.

The Country got over Nixon, in one term. That is how bad Carter was-(If I were Matthews, I would never tell anyone that I was a speechwriter for him). Some was bad luck, some was bad policy.

Minh-Duc:
I am not happy with the spending, but some of your points are completely without context.

1. Is homeland security a domestic program? 41 billion. The problem is not cutting spending, but cutting the rate of growth of spending. It would be impossible to cut spending, relative to previous administrations, if you cut the growth to 1-2%, while GDP grows at 3-4%, you are having an effective presidency.

Cut Homeland security(a program I opposed) and spending related to 9/11, and you might realize that spending is not that bad. Context…

2. Federal employees increased? see homeland security and previous answer.

3. Regulations? Got to define that one…pertaining to what, exactly?

4. Completely abandoned? They just need some reminding, they really don’t want to be called democrats…you are right on some key things. This rx benefit is ill conceived. Telling Drug companies that you will pick up the tab is not a good idea.

5.So was Meirs a compromise, or a sell-out? Let the cards finish being dealt…

The President’s approval rating is irrelevant. There are many conservatives who do not approve of the job President Bush is doing who would never vote for a Democrat.

It would be great if the Republicans were more organized, more thoughtful, and more competent. However, [most] Americans are not going to vote against a Republican who has an opponent who is in the Dean camp.

George W. Bush has proven to be very mainstream, as did Bill Clinton. Pundits who describe the Republican leadership as hard right do not know what they are talking about. George Allen is not hard right either. He is center right, just where he needs to be to get the Republican nomination and be elected President.

It is one thing to compromise and get less than what you want. It is another thing to completely adopt the otherside talking points and policies. Here are a few specific:
(1) This President spent more money than the previous Democratic President on entitlements, porks, and domestic government programs.
(2) We have more federal employees under this President than the previous Democratic president.
(3) Under a so called conservative administration, we came up with more regulations than a liberal administration before.
(4) This President and Congress have completely abandon the core of conservativism, state-right.
(5) And now this nomination.
There is a clear distinction between a compromise and a sell-out.

Conservatives seem to get into trouble more often when they ignore their base trying to placate moderates and liberals that aren’t going to be placated anyway—Bush 41 reneging on the “no new taxes” pledge, or Bush 43 on entitlements, affirmative action, immigration, Katrina relief… okay, I’ll stop. But the extent to which Bush has embraced big-government, federal activism has done absolutely nothing to endear him to his critics on the left. Ignatius’ essay sounds like, at best, wishful thinking.

The more interesting thing about Miers’ nomination is the way it’s opened up the split between social conservatives and small-government conservatives in Bush’s support. The two sides overlap, but on court appointments the social cons seem to be more interested in outcome, while the small-government types focus on process. The first group seems more more ready to overlook Miers’ modest qualifications if they can believe she’ll deliver the votes they’re hoping for, while the second is more concerned by her lack of a rigorous judicial philosophy. Sadly, I think this intra-party food fight could have been avoided if Bush had gone beyond his inner circle to name a socially conservative judge with more impressive credentials–Luttig, maybe, or someone like that. It’s awfully hard to pretend that nominating Miers was a well thought-out move.

After this president, I’m not so sure a Republican can either.

I like Giuliani as well, strikes me as more of a libertarian, which is is what I am, along with about 45-60% of the party. Not confident Guiliani can get past the primaries though…I’ll vote for him if he makes it. You are not a RINO, just an independent republican, which is a majority of our party. We disagree with many issues, but when we vote lesser of two evils…dems don’t stand a chance(except that Bayh guy).

I like giuliani, he has similar likability numbers to Bush, which bodes well. You’ll find Allen, likable too. I don’t know enough about him, but as a ex-west NJ guy, Rudy is ok with me.

Ryan-one party’s disfunction is another party’s debate. The conservatives will argue amongst themsleves, but when election comes, lesser of two evils has already been decided. A democrat cannot behave responsibly.

Bush never ran as someone who would overturn Roe, he deflected the issue…Kerry ran with upholding roe as foundation of being a democrat. The relgious right does make me squirm, but they aren’t in a position to support somebody else. The dems are a band of special interest groups, in order to get in, you have to champion each and every cause. Think of it as adding a brick to the load. Bush didn’t have nearly as many groups to court, and Kerry’s courtship is just the opposite.

Bush will be over 50% by the end of October. There is a small election going on in Iraq on the 15th. Notice how the MSM, doesn’t qoute or put any Iraqi’s on TV? You’d think after hearing all the gushing comments for Bush at the rose Garden from the President and the statements made at the UN, expressing solidarity…oh that’s right, it’s not news, and the Iraqi’s are mindless puppets of the Bush admin. Tiiiiiimmme is on my side…(More Mick and not Goodman(Fallen).