That is precisely why the Republicans will lose if they do; much of the
country outside the South has actually rejected it. Conservatism as a
populist ideology by its very nature is reactionary — that is,
“against something” — and the reason it started losing elections in
2006 was because it was finally exposed as being more for themselves and their
“special interests” than for the people they supposedly represented. Keep in
mind the lobbying scandal that ensnared a number of GOP candidates that year
was in fact was part and parcel of conservative culture from the outset
because its ultimate agenda always was to consolidate power in fewer and fewer
hands. But the badmouthing that conservatives still do against a
still-ineffective “left” will eventually wear thin, and I'm already predicting
an Obama landslide in 2012.

My broader point about the future of the party wasn't simply based on the
existence of Pat Toomey, so there isn't much point assessing his electoral
prospects, fun as it is to do so.

I would argue that Clinton changed the calculation for Democrats, thanks to
the revolution of 1994. Obama is certainly following his playbook, trying
to advance the bulk of his agenda early on so he can run to the middle later
in his campaign. Unfortunately, this plan sort of sacrifices the midterm
elections.

The Republicans will almost assuredly gain seats in 2010. Whether they make
a major dent, or reclaim the house, depends on whether they can come up with
a consistent, clear alternative. That alternative is conservatism.

You have zero basis on which to make that statement because you clearly don't know what goes on in Pennsylvania. In fact, Democratic registration has actually increased over the past five or so years in reaction to the heavy-handedness of the conservatives who run the GOP nationally.

Introduces a slightly different slate of
governmental programs is not a winning message.

As if your agenda is. In fact, Bill Clinton permanently changed the calculus at the expense of the conservative movement, which is still trying desperately to channel Ronald Reagan.

If the Republicans send a bunch of centrist candidates to bat in 2010, they
will lose because their message will not be sufficiently distinct from that
of moderate Democrats. They need to make the case that Obama has committed
trillions of dollars, that the impact has been negligible, and that there is
a very good reason why this is so. Introduces a slightly different slate of
governmental programs is not a winning message.

And as for the GOP not winning by staking out middle ground, that's the
standard conservative line. The right is still trying to convince itself that
“doctrinal purity” won them elections — nonsense, it was the fact that until
recently its agenda mirrored the mood of the country. Times have changed, but
it hasn't changed with them.

I have seen no evidence over the last several decades that Republicans
benefit electorally from staking the middle ground. That just hasn't played
out.

Then the future of the party is bleak indeed. Toomey is as extreme as it comes — he was president of the Club for Growth — and doesn't have much of a chance to get elected because his kind pushed moderates out of the GOP in Pennsylvania.

For openers, you mentioned that the Democratic Party was the true oppressor of
African-Americans; however, that was true only in the South because the
Republican Party was quite literally persona non grata down there because it
destroyed slavery. Blacks began to switch to the Democratic Party in the
North thanks to FDR, which is why the national Democratic Party eventually
became supportive of civil rights; in response, the reactionary right began
going Republican, where it has remained today. This is historical fact, and
if you don't want to accept it … well, I can't help you.

As for the “moral element,” that's also ridiculous because those issues didn't
come to light until the 1970s at the earliest. Roe v. Wade took place
only in 1973 and gay rights didn't become an issue until about a decade later,
and even there the folks who took the “conservative” side even today represent
only a minority of voters. On top of that, even many African-Americans are
anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage, but that doesn't stop them from
supporting Democratic candidates.

The point is that the conservative movement has always tried to run away from
its shameful record on race and racism; if anyone is resentful here it's the
right because it doesn't want to face the reality that it consistently has
acted unjustly. This particular thread, because of the touchiness of the
conservatives that have contributed to it, has proved that beyond a doubt.

Ask yourself why the Blue areas of this country are so bankrupt. Crime and corruption is many many times higher. Demographics alone should cause people to reassess developed opinions. I wish you well.

In 1948 there was a major revolt in the ranks of Southern Democrats, with
Strom Thurmond leading the charge against Harry Truman (who issued an
executive order integrating the Armed Forces), even running for president
against him on the “Dixiecratic” ticket; and in the 1960s the national
Democratic Party got serious about civil rights, further angering Southerners.
Seeing an opening, Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater
announced his opposition to the civil-rights movement (albeit not for racist
reasons; nevertheless, that got the attention of many of those Southerners and
Thurmond would eventually switch his affiliation. Feeling some momentum two
years later, Richard Nixon and aide Pat Buchanan campaigned for GOP
congressional candidates in the South, where the party became a legitimate
entity for the first time since Reconstruction; Reagan's election completed
the turnaround. Bottom line, the Southern segregationists generally left the
Democratic Party for the Republican Party; those that stayed such as Robert
Byrd moderated their views. In fact, Trent Lott, Phil Gramm and a number of
others actually started their political careers as Democrats.

Furthermore, the “religious right” got started in 1978 when the Carter
Administration sicced the IRS on private Christian schools in the South that
he suspected were founded to evade court-ordered desegregation in public
schools. (Carter, of course being a Southerner, understood the dynamics quite
well.)

For these and other reasons, the idea that “conservatives” were ever on the
side of African-Americans on a political basis is absolutely ridiculous.