I remember Kurt Loder from his MTV News days. He always struck me as an insufferably smug left-wing douche.

This isn't specifically a conservative saying, but it has been used by Republicans in the recent past. It's when someone accuses a congressional majority of being "obstructionist" or "The party of No" because they won't approve nominees or pass legislation supported by the President.

Politicians *should be* stopping bad legislation and poor nominees! But it is easier to throw the word "obstructionist" around like a taunt instead of explaining *why* a particular law deserves to be passed or  nominee deserves to be confirmed.

When Bush was in office, Republicans used this against Democrats. I remember that Laura Ingraham even used to play the Groucho Marx song "I'm Against It" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0) when talking about the "obstructionist" Dems.

These days of course the "Party of No" nonsense is used against House Republicans who refuse to play dead for Obama.

Angelo Codevilla is an interesting thinker, but this essay lets the voting public off the hook. The reason "elitist" Democrats and Republicans have held power for so many decades is because the voters elected them and kept returing them to power in election after election.

Seems about as historically accurate as any other Tarantino movie.

Liberal and leftists not being able to get jobs at universites?? That's not only wrong, it's a descent in to Bizarro world.

"...the comment threads, which have seen a remarkable outbreak of venomous toads"

In my opinion that describes every comment thread on any topic anywhere on the Internet. (Except at Ricochet, of course.)

I would be interested in some specific examples of this.

The unspoken premise of Murphy's stance is that young people and Latinos can't wait to vote for the GOP, and the party's stance on gay marriage and immigration is the only thing stopping them. What evidence is there that young and Latinos voters want to change parties at all or that they will do so if Republicans just switch their positions on those two issues?

The criterion many voters used in casting their ballots was whether they thought the candidate, "Cares about people like me."

That is a standard better suited to a kindergarten popularity contest than for choosing the leader of the free world.

No amount of standing on principle, explaining policy, or citing the Founders is going to work on an Oprahfied electorate that decides things in such a childish manner.

I always thought that if Huntsman had gotten the GOP nomination, he would have lost and then spent the next four years bashing those who dared to criticize Obama as "extremists."

I hope Romney doesn't end up settling into that role.

Makes perfect sense, but I'm not hopeful about it.

The NYT will run a bunch of op-eds saying the reputation of the Supreme Court will be damaged if Obamacare is thrown out because of such a "technicality." Roberts will then concoct some justification for not striking it down.

That has to be one of the best analogies I have read in a long time. Someone should make a political cartoon out of that!

In all the analysis of the election various Republicans have blamed:

* Pro-lifers

* Opponents of amnesty for illegal immigrants

* Supporters of traditional marriage

* Religious believers

* Whites

* People who want to keep taxes low

In other words, people like me. (They have also blamed "old" people, even though the "graying of America" phenomenon means there will be a lot more of those in the future.)

I don't know what these analysts think that are accomplishing with all this, but they have me considering leaving the party (and politics in general).

Once I'm out of the way, Mr. Murphy and the rest of the GOP will have a clear path to attracting all those young, gay, secular Latinos who pay no taxes.

Jeb Bush supports low taxes, free markets, right-to-life, school choice, and entitlement reform--and he supports importing large numbers of immigrants who will vote overwhelmingly against all those things.

Jeb is every bit as naive about immigration as W. He thinks ancedotes about hard-working immigrants can trump the all the demographic data.

The overwhelming  majority of the people living in cities are quite happy to have the Democrats and the public sector unions run things and give them free stuff. They are not looking for alternatives and any problems in their cities they will instinctively blame on Republicans, capitalism, the "rich" or anyone else except for themselves and the politicians they elect.

The residents of Washington, DC keep electing and re-electing Marrion Barry (!) even though he turned that city into a hell hole of crime, corruption and squalor. There is no reason to believe urbanites in other cities are any different than the residents of DC.

 Good luck with that!

Any prosperous region attracts people from unprosperous regions who bring their political preferences and prejudices along with them. These new residents will be supporting the same policies and types of politicians that wrecked the economies of the places they came from.

Enjoy the prosperity while you can--because you are attracting your own doom.