joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Jul 7, 2009 10:16:02 GMT -8
I think all this disenchantment with the GOP is simply the inability to recognize that the GOP cannot afford to be all-conservative, all the time. There simply is not enough - IMO - full-throated conservative support out there to support the kind of GOP some on this board want to see. Facts are you cannot compete in urban-suburban America, especially in areas surrounding larger liberal-infested cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, LA or even New York as examples, by being hard-over conservative across the entire spectrum of political issues. You certainly can't win on a national level without making significant in-roads in those areas surrounding liberal bastions. You can't. And you certainly can't attract many moderates, which you need to win, if your idea of a "tent" is one where only staunch righties are welcomed. It certainly won't work when you're also faced with the prospect of an unpopular outgoing President (no matter how right ... uh ... correct he was). That's the reason - IMHO - that the GOP listed more to port (I wouldn't dare say "left".) the last several years. The writing was on the wall for the '08 election. Move to the Center or die for sure; and we died anyway. If conservatives would concentrate on those issues that really appeal on a truly national-conservative level (economics, defense, and yes, even immigration); and left behind all the obsession with social issues, you'd probably end up with a much stronger and more viable GOP. And you wouldn't need a third (or "second") party. But that's just my opinion. Mike actually gets one caramel from me for a pretty well-thought out post on the future of The Right (Except for the "liberal infestation" part. What are we, lice?). Joe |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 11:16:04 GMT -8
I think all this disenchantment with the GOP is simply the inability to recognize that the GOP cannot afford to be all-conservative, all the time. There simply is not enough - IMO - full-throated conservative support out there to support the kind of GOP some on this board want to see. Facts are you cannot compete in urban-suburban America, especially in areas surrounding larger liberal-infested cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, LA or even New York as examples, by being hard-over conservative across the entire spectrum of political issues. You certainly can't win on a national level without making significant in-roads in those areas surrounding liberal bastions. You can't. And you certainly can't attract many moderates, which you need to win, if your idea of a "tent" is one where only staunch righties are welcomed. It certainly won't work when you're also faced with the prospect of an unpopular outgoing President (no matter how right ... uh ... correct he was). That's the reason - IMHO - that the GOP listed more to port (I wouldn't dare say "left".) the last several years. The writing was on the wall for the '08 election. Move to the Center or die for sure; and we died anyway. If conservatives would concentrate on those issues that really appeal on a truly national-conservative level (economics, defense, and yes, even immigration); and left behind all the obsession with social issues, you'd probably end up with a much stronger and more viable GOP. And you wouldn't need a third (or "second") party. But that's just my opinion. Mike actually gets one caramel from me for a pretty well-thought out post on the future of The Right (Except for the "liberal infestation" part. What are we, lice?). Joe Mike's post is well-thought-out, and I won't for one minute entertain an illusion that a Republican gubernatorial candidate in the northeast would win on a platform that everyone gets to carry a gun and all abortions must be outlawed. I personally think the Republicans could succeed in the northeast with a "we'll lock up the criminals" message and "each state should set its own abortion laws". They should, to a certain point, reach out to union members on issues like reducing the tax burden and making it easier for corporations to hire domestically. In my state, the mentality is different, and the message delivered here should be "we won't raise your taxes and we won't take your guns". On the state level, the Republican party does well here (aside from our new governor) and the Democrats here are likely to brag that they have concealed weapon permits. Unfortunately, both parties aren't doing anything about the mass deployment of photo-radar ticket issuing robots and I expect that we'll have to place an initiative on the ballot to outlaw them. Nationally, the GOP was doing well when they preached fiscal discipline and national security. They lost that edge when GWB spent like a drunken sailor and proposed changes in who controlled our ports. When McCain abandoned his campaign to work on Bailout I he lost the election at that point and took more Republicans down with him. |
|
|
|
Post by jeff316 on Jul 7, 2009 13:44:46 GMT -8
I think all this disenchantment with the GOP is simply the inability to recognize that the GOP cannot afford to be all-conservative, all the time. There simply is not enough - IMO - full-throated conservative support out there to support the kind of GOP some on this board want to see. Facts are you cannot compete in urban-suburban America, especially in areas surrounding larger liberal-infested cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, LA or even New York as examples, by being hard-over conservative across the entire spectrum of political issues. You certainly can't win on a national level without making significant in-roads in those areas surrounding liberal bastions. You can't. And you certainly can't attract many moderates, which you need to win, if your idea of a "tent" is one where only staunch righties are welcomed. It certainly won't work when you're also faced with the prospect of an unpopular outgoing President (no matter how right ... uh ... correct he was). That's the reason - IMHO - that the GOP listed more to port (I wouldn't dare say "left".) the last several years. The writing was on the wall for the '08 election. Move to the Center or die for sure; and we died anyway. If conservatives would concentrate on those issues that really appeal on a truly national-conservative level (economics, defense, and yes, even immigration); and left behind all the obsession with social issues, you'd probably end up with a much stronger and more viable GOP. And you wouldn't need a third (or "second") party. But that's just my opinion. Seriously Mike we did not lose the last election because the party was to far to the right. We lost the election because of 8 years of George Bush and Republicans in Congress who went against Conservative principles. Republicans have won elections with the same stance on many social issues like abortion and same sex issues. We did not get the black vote , or the liberals in the big city`s in past election . We won`t ever get those votes anyway. Even if the Republicans moderated their views on Abortion and other social issues , it will not make a difference. |
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Jul 7, 2009 14:19:19 GMT -8
I think all this disenchantment with the GOP is simply the inability to recognize that the GOP cannot afford to be all-conservative, all the time. There simply is not enough - IMO - full-throated conservative support out there to support the kind of GOP some on this board want to see. Facts are you cannot compete in urban-suburban America, especially in areas surrounding larger liberal-infested cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, LA or even New York as examples, by being hard-over conservative across the entire spectrum of political issues. You certainly can't win on a national level without making significant in-roads in those areas surrounding liberal bastions. You can't. And you certainly can't attract many moderates, which you need to win, if your idea of a "tent" is one where only staunch righties are welcomed. It certainly won't work when you're also faced with the prospect of an unpopular outgoing President (no matter how right ... uh ... correct he was). That's the reason - IMHO - that the GOP listed more to port (I wouldn't dare say "left".) the last several years. The writing was on the wall for the '08 election. Move to the Center or die for sure; and we died anyway. If conservatives would concentrate on those issues that really appeal on a truly national-conservative level (economics, defense, and yes, even immigration); and left behind all the obsession with social issues, you'd probably end up with a much stronger and more viable GOP. And you wouldn't need a third (or "second") party. But that's just my opinion. Seriously Mike we did not lose the last election because the party was to far to the right. We lost the election because of 8 years of George Bush and Republicans in Congress who went against Conservative principles. Republicans have won elections with the same stance on many social issues like abortion and same sex issues. We did not get the black vote , or the liberals in the big city`s in past election . We won`t ever get those votes anyway. Even if the Republicans moderated their views on Abortion and other social issues , it will not make a difference. OK, you admit defeat with your current platform, what do you people propose to get "Joe Six-Pack" back in line, and maybe some Latino folks and black folks as well? Joe |
|
|
|
Post by jeff316 on Jul 7, 2009 14:29:17 GMT -8
Seriously Mike we did not lose the last election because the party was to far to the right. We lost the election because of 8 years of George Bush and Republicans in Congress who went against Conservative principles. Republicans have won elections with the same stance on many social issues like abortion and same sex issues. We did not get the black vote , or the liberals in the big city`s in past election . We won`t ever get those votes anyway. Even if the Republicans moderated their views on Abortion and other social issues , it will not make a difference. OK, you admit defeat with your current platform, what do you people propose to get "Joe Six-Pack" back in line, and maybe some Latino folks and black folks as well? 4 Years of Barrack Obama, Double digit unemployment, a National debt way out of control with no plan to ever bring it down. That is just for starters. Republicans did not lose this election because of abortion, same sex marriage or immigration. The GOP lost because after 8 years of George Bush the middle or the right could no longer trust Republicans. Joe |
|
|
|
Post by jeff316 on Jul 7, 2009 14:50:16 GMT -8
By the way Joey I would bet 30 % of the voters don`t even know what the Republican or Democrat Party even stand on Abortion or other social issues. It is a popularity contest these days nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Jul 7, 2009 18:32:11 GMT -8
I think all this disenchantment with the GOP is simply the inability to recognize that the GOP cannot afford to be all-conservative, all the time. There simply is not enough - IMO - full-throated conservative support out there to support the kind of GOP some on this board want to see. Facts are you cannot compete in urban-suburban America, especially in areas surrounding larger liberal-infested cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, LA or even New York as examples, by being hard-over conservative across the entire spectrum of political issues. You certainly can't win on a national level without making significant in-roads in those areas surrounding liberal bastions. You can't. And you certainly can't attract many moderates, which you need to win, if your idea of a "tent" is one where only staunch righties are welcomed. It certainly won't work when you're also faced with the prospect of an unpopular outgoing President (no matter how right ... uh ... correct he was). That's the reason - IMHO - that the GOP listed more to port (I wouldn't dare say "left".) the last several years. The writing was on the wall for the '08 election. Move to the Center or die for sure; and we died anyway. If conservatives would concentrate on those issues that really appeal on a truly national-conservative level (economics, defense, and yes, even immigration); and left behind all the obsession with social issues, you'd probably end up with a much stronger and more viable GOP. And you wouldn't need a third (or "second") party. But that's just my opinion. Seriously Mike we did not lose the last election because the party was to far to the right. We lost the election because of 8 years of George Bush and Republicans in Congress who went against Conservative principles. Republicans have won elections with the same stance on many social issues like abortion and same sex issues. We did not get the black vote , or the liberals in the big city`s in past election . We won`t ever get those votes anyway. Even if the Republicans moderated their views on Abortion and other social issues , it will not make a difference. I believe I mentioned GWB's unpopularity as a big part of the problem. And my opinons on the social issues is with an eye towards both "northeast" conservatives and moderates. In other words, the people with which I'm most familiar. I do not suggest that if conservatives had completely reversed their stand on social issues, the '08 election could have been won. But I simply don't think the GOP - especially now - can afford to be exclusive to any way of thinking just because it disagrees with a particular mantra. That's what rubs me the wrong way when people complain about having a "big tent". |
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Jul 7, 2009 18:32:50 GMT -8
I think all this disenchantment with the GOP is simply the inability to recognize that the GOP cannot afford to be all-conservative, all the time. There simply is not enough - IMO - full-throated conservative support out there to support the kind of GOP some on this board want to see. Facts are you cannot compete in urban-suburban America, especially in areas surrounding larger liberal-infested cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, LA or even New York as examples, by being hard-over conservative across the entire spectrum of political issues. You certainly can't win on a national level without making significant in-roads in those areas surrounding liberal bastions. You can't. And you certainly can't attract many moderates, which you need to win, if your idea of a "tent" is one where only staunch righties are welcomed. It certainly won't work when you're also faced with the prospect of an unpopular outgoing President (no matter how right ... uh ... correct he was). That's the reason - IMHO - that the GOP listed more to port (I wouldn't dare say "left".) the last several years. The writing was on the wall for the '08 election. Move to the Center or die for sure; and we died anyway. If conservatives would concentrate on those issues that really appeal on a truly national-conservative level (economics, defense, and yes, even immigration); and left behind all the obsession with social issues, you'd probably end up with a much stronger and more viable GOP. And you wouldn't need a third (or "second") party. But that's just my opinion. Mike actually gets one caramel from me for a pretty well-thought out post on the future of The Right (Except for the "liberal infestation" part. What are we, lice?). Joe I was thinking vermin ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Douglass on Jul 7, 2009 19:25:56 GMT -8
I think all this disenchantment with the GOP is simply the inability to recognize that the GOP cannot afford to be all-conservative, all the time. There simply is not enough - IMO - full-throated conservative support out there to support the kind of GOP some on this board want to see. Facts are you cannot compete in urban-suburban America, especially in areas surrounding larger liberal-infested cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, LA or even New York as examples, by being hard-over conservative across the entire spectrum of political issues. You certainly can't win on a national level without making significant in-roads in those areas surrounding liberal bastions. You can't. And you certainly can't attract many moderates, which you need to win, if your idea of a "tent" is one where only staunch righties are welcomed. It certainly won't work when you're also faced with the prospect of an unpopular outgoing President (no matter how right ... uh ... correct he was). That's the reason - IMHO - that the GOP listed more to port (I wouldn't dare say "left".) the last several years. The writing was on the wall for the '08 election. Move to the Center or die for sure; and we died anyway. If conservatives would concentrate on those issues that really appeal on a truly national-conservative level (economics, defense, and yes, even immigration); and left behind all the obsession with social issues, you'd probably end up with a much stronger and more viable GOP. And you wouldn't need a third (or "second") party. But that's just my opinion. I think they can its when they get away from being conservative they lose. wich falls into line of what the opposition and all those that tow the center want. they want one system one party. |
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Jul 8, 2009 6:23:36 GMT -8
I think all this disenchantment with the GOP is simply the inability to recognize that the GOP cannot afford to be all-conservative, all the time. There simply is not enough - IMO - full-throated conservative support out there to support the kind of GOP some on this board want to see. Facts are you cannot compete in urban-suburban America, especially in areas surrounding larger liberal-infested cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, LA or even New York as examples, by being hard-over conservative across the entire spectrum of political issues. You certainly can't win on a national level without making significant in-roads in those areas surrounding liberal bastions. You can't. And you certainly can't attract many moderates, which you need to win, if your idea of a "tent" is one where only staunch righties are welcomed. It certainly won't work when you're also faced with the prospect of an unpopular outgoing President (no matter how right ... uh ... correct he was). That's the reason - IMHO - that the GOP listed more to port (I wouldn't dare say "left".) the last several years. The writing was on the wall for the '08 election. Move to the Center or die for sure; and we died anyway. If conservatives would concentrate on those issues that really appeal on a truly national-conservative level (economics, defense, and yes, even immigration); and left behind all the obsession with social issues, you'd probably end up with a much stronger and more viable GOP. And you wouldn't need a third (or "second") party. But that's just my opinion. I think they can its when they get away from being conservative they lose. wich falls into line of what the opposition and all those that tow the center want. they want one system one party. I'm not sure who "those that toe the center" are, other than "middle America". You make it sound like a disease. Certainly there's nothing wrong with holding a set of values or expectations that occupy the center of the continuum, is there??? To explain my earlier point in another way ... I do not think the GOP (or the Democrats for that matter) can swing the mood, expectations, or voting inclinations of the American Electorate as a whole without the support to some extent of The Middle. The Middle (from what I've experienced) also likes lower taxes, strong defense, gun ownership (should they feel the need), smaller government, and non-porous borders among other things. If the GOP gets back to its Reagan-istic base of lower taxes, smaller government, strong defense, etc., The Middle will come back. But right now the only difference The Middle sees between the GOP and the DNC are the stands on social issues; and IMO that's not enough to draw The Middle back into "the tent". I just hope The Right doesn't decide there's no room in the tent for The Middle. And I think that anyone who thinks a third-party of CONSERVATIVES is the way to go, is sadly mistaken. You'd just split the Republican vote; ensuring the Demobrats become the dominant party over the long term. |
|
|
|
Post by george1861 on Jul 8, 2009 8:34:55 GMT -8
Certainly there's nothing wrong with holding a set of values or expectations that occupy the center of the continuum, is there??? To explain my earlier point in another way ... I do not think the GOP (or the Democrats for that matter) can swing the mood, expectations, or voting inclinations of the American Electorate as a whole without the support to some extent of The Middle. The Middle (from what I've experienced) also likes lower taxes, strong defense, gun ownership (should they feel the need), smaller government, and non-porous borders among other things. If the GOP gets back to its Reagan-istic base of lower taxes, smaller government, strong defense, etc., The Middle will come back. But right now the only difference The Middle sees between the GOP and the DNC are the stands on social issues; and IMO that's not enough to draw The Middle back into "the tent". I just hope The Right doesn't decide there's no room in the tent for The Middle. And I think that anyone who thinks a third-party of CONSERVATIVES is the way to go, is sadly mistaken. You'd just split the Republican vote; ensuring the Demobrats become the dominant party over the long term. You are pretty much on target when talking about the middle who were atracted to Reagan. The problem is when, for the last 8 years the Middle saw people who claimed to be Conservatives, & did do some Conservative things, but were big spending/big deficit types when it came to fiscal policy. This allowed the Dems to lie thier buts off about how reckless the Rep spending while not reminding the the voters that it is the Dems who are pros @ huge spending. The Media emphises was on the collapsing economy(but didn't mention it was caused by Dems meddeling with the morgage ind.) & the big spending of the Reps. You can be sure that the Media will try to avoid all mention of the skyrocketing spending & deficits that are running rampant now that the pros are in charge. |
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Jul 8, 2009 11:24:32 GMT -8
You are pretty much on target when talking about the middle who were atracted to Reagan. The problem is when, for the last 8 years the Middle saw people who claimed to be Conservatives, & did do some Conservative things, but were big spending/big deficit types when it came to fiscal policy. This allowed the Dems to lie thier buts off about how reckless the Rep spending while not reminding the the voters that it is the Dems who are pros @ huge spending. The Media emphises was on the collapsing economy(but didn't mention it was caused by Dems meddeling with the morgage ind.) & the big spending of the Reps. You can be sure that the Media will try to avoid all mention of the skyrocketing spending & deficits that are running rampant now that the pros are in charge. I have a rather different take on the whole "Big Spending Republican" thing over the last 8 years. I don't know how you fight a war, strengthen domestic security against terrorism, and try to tighten our borders WITHOUT spending a lot of money. I don't like Big Government Spending any more than anyone else; but I can understand when it happens SOMETIMES. The above issues - which were extremely important to many conservatives as well as everyone else - are perfect examples IMHO of when Big Spending is necessary. The ONE THING I didn't agree to spending on was the HUGE BAILOUTS. Hell, they didn't even prevent the Big 2-out-of-3 from going bankrupt. For the life of me, I cannot understand the logic behind bailing out companies or banks that screwed the pooch. But other than those examples, you can't dispute the argument that WE ALL wanted better borders (a work in progress?), better homeland security, and getting into Afghanistan. (I won't even go into the cost of Iraq.) I just don't know how we could have done things like that WITHOUT spending BIG. |
|
|
|
Post by Douglass on Jul 8, 2009 19:33:16 GMT -8
If you seperate the the war spending from the others it is comparable its when you add in the war funding that it basically becomes a new level. but you cant win a war with out spending on it no way no how.
Whenever republicans run off conservative values they seem to win when they get away from taht they lose Along with that they cant say we are going to be against this then be totally for it or do it.
I do believ if conservatives broke off they wouldnt win right away but thye would start winning at local elections and build up.
Ill take powell for example who claims to be a republican but has voted for Kenedy LBJ Carter and Obama. Now is he a republican or democrat cause i sure as heck cant decide. he might have voted for clinton but not sure.
|
|
