GOP vs. GOP

It would take a rock star. Apathetic members of the electorate responded to Obama. The GOP simply does not have anyone that can compare to the popular appeal.
Maybe, maybe not. In any case, going that route has a lot broader buyers pool, so to speak, than trying to get the few percent of "centrist" voters, who have no real principled approach and that you could knock over with a feather.

And yet that "center" is what elects Presidents. ;)
 
The biggest problem that I see is the skewing of definitions. Today, a moderate Republican is any member that is pro-choice and pro gay marriage. That simply isn't the case, but those are the people that the GOP is driving away.
Maybe that's how some define them.

I define them as guys like the Shrub and McQuisling, who'd rather appease and enable the left in the name of "getting something done" than stand by any principle.
 
The biggest problem that I see is the skewing of definitions. Today, a moderate Republican is any member that is pro-choice and pro gay marriage. That simply isn't the case, but those are the people that the GOP is driving away.
Maybe that's how some define them.

I define them as guys like the Shrub and McQuisling, who'd rather appease and enable the left in the name of "getting something done" than stand by any principle.

So compromise is no longer in play? We have been down that road before.
 
If the Republican party purges moderates, they will end up marginalizing themselves into a regional party instead of a national party. They may never be able to recover. Neal Boortz (conservative libertarian) puts it best when he says that the Republican party has to drop the abortion issue as a litmus test or they will destroy themselves. Boortz calls the pro-life crowd anti-choice. He personally doesn't like abortion, but he doesn't believe a man has a right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. In short, the Republicans could get a lot more support if they stuck to conservative politics and dropped the social conservatism side of things that divide many conservatives.
There were reasons other than the social issues that caused her ultimate downfall...

Very true, but the social issues are what actually divides Republicans/conservatives more than anything else. You could be a Barry Goldwater and if you are not pro-life, marriage amendment, flag amendment, interventionist, etc. you are considered unworthy of being called a conservative in certain circles. The 20% fringe of the "true believers" will kill the party.
 
The biggest problem that I see is the skewing of definitions. Today, a moderate Republican is any member that is pro-choice and pro gay marriage. That simply isn't the case, but those are the people that the GOP is driving away.

I do think the soc-cons got too much power in the GOP. This has really skewed the party power base and focused the message in a bad way. I think you can be pro-family and noncontroversial at the same time. Support reasonable restrictions on abortion without being anti-choice. I think the conservative position on gay rights is that it's a state issue. If you are a candidate at the national level, you probably don't need to state a position on it. Likewise abortion. I think it is a principled, conservative position to say that you believe it is a state issue should Roe ever be overturned.

But definitely, the social aspect of the GOP should be de-emphasized. I don't think you can get rid of it altogether though. And, recognize that you must replace the campaign foot soldiers if you throw out the social conservatives.
 
Let the mushy squish republicans join the Democrat Party if they want to appease and enable them.

I'm sick of douchy republicans who campaign like libertarians and govern like Fabian socialists.

Speaking of "mushy squish republicans," this is what Limbaugh said of Dede Scozzafava:he accused her of bestiality 'cause she screwed every RINO in the country.

That Rushbo...always the Class Act for the Republican Right. :clap2::clap2:
 
The biggest problem that I see is the skewing of definitions. Today, a moderate Republican is any member that is pro-choice and pro gay marriage. That simply isn't the case, but those are the people that the GOP is driving away.

I do think the soc-cons got too much power in the GOP. This has really skewed the party power base and focused the message in a bad way. I think you can be pro-family and noncontroversial at the same time. Support reasonable restrictions on abortion without being anti-choice. I think the conservative position on gay rights is that it's a state issue. If you are a candidate at the national level, you probably don't need to state a position on it. Likewise abortion. I think it is a principled, conservative position to say that you believe it is a state issue should Roe ever be overturned.

But definitely, the social aspect of the GOP should be de-emphasized. I don't think you can get rid of it altogether though. And, recognize that you must replace the campaign foot soldiers if you throw out the social conservatives.

I wholeheartedly agree and have been saying this for years. Hopefully the GOp is listening, but I fear that they would rather listen to Glenn Beck.
 
The biggest problem that I see is the skewing of definitions. Today, a moderate Republican is any member that is pro-choice and pro gay marriage. That simply isn't the case, but those are the people that the GOP is driving away.
Maybe that's how some define them.

I define them as guys like the Shrub and McQuisling, who'd rather appease and enable the left in the name of "getting something done" than stand by any principle.

So compromise is no longer in play? We have been down that road before.
One man's compromise is another man's capitulation.

Besides, when dems say "compromise" they mean that you abandon your principles to go along with them....It very rarely goes the other way.
 
It would take a rock star. Apathetic members of the electorate responded to Obama. The GOP simply does not have anyone that can compare to the popular appeal.
Maybe, maybe not. In any case, going that route has a lot broader buyers pool, so to speak, than trying to get the few percent of "centrist" voters, who have no real principled approach and that you could knock over with a feather.

And yet that "center" is what elects Presidents. ;)

That doesn't mean the candidate needs to be FROM the center. Don't take the wrong message. Americans vote for people that DO what they say they will do.

Say what you will about Reagan, but you knew what he was going to do. I actually wrote down his campaign promises from the debates in 1980 and checked them off as he did them. And what happened, 4 years later it was "Morning in America" and he won 49 states. Why? Because Americans like (sometimes against their better instincts) people who talk straight and do what they say they are going to do.
 
If the Republican party purges moderates, they will end up marginalizing themselves into a regional party instead of a national party. They may never be able to recover. Neal Boortz (conservative libertarian) puts it best when he says that the Republican party has to drop the abortion issue as a litmus test or they will destroy themselves. Boortz calls the pro-life crowd anti-choice. He personally doesn't like abortion, but he doesn't believe a man has a right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. In short, the Republicans could get a lot more support if they stuck to conservative politics and dropped the social conservatism side of things that divide many conservatives.

If Boortz said that, he's not completely wrong. The problem with the GOP is that the conservative message got twisted around the axle in the last 30 years. The message was much as McDonnell in VA has been stating it in his campaign: Mostly fiscal conservatism, strong defense, firm Real Politick unflinching foreign policy, law and order, pro-family.

In the past 15 years that message was flipped around and became mostly about social issues and almost completely lacking in fiscal restraint. Unflinching foreign policy became interventionist. Having a strong military is different than USING a strong military. If the GOP de-emphasizes the social issues and increases the small government and fiscal restraint message, it will resonate just fine in every part of the country.

I'm paraphrasing, but yeah, Boortz says that. He refuses to discuss abortion on his radio program. Tells you up front that he will hang up on you if you bring it up. It is old territory and the lines are clearly drawn and no one is going to change their mind. All that being said for his personal stance on what he will discuss on his show, his take is that if the GOP keeps hanging their hat on that one issue, they will continue to lose more and more.
 
Maybe that's how some define them.

I define them as guys like the Shrub and McQuisling, who'd rather appease and enable the left in the name of "getting something done" than stand by any principle.

So compromise is no longer in play? We have been down that road before.
One man's compromise is another man's capitulation.

Besides, when dems say "compromise" they mean that you abandon your principles to go along with them....It very rarely goes the other way.
In fact, it never goes the other way and that needs to end. If, and this is a big if, the GOP manages to get back into power, they need to take the lesson that the Democrats have been teaching them and abandon that whole, "Rights of the minority" thing and just start governing from their principles and ignore the whining of the Democrats.
 
But definitely, the social aspect of the GOP should be de-emphasized. I don't think you can get rid of it altogether though. And, recognize that you must replace the campaign foot soldiers if you throw out the social conservatives.

The agenda of the Social Conservatives, and the agenda of the Small government, fiscal Consevatives really doesn't have much in common. The only reason they stay together is convience. The Fiscal Conservatives have the money, the Social Conservatives have the grassroots. Together they have the hypocrisy angle down pat. I don't see how you can claim to be small government and want to intrude on folks lives.
 
Maybe that's how some define them.

I define them as guys like the Shrub and McQuisling, who'd rather appease and enable the left in the name of "getting something done" than stand by any principle.

So compromise is no longer in play? We have been down that road before.
One man's compromise is another man's capitulation.

Besides, when dems say "compromise" they mean that you abandon your principles to go along with them....It very rarely goes the other way.

Then it's not a Compromise.
 
If the Republican party purges moderates, they will end up marginalizing themselves into a regional party instead of a national party. They may never be able to recover. Neal Boortz (conservative libertarian) puts it best when he says that the Republican party has to drop the abortion issue as a litmus test or they will destroy themselves. Boortz calls the pro-life crowd anti-choice. He personally doesn't like abortion, but he doesn't believe a man has a right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. In short, the Republicans could get a lot more support if they stuck to conservative politics and dropped the social conservatism side of things that divide many conservatives.

If Boortz said that, he's not completely wrong. The problem with the GOP is that the conservative message got twisted around the axle in the last 30 years. The message was much as McDonnell in VA has been stating it in his campaign: Mostly fiscal conservatism, strong defense, firm Real Politick unflinching foreign policy, law and order, pro-family.

In the past 15 years that message was flipped around and became mostly about social issues and almost completely lacking in fiscal restraint. Unflinching foreign policy became interventionist. Having a strong military is different than USING a strong military. If the GOP de-emphasizes the social issues and increases the small government and fiscal restraint message, it will resonate just fine in every part of the country.

I'm paraphrasing, but yeah, Boortz says that. He refuses to discuss abortion on his radio program. Tells you up front that he will hang up on you if you bring it up. It is old territory and the lines are clearly drawn and no one is going to change their mind. All that being said for his personal stance on what he will discuss on his show, his take is that if the GOP keeps hanging their hat on that one issue, they will continue to lose more and more.

I would say the GOP formal position on it should be that it should be:

- discouraged
- not government funded
- not available after 26 weeks without a some showing of emergency
- reasonable restriction - parental notification with judicial bypass

Of course each candidate may vary, but I think that's a decent middle ground approach. People on both sides will not like it at all. That probably means I've struck a balance. :lol::eusa_angel:
 
So compromise is no longer in play? We have been down that road before.
One man's compromise is another man's capitulation.

Besides, when dems say "compromise" they mean that you abandon your principles to go along with them....It very rarely goes the other way.

Then it's not a Compromise.
Exactly....It's just more proof that there ain't a dime's worth of difference.
 
That doesn't mean the candidate needs to be FROM the center. Don't take the wrong message. Americans vote for people that DO what they say they will do.

Say what you will about Reagan, but you knew what he was going to do. I actually wrote down his campaign promises from the debates in 1980 and checked them off as he did them. And what happened, 4 years later it was "Morning in America" and he won 49 states. Why? Because Americans like (sometimes against their better instincts) people who talk straight and do what they say they are going to do.
Another good example is Ross Perot.

Even though the guy was batty as hell, he had a sincerity and directness that said "and I mean it".
 
So compromise is no longer in play? We have been down that road before.
One man's compromise is another man's capitulation.

Besides, when dems say "compromise" they mean that you abandon your principles to go along with them....It very rarely goes the other way.

Then it's not a Compromise.

But see the Democrats recent offer to compromise on Health care with the Republicans. Instead of it being 100% the Dems way, they were magnanimous and only asked that it be 85% their way. No offer to incorporate any Republican ideas. In fact, they don't even admit Repubs have ideas on health care.

How is that compromise?
 
That doesn't mean the candidate needs to be FROM the center. Don't take the wrong message. Americans vote for people that DO what they say they will do.

Say what you will about Reagan, but you knew what he was going to do. I actually wrote down his campaign promises from the debates in 1980 and checked them off as he did them. And what happened, 4 years later it was "Morning in America" and he won 49 states. Why? Because Americans like (sometimes against their better instincts) people who talk straight and do what they say they are going to do.
Another good example is Ross Perot.

Even though the guy was batty as hell, he had a sincerity and directness that said "and I mean it".

Good example and talk about against your better instincts. But, you're right. "We're gonna lift up the hood and we're gonna fix it!" :lol:
 
But definitely, the social aspect of the GOP should be de-emphasized. I don't think you can get rid of it altogether though. And, recognize that you must replace the campaign foot soldiers if you throw out the social conservatives.

The agenda of the Social Conservatives, and the agenda of the Small government, fiscal Consevatives really doesn't have much in common. The only reason they stay together is convience. The Fiscal Conservatives have the money, the Social Conservatives have the grassroots. Together they have the hypocrisy angle down pat. I don't see how you can claim to be small government and want to intrude on folks lives.

It's a marriage that really benefits the business interests, because as long as they never deliver on the social issues, they can keep using them to beat the drum.
 
One man's compromise is another man's capitulation.

Besides, when dems say "compromise" they mean that you abandon your principles to go along with them....It very rarely goes the other way.

Then it's not a Compromise.

But see the Democrats recent offer to compromise on Health care with the Republicans. Instead of it being 100% the Dems way, they were magnanimous and only asked that it be 85% their way. No offer to incorporate any Republican ideas. In fact, they don't even admit Repubs have ideas on health care.

How is that compromise?

What proportion would you expect? Does it need to be 90 percent Republican ideas to be "compromise"?
 

Forum List

Back
Top