HARD RIGHT TURN: How The GOP Destroyed Its Moderates

Our area has a retired real estate agent who spends part of his time writing letters to the editors reading "Even though I'm a registered Republican, I'm voting Democratic this year" He did the same in 2008, 2004, and 2000. Knowing him personally for those years I'm keenly aware that his political leanings were always at the extreme outermost end of the Left Side diving board, next stop bottom of the pool.
It was time for the GOP to call a halt to supporting people like Charlie Crist who called themselves Republicans but voted with the anal fornicators, the surrender monkeys, and the bread and circuses crowd when the chips were down and push came to shove. The only place the GOP could possibly make an exception to this would be in Massachussetts where the voters go to the polls still thinking they're voting for JFK and FDR. How else can you explain the perrenial reelection of a lying, murdering, booze guzzling, lecherous womanizer back into the Senate on a seemingly lifetime basis?
 
Sadly, they know if they repeat the same old story line long enough the lemmings will believe. What they can't stand is that they have swung so far left that they have left most thinking people far to their right. Thus they must invent the story line that it was the right that moved, not themselves. Disingenuous as hell but that is what we get from the liberal left these days.

Come on, Freewill, that is just silly and you know it.

The US has no tradition of far left politicics, not now nor at any time in your past. There really is no far left in the US, and that is very evident in policies.

The Tea Party are, by any objective standard, one of the more right wing groups in the developed world.

Perfect example of a far left leaning partisan. He can't see the forest for the trees.

I must say this is the funniest post I've seen saigon type.

:lol:
:lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 
I have question for those of you tossing around the terms 'hard/far left' and 'hard/far right'. What would you label people like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul?
 
The only ones who seem highly concerned about the rise of the right wing in the Republican party are liberal Democrats. Mostly, the hard left wing.

What is really weird, is that most of these left wingers consider themselves moderates. They don't have a clue as to what they really are.

The Republican party has not shifted far to the right, although it has turned right. The Democrat party has shifted so far left that the center right of the electorate is now considered, by them, to be hard right.

They sit near the left 20 yard line, and think it is the center of the field.

The only ones who seem highly concerned about the rise of the right wing in the Republican party are liberal Democrats. Mostly, the hard left wing.


thats because they are the ones making the most noise.....when the far right screams out....the far left yells back and vice-versa....if Obama would say in Public that the FAR Right and Left should be the ones that are going to the rear of the Bus because they are the ones holding the Country back and trying to divide us.... the rest of us our interested in coming together and solving our problems ......i might actually change my mind about the guy.....but i dont see him standing up to the far left....
 
By Jonathan Chait

Rule And Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, from Eisenhower to the Tea Party.

MITT ROMNEY HAS BEEN running for president as the Republican nominee, de facto or de jure, for eight months now, and the grand historical joke of it has not yet worn off. A party that has set itself to frantically, fanatically expunge its moderates, quasi-moderates, suspected moderates, and fellow travelers of moderates chose as its standard bearer the lineal heir, biographically and genealogically, to its moderate tradition. It entrusted its holy crusade to repeal Barack Obama’s hated health-care law to the man who had inspired it and run, four years before, promising to do the same for the rest of America. The man and his historical moment could not be more incongruous. It was as if the Mongol tribes of the thirteenth century, setting out to pillage their way across the Asian steppe, had somehow chosen Mahatma Gandhi as their supreme khan.

Romney’s capture of the nomination required an incredible confluence of good fortune. Any one of several Republicans—Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan—could have outflanked Romney in both grassroots enthusiasm and establishment support but chose not to run. The one candidate with the standing and financial reach to challenge him who did grasp for the prize, Rick Perry, performed his duties with such comic, stammering ineptitude that his final oops-de-grace by that point was not even startling. What remained to challenge Romney was a gaggle of third-raters lacking the money or the rudimentary organization even to get their name on the ballot everywhere. Still, running even against the likes of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum (which is to say, running essentially unopposed), Romney still trudged laboriously to victory after endless weeks.

But there is another way to make at least some sense of the Romney nomination.

IT HAS TO DO WITH the strange and sad fate of Republican moderation. After all, moderates, or at least relative moderates, do continue to exist in the Republican Party. They merely do not exercise power in any meaningful, open way. They provide off-the-record quotations to reporters, expressing unease over whichever radical turn the party has taken at any given moment. They can be found in Washington and elsewhere rolling their eyes at their colleagues. The odd figure with nothing left to lose—say, a senator who has lost a primary challenge—may even deliver a forceful assault on the party’s uncompromising direction.

For the most part, though, Republican moderation is a kind of secret creed, a freemasonry of the right. It lacks institutions that might legitimize it, or even a language to express itself. And since conservatism is the only acceptable ideology, the party has no open arguments with itself. Thus the “debate” in the Republican Party is entirely between genuine ideological warriors and unwilling conscripts, with intraparty skirmishes generally taking the form of hunts for secret heresies.

In this sense, Romney’s capture of the nomination is perfectly emblematic of the state of the party. Conservative activists spent months resisting Romney, sometimes furiously, despite the fact that he was defending no positions that they disagreed with. Across the entire ideological spectrum—in social, economic, and foreign policy—Romney stood shoulder to shoulder with his party’s reactionary wing. When Romney took on his hapless opponents, he assailed them from the right, as soft on immigration or anti-capitalist. The sole point of hesitation centered on conservatives’ suspicion that Romney did not actually believe what he was saying.

FIFTY YEARS AGO, the conservative movement, far from holding a monopoly on acceptable thought within the GOP, was merely one tribe vying for power within it, and not even the largest one. Geoffrey Kabaservice’s fine book tells the story of the slow extinction of the party’s moderate and liberal wings. The conservative movement, he shows in often gruesome detail, took control of the party in large part due to an imbalance of passion. The rightists had strong and clearly defined principles and a willingness to fight for them, while the moderates lacked both. Meeting by meeting, caucus by caucus, the conservative minority wrested control of the party apparatus. Sometimes this happened through physical force or the threat thereof. (Anybody who recalls the “Brooks Brothers riot” during the 2000 election imbroglio in Florida, when a Republican mob shut down a vote recount in Dade County, will find many of Kabaservice’s scenes familiar.) More often, the conservatives won out by packing meetings, staying until everybody else was exhausted, and other classic methods of organized fanatics. The moderates lacked the ideological self-confidence to wage these fights with equal gusto, and battle by battle they lost ground until finally there was nowhere left to stand within the party.

Much More: How The GOP Destroyed Its Moderates | The New Republic

Yet, You are completely Blind to the fact that the Far left runs the Dem Party.

Gotta love Blind Partisans.

You just can not see the Reality before you.

You claim the GOP destroyed the Moderates in it's party. Yet Romney is a Moderate. Always has been, and he is our Nominee.

The Extremes in Both parties have to much Power if you ask me, But the Dem party is by far the worst right now. While the GOP is Nominating Moderate Republicans who passed things like Romneycare, The Dems continue to Put the Far left in charge of their show. Obama Despite the Common Sense that said he should have moved more to the Middle after getting his ass handed to him in 2010, Decided to Move even Further left, Be even more Partisan.

If a Moderate is what you want, There is only 1 choice in this Election, and it sure as hell is not Obama/Biden.

The Premise of the Article you posted is proven wrong by the title.

The Destruction of the GOP? What the hell is the stupid Bitch Talking about, was she even awake for the 2010 Mid Terms?

Pure Delusional, Wishful Thinking.


Yet, You are completely Blind to the fact that the Far left runs the Dem Party.

Gotta love Blind Partisans.


you cant expect a Far Lefty like LaKota or a Dean to see that......to them Far Leftness is the norm.....anyone to their Right is....a righty....and they dont want them around....
 
As someone who has been around since Harry Truman was in the White House, I can say unequivocally that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The biggest critics of the Republican party's shift to the right are Goldwater Republicans who first shifted it to the right. Now, even they say it has gone too far

It's hilarious how a liberal who mentions Harry Truman, who would be aghast at how far leftward into socialism the Democratic party has gone could talk about the Republican's moving to "the right" without that occurring to them. I mean wow. In fact, the Republicans have been moving to the left, just not as fast as the Democrats. In fact that is the only way they are moving "right." The gap between the parties is growing.

But OK, for a moment I'll play your little game with you. Name one thing Republicans have moved to the right on.
 
I have question for those of you tossing around the terms 'hard/far left' and 'hard/far right'. What would you label people like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul?

I would call them both libertarian/conservatives. I have been disappointed in the Libertarian party the last couple elections, they are going for votes rather then nominating actual libertarians. As I keep saying about them, they are more libertarian then either major party, but they are more party then libertarian.

They also keep insisting they are not more left then right, then they nominate guys from the right side of libertarian. At least Gary is more libertarian than Bob Barr was though.
 
I have question for those of you tossing around the terms 'hard/far left' and 'hard/far right'. What would you label people like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul?

I would call them both libertarian/conservatives. I have been disappointed in the Libertarian party the last couple elections, they are going for votes rather then nominating actual libertarians. As I keep saying about them, they are more libertarian then either major party, but they are more party then libertarian.

They also keep insisting they are not more left then right, then they nominate guys from the right side of libertarian. At least Gary is more libertarian than Bob Barr was though.
I totally don't buy into the left/right libertarian crap....It's either something that you are or you aren't.

The vast majority of "left libertarians" that I've encountered buy into Keynesian economic central control, which is antithetical to classical liberal economic philosophy.
 
I totally don't buy into the left/right libertarian crap....It's either something that you are or you aren't
Fair enough, and I totally agree with you. I was rating them on their policies, but like you I don't consider either to be actually libertarian and it's for the exact reason you gave. Government is the worst solution to any problem, so by definition it should be used only when it is the only solution. Anyone who violates that rules, as both Gary and Bob do, doesn't get it. And that means they are in fact not maximizing their liberty and they aren't actually libertarians.


The vast majority of "left libertarians" that I've encountered buy into Keynesian economic central control, which is antithetical to classical liberal economic philosophy.

I have yet to meet any liberal I consider libertarian on any scale. You cannot both maximize and minimize government.

Actually though, I argue any true liberal or true conservative would be a political libertarian. That is the only way they are free to pursue effective solutions to their values over ineffective government solutions. I've always found it odd that anyone would want government force to control the things that are most important to them, I would think they want government out of the things most important to them. But I'm an oddball that way...
 
If Obama wins re-election...he's a lame duck from day 1.

That's what we hire our representatives to do and as long as they keep doing it, they will stay hired.

Just ask DICK Lugar about that.

You keep talking. Meanwhile Dems are giving Reps a run for their money in several congressional elections. That's what happens when the extremists take over the party -- they say stuff like, "Legitimate rape", and send the moderates running. Good luck :lol:
 
Gibberish and cliche - there is no real "Far left" in the US.

It's not that there is a far left; it's just that what is considered to be left is so far away from the extreme right that it seems far left to the extreme right.

I totally agree.

Some of ours posters here rally are so extremist in their attitudes than many Conservatives look like Marxists to them. That is fine - but I do think we should all recognise where our bias lies and be able to be honest and objective about where we sit on the political spectrum.

You can't suppport a flat tax rate of 10% or compulsory prayers in schools or want to invade Iran - and then claim to be a moderate.

this board is chock full 'o rw kool aid drinkers :alcoholic:
 
Gibberish and cliche - there is no real "Far left" in the US.

It's not that there is a far left; it's just that what is considered to be left is so far away from the extreme right that it seems far left to the extreme right.

I totally agree.

Some of ours posters here rally are so extremist in their attitudes than many Conservatives look like Marxists to them. That is fine - but I do think we should all recognise where our bias lies and be able to be honest and objective about where we sit on the political spectrum.
Far leftist fish don't know they're wet. :lmao:
 
It's not that there is a far left; it's just that what is considered to be left is so far away from the extreme right that it seems far left to the extreme right.

I totally agree.

Some of ours posters here rally are so extremist in their attitudes than many Conservatives look like Marxists to them. That is fine - but I do think we should all recognise where our bias lies and be able to be honest and objective about where we sit on the political spectrum.
Far leftist fish don't know they're wet. :lmao:

Hate to break the news to you but Obama is a moderate. :eusa_boohoo: I should know, I'm a Progressive :afro:
 
Obama's 1st term= Bu$h II's 3rd term to a degree. Obamneycare was a creature of guess who? :eusa_whistle: The American Enterprise Institute :up: (research arm of Fox News ;) ) (Google it) MAYBE Obama will be a REAL Leftist :cool: , once he's reelected, because he won't have to be overly concerned w/ Independent/Undecideds.

You eXtreme Rightards need to put the kool aid down :nono:
 
Last edited:
Always amusing to get critiques from far left progressive/socialist fundie kooks like Spamahontas, about how immoderate the GOP has become. :lol:

Hey Jethro, is this a 'critique from a far left progressive/socialist fundie kook'?


Victor Gold, former speechwriter for George Herbert Walker Bush is a Goldwater conservative...his book explains how the GOP was hijacked away from conservatives by far right theocrats and far left neocons...starting in 1980...

Book Review:

9781402208416-m.gif


Invasion of the Party Snatchers

By Victor Gold

After four decades as a Republican insider, Victor Gold reveals how the holy-rollers and the Neo-Cons have destroyed the GOP. Now he's fighting to get his party back.

As a man who served as press aide to Barry Goldwater and speechwriter and senior advisor to George H. W. Bush (in addition to co-authoring his autobiography), Victor Gold is absolutely furious that the Neo-Cons and their strange bedfellows, the Evangelical Right, have stolen his party from him. Now he is bringing the fight to them.

Invasion of the Party Snatchers is a blistering critique not only of the Bush-Cheney administration but also of the Republican Congress. Gold is ready to tell all about the war being waged for the soul of the GOP, including the elder Bush's opinion of his sons work domestically and abroad, the significance of the newly elected Congress, and how Goldwater would have reacted to it all. Gold reveals, among other explosive disclosures, how George W. has been manipulated by his vice president and secretary of defense to become, in Lenin's famous phrase, a "useful idiot" for Neo-Conservative warmongers and Theo-Conservative religious fanatics.

Although there have been other books by dissident Republicans attacking the Bush-Cheney administrations betrayal of conservative principles, none have been by an insider whose political credentials include inner-circle status with Barry Goldwater and George H. W. Bush.

Review:
"Make no mistake: author Gold, a former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and aide to Barry Goldwater, is one disgusted Republican. The GOP of the 2006 midterm election, he writes, is 'a party of pork-barrel ear-markers like Dennis Hastert, of political hatchet men like Karl Rove, and of Bible-thumping hypocrites like Tom Delay.' Gold looks to Goldwater, 'a straight-talking, freethinking maverick,' as the yardstick by which to measure just how far the party of Lincoln has fallen.

He traces the beginning of the end to the 1980 Republican National Convention and the presence of 'a militant new element...personified by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.' The other half of the equation, the neoconservatives, are embodied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, 'two cuts from the same Machiavellian cloth.' In efficient prose, Gold scrutinizes a significant swath of recent GOP history, in particular Newt Gingrich's 104th Congress and the Bush II White House, without losing momentum.

He also has choice words for 'the Coulterization of Republican rhetoric,' the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, and 'sideshow' legislation like the Flag Protection Amendment. Gold sees a promising future for the Republican Party, but not until they lose some major elections and are able to keep down a slice of humble pie; for those disillusioned with the state of the GOP, this quick, uncompromising polemic provides substantial support, along with a large dose of cold comfort." Publishers Weekly (Starred Review) (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)

Synopsis:
The last real Goldwater conservative in America attacks the current state of his movement and his party.
Powell's Books - Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP by Victor Gold


profile_pic2.jpg


Victor Gold grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana, where he attended the public schools, and Tulane University. After working as a reporter-correspondent for the BIRMINGHAM (Alabama) NEWS, he earned his law degree (J.D.) from the University of Alabama. He served in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, 1950-52.

In 1958 he moved to Washington, D.C., and joined the public relations firm of Selvage & Lee. Six years later he became Deputy Press Secretary to Senator Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential campaign.

In 1965 Gold opened his own political public relations firm in Washington, listing among his clients then-Republican House leader Gerald Ford and Senator Bob Dole. At the Republican conventions of 1968 and 1976 he worked with press secretary Lyn Nofziger on behalf of the presidential candidacy of then-California Governor Ronald Reagan. During the Nixon administration he served as press secretary to Vice President Spiro T. Agnew until January, 1973.

In 1980 Gold joined the staff of Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush as a speechwriter and senior advisor, a position he held during the Reagan-Bush campaigns of '80 and '84. He served on the Bush vice-presidential staff in 1981, and as a Bush advisor in the campaigns of 1988 and 1992. In 1992 he received the Distinguished Achievement Award for Political Communication from his alma mater, the University of Alabama.

In 1989 Gold served as a member of President Bush's election-oversight delegation to the first free Romanian elections.

A frequent speaker on the national political and campus circuits, Gold has also appeared on numerous network television shows. His articles, covering politics and sports, have appeared in NEWSWEEK, HARPER'S, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, PLAYBOY, CONNOISSEUR, READERS' DIGEST, NATIONAL REVIEW, THE WEEKLY STANDARD, NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, and THE WASHINGTON POST.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top