Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader says

[CrimsonWhite]

My fucking head is about to expolode. How about not trying to blame somebody and actually read a fucking book to find out what those core values are.

(CNN) -- A conservative leader Friday laid the Republican Party's poor showing at the polls at the feet of moderates who, he argues, led the party away from its core principles.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told CNN that conservatives need to take back control of the GOP if the party is to return to its winning ways.

"Moderates never beat conservatives. We've seen that in past elections," he said.

Rejecting suggestions that the conservative movement was viewed as being out of touch with the electorate, Perkins says the Republican Party needs to go back to basics.

"It's a return to fundamental conservative principles that Ronald Reagan showed work and that people can be attracted to," Perkins said.

Pointing to measures in California, Florida and Arizona barring same-sex marriage that passed Tuesday, Perkins said President-elect Barack Obama's election did not mean the country had embraced liberal social views.

Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader says - CNN.com

 

[WillowTree]

Let's make this simple. We still have until Janurary 20th to blame Bush.

 

[Caligirl]

Don't let your head explode.

I saw a nice commentary along these lines:

However, it appears to be lacking any recognition that on Tuesday, the American people overwhelmingly rejected the hyper-partisan rhetoric of recent elections. This plan seems to be an effort to double-down on partisanship, and it runs the risk of further alienating the non-conservative base majority of the electorate, which could push the GOP further into the wilderness if Obama has a successful first term.

The Washington Independent Young GOP Activists Working to Rebuild Party Online

 

[Ravi]

Tony Perkins...that's some seriously funny commentary.

 

[jillian]

My fucking head is about to expolode. How about not trying to blame somebody and actually read a fucking book to find out what those core values are.

I think you're going to see a lot of that as the factions of your party jockey for position. The moderates know they ARE the core of the party. But unfortunately, the inmates have taken over the asylum and they want to keep it.

 

[sealybobo]

My fucking head is about to expolode. How about not trying to blame somebody and actually read a fucking book to find out what those core values are.

How are we ever to believe the Republicans are fiscally responsible? I certainly can't go on what they say in 2 or 4 years. I have to see it to believe.

I can't wait to see Palin run Alaska now that gas is only $2 a gallon. She won't be the superstar she was when oil was selling at $150 a barrel.

None of the Republicans I argue with mind that Bush spent as much as he did on Defense. We spent more than the rest of the world combined. And much of that was waste/fraud/bullshit no bid buddy contracts.

So the new crop of Republicans will come in and talk about cutting social programs that go to poor people in America, and that may sound like they are fiscally responsibility, but they have their own programs they like to fund, and they all fall under DEFENSE.

Not all defense spending is good.

 

[Turboswede]

None of the Republicans I argue with mind that Bush spent as much as he did on Defense. We spent more than the rest of the world combined. And much of that was waste/fraud/bullshit no bid buddy contracts.

No we don't!​

We Almost spend as much as the rest of the world on defense

 

[Toro]

My fucking head is about to expolode. How about not trying to blame somebody and actually read a fucking book to find out what those core values are.

Here is the thing about ideologues - any ideologues, whether they are on the left or the right, are free market Austrians or Marxists, etc. - they always believe that their core values are never wrong, that if only their ideas had been properly articulated they would have won, that if only the people in power had really followed their true principles, things would never be a mess. Its always somebody else's fault. If only the politician had stuck to their true beliefs and articulated them properly, the masses would have seen The Truth - like they have - and they would have won.

The empiricist molds his worldview to fit the facts. The ideologue molds the facts to fit his worldview. The empiricist changes his beliefs in light of contrary evidence. The ideologue retains his beliefs despite contrary evidence.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday saying that the Republicans didn't need the moderates. He was happy that moderate Republicans were beaten in races for the House and Senate. Well, to the conservative ideologues, there just aren't enough people who believe that God created the universe in a week to win. So if they want to be purists, marginalize themselves and spend the next decade in the wilderness, feel free. The Small Tent Republicans can sit around like all ideologues lamenting why they lose, blaming others for their failures.

Fortunately, there is too much at stake. The guys with the money won't allow the party to become a conservative, rural rump.

 

[Annie]

My fucking head is about to expolode. How about not trying to blame somebody and actually read a fucking book to find out what those core values are.

How about many 'non evangelicals' are against same sex marriages? Just like abortion. Has nothing to do with religion, rather one's sense that either undermines the civilization. Can be philosophical, not just religious.

In any case, I'd say that the evangelicals should be welcomed into the conservative party, but not drive the agenda. If that's what they wish, let them form their own party. If they wish to use the Republican party as a foot in, fine. Most conservatives are against abortion, for a myriad of reasons, many of which have to do with the latest scientific technologies about the viability of those classified as 'fetuses.' The idea that ID should be an agenda pushed by GOP, sorry, a non-starter, which should be made clear. No basis in science. None.

 

[Caligirl]

In any case, I'd say that the evangelicals should be welcomed into the conservative party, but not drive the agenda. If that's what they wish, let them form their own party.

 

[Chris]

No we don't!​

We Almost spend as much as the rest of the world on defense

That's an amazing chart.

We waste a ton of money on defense.

 

[Annie]

No we don't!​

We Almost spend as much as the rest of the world on defense

You know, I agree that we spend to much and need to do it smarter. If Obama can increase our security and spend less, I'm all for it. I believe we should be forcing our 'allies' to spend more, so we can spend less, why should we be providing all their security? They attack us for being 'war mongers', while taking their socialist vacations within Europe or the Middle East. Hell, the Japanese favor Hawaii, how ironic is that?

I say we make it clear, we will help Eastern Europe, which has shown not only the desire, but the determination to help with their own self defense.

Western Europe that we consider allies? Well, if they wish to 'pony up' we'll support that, in NATO. Bases? No. They don't need them. Good bye Germany, France, etc.

Asia, well, we need oil. More seriously, so do our allies. Tell you what. We'll develop our resources and work at getting off of your products. However, to the ME we recognize you want us out of your land, we will as soon as possible. Charge as much as you can, while you can. You might want to develop some other resources, when you prime commodity is no longer in demand. (Hint: You have the auspices of that with the economic downturn. You really should be thinking about this. Iraq is, whoops, we're pulling out of there, right?)

 

[Turboswede]

I say we make it clear, we will help Eastern Europe, which has shown not only the desire, but the determination to help with their own self defense.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!

I am a solid Von Clausewitz strong America, global presence guy who would kiss Henry Kissinger on both cheeks if I had the chance, love Nixon’s Christmas bombing idea and still can’t understand why we pulled out of the Philippines.

I say all that so that everyone understands that I am not a pushover liberal when it comes to foreign policy. I think we should spend about $500B on defense and have 15 nuclear carries…BUT

I draw the line at supporting Eastern Europe (Belorussia, the Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, etc.) in any alliance that could pull us into conflict with the Russians. Most Russians feel that those are deep within the Russian sphere of influence. This has nothing to do with communism or the old Soviet Union, it has to do with the deep gash in the Russian Psyche cause by the Germans in WW II. To America WW II has (for the most part) faded into the history books and popular cinema, to the Russians it’s still an open sore.

Fact is the US lost about 500,000 men in WW II while the Russians are estimated (no one knows for sure) between 30-50 million people in the war, think about that number. From the Russian perspective it is inconceivable that (for example) the Ukraine could be used as a staging point for the next invasion.

Now you and I know that won’t happen, but Russia lost 30-50 million people the last time around, and they were absolutely convinced that the Germans were not going to attack them.

How would you feel if Mexico signed a mutual defense pact with Russia and started ordering boat loads of Russian military gear?

Also, the political systems in the “new” Eastern Europe are just not stable enough to risk the fate of the world on. What happens if Belorussian leader, with his confidence bolstered by membership in NATO, should force a territorial dispute with Russia, or Poland? Are we willing go to war with Russia on the whim of the Belorussian Prime Minister?

A war between the US and Russia would be the most cataclysmic event in human history, trust me, it’s not worth the risk!

 

[Annie]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!

I am a solid Von Clausewitz strong America, global presence guy who would kiss Henry Kissinger on both cheeks if I had the chance, love Nixon’s Christmas bombing idea and still can’t understand why we pulled out of the Philippines.

I say all that so that everyone understands that I am not a pushover liberal when it comes to foreign policy. I think we should spend about $500B on defense and have 15 nuclear carries…BUT

I draw the line at supporting Eastern Europe (Belorussia, the Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, etc.) in any alliance that could pull us into conflict with the Russians. Most Russians feel that those are deep within the Russian sphere of influence. This has nothing to do with communism or the old Soviet Union, it has to do with the deep gash in the Russian Psyche cause by the Germans in WW II. To America WW II has (for the most part) faded into the history books and popular cinema, to the Russians it’s still an open sore.

Fact is the US lost about 500,000 men in WW II while the Russians are estimated (no one knows for sure) between 30-50 million people in the war, think about that number. From the Russian perspective it is inconceivable that (for example) the Ukraine could be used as a staging point for the next invasion.

Now you and I know that won’t happen, but Russia lost 30-50 million people the last time around, and they were absolutely convinced that the Germans were not going to attack them.

How would you feel if Mexico signed a mutual defense pact with Russia and started ordering boat loads of Russian military gear?

Also, the political systems in the “new” Eastern Europe are just not stable enough to risk the fate of the world on. What happens if Belorussian leader, with his confidence bolstered by membership in NATO, should force a territorial dispute with Russia, or Poland? Are we willing go to war with Russia on the whim of the Belorussian Prime Minister?

A war between the US and Russia would be the most cataclysmic event in human history, trust me, it’s not worth the risk!

I think we f'd them in the 30's, 40's, and 50's. Then again in 60's.