What's the plan for Rational Republicans?

[SenseCommon]

First off N4, if you are going to ask a question, ask it in a sincere manner. Don't use a question as a mere display of your notions of elitism, or to continue your passive aggressive ways. Come on man, it's cowardly.

As an independent and a moderate liberal I can say without bias that this country is ready for both a legitimate third party, or the Republican party to get it's shit together, now more than ever. The democratic/liberal party has continued to spiral into a party of pussy ideals. But the Democrats have taken power because the Republicans have allowed them to, NOT because the Democrats are what this country wants/needs.

The first thing that the Republicans need to do is stick to what they truly believe, without apologizing. NO MORE GIMMICKS. Enough with the Sarah Palin and Michael Steele knee-jerk reactionary appointments of power, in order to counter what the Democrats have done. STICK TO THE IDEALS IN WHICH YOU'VE ALWAYS HAD, AND BE SINCERE IN YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA.

Unfortunately, the Republicans seem prepared to recycle the same old candidates our way for 2012. But, if you really want a chance, go back to being original. Give a fresh face a real push in 2012. The country is ready for it!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm interested in hearing from some of the rational conservatives here.

At this point, your premise is so severely skewed that as you've constructed it, you expose yourself and your query for being what it is... a backhanded assertion that Republicans are not rational... therefore their argument's and advocacies lack a valid rationale.

It's no secret that I hang to the left, but I also believe that competition is good. And as long as the Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, anti-intellectual, irrationalist, and/or theocractic fringe are the movers and shakers of the Republican party, I can't see them as a viable alternative to the Democratic party.

Here, you begin the paragraph by proclaiming that your self-image is one wherein you recognize that the ideological Left is a joke; but ya can't help 'leaning' left; and you end the paragraph proving in finality that you're a flaming fucking Marxist.

So my question is to the more rational conservatives who I recognize are present here and in the general public. The conservatives who are not anti-evolution, obsessed with abortion, spouting over-the-top conspiracy theories, and who can debate on the merits of an idea rather than make-up patently false assertions are my target.

So you're looking for Conservatives who don't believe that people cooperate towards nefarious ends... and who don't make a big deal out of principle... OKA: Leftists...

Cool... that's what most Leftists are looking for... validation by those who 'feel' as they feel...

What comes next for you and the Republican party? Do you have any ideas how to regain control?

Yeah... We're in the process of rejecting Leftists across the board and exposing moderate Republicans as such... and booting their collectivist asses out of the GOP.

Do you think the GOP should be conceded and another party become home for rational conservatives?

And by "Rational Conservative" you mean Leftists... of course.

What if the Democratic party officially split into Conservative Democrats and Liberal Democrats? (which seems possible these days).

Not really... There's virtually no chance of it. The DNC is owned Lock, stock and barrel by the Left. Hard left, soft left... it's still Left, thus wholly anti-American... the only distinction is that the soft left just wants to take things slower as they work the nation from it's constitutional moorings...

Would any of you consider joining a separate Conservative Democrat Party?

Can't see why they wouldn't... they're just as anti-American as you.

Should you try to make the Libertarian party a viable national party?

Well there's no reason not to try... I recommend it. The Libertarian Party can't be made to be any less effective. So I say "Go for it!"

I'm asking with sincerity.

ROFLMNAO... That's hysterical... (In at least two contexts and on several levels)

I consider it to my advantage if rational people control the opposition.

And so to appeal to your opposition you define the scope of your query to address those who think as you think... YEP... You 'lean' left alright.

LOL... "Centrists..."

After all, I don't like to think that if the party I generally support loses, then the country could have a Sarah Palin as president.

Yeah... Who could want THAT? I mean she's a WOMAN! And all that Red, White and Blue, flag wavin' "Constitution" crap... What a buzz-kill... man.

I may frequently support the Democrat party, but I don't appreciate feeling like I have to support them because the alternative is so out of touch.

So you're really looking to sorta put together a distinct party, which represents basically the same thing... Sorta like having two cable companies to choose from... they offer exactly the same thing... you just want to empower yourself to change the billing party when one pisses ya off!

Oh that's BRILLIANT! And so self absorbed and utterly fruitless... You should call it the "Jerk-off Party".

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It was my point.

Right Because Democrats have to disparage every achievement Republicans make in order to validate their own failed policies. Pretty pathetic. And the reason the Dems will go back to being the minority party.

YOU were the one who brought up how the republicans would win if they ran on a platform of smaller government. I simply pointed out that the government has never gotten smaller, even after the republicans ran on that, in 80, 84, and 94.

I've said nothing about the democrats, nor am I a democrat.

Well, the government has not been occupied by Conservatives either. At least not since the Continental Congress...

The Closest it ever got in my lifetime was the 94 Conservative rebellion... The US government got closer to the US Constitution than it had been in two centuries.

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

Ron Paul

 

[The Rabbi]

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is not a conservative. He is a libertarian. Or libtard in my book. That's why he didnt do well in the primaries.

 

[The Rabbi]

YOU were the one who brought up how the republicans would win if they ran on a platform of smaller government. I simply pointed out that the government has never gotten smaller, even after the republicans ran on that, in 80, 84, and 94.

I've said nothing about the democrats, nor am I a democrat.

But that's pretty well irrelevant to my point, which was the winning strategy for the GOP. Which is the subject of this thread.

Irrelevant, except for pointing out the inherent lie in claiming to run for smaller government. Yes, the rhetoric works. But the government has NEVER gotten smaller.

It is of course not a lie. Some areas of gov't got smaller, like the agencies that regulate airline fares and trucking. More could have been done if the Democrats were willing to work in a bipartisan manner and quit undercutting the president's clear mandate.
It certainly worked better than the enormous expansion of gov't under Democrats we have seen and are seeing.

 

[garyd]

Ah and there we have it again the bizarre notion that only atheistic left wingers are rational. And only REpublicans who believe as they believe can be rational. There are people who agree with the left on Social issues and the right on fiscal issues. We call them libertarians. They get about 5% of the vote year in and year out. wht you keep calling the fringe here between the mountains is the majority.

Oh and the plan for rational Republicans is to drop the idiots that keep voting with the leftist turds that are screwing this country up one side and down the other

 

[SenseCommon]

Oh, and one last thing the GOP must do in order to garner support/power in this country:

SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But that's pretty well irrelevant to my point, which was the winning strategy for the GOP. Which is the subject of this thread.

Irrelevant, except for pointing out the inherent lie in claiming to run for smaller government. Yes, the rhetoric works. But the government has NEVER gotten smaller.

It is of course not a lie. Some areas of gov't got smaller, like the agencies that regulate airline fares and trucking. More could have been done if the Democrats were willing to work in a bipartisan manner and quit undercutting the president's clear mandate.
It certainly worked better than the enormous expansion of gov't under Democrats we have seen and are seeing.

It is, of course a lie.

Total federal spending, per year 1930 - 2009.

 

[rdean]

Rational Republicans?

Because moderate Republicans have refused to speak out against the birthers and the racist and the crazies, "Rational Republican" has become an "oxymoron".

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Oh, and one last thing the GOP must do in order to garner support/power in this country:

SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

You didn't say that they have to stop being to the right, politically, so I assume you mean they should all give up their religions. Why would that help?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Rational Republicans?

Because moderate Republicans have refused to speak out against the birthers and the racist and the crazies, "Rational Republican" has become an "oxymoron".

Did the Democrats ever speak out against the truthers?

What's this racist shit, Democrats are the party of racism you fucking idiot.

 

[Immanuel]

Rational Republicans?

Because moderate Republicans have refused to speak out against the birthers and the racist and the crazies, "Rational Republican" has become an "oxymoron".

Rational Republicans left the party over the last 8 years and became either independents or Libertarians. If things turn around they may go back, but if things stay as they are then the party will remain a tool of the religious right.

Oh and by the way, I am a man of faith.

Immie

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Rational Republicans?

Because moderate Republicans have refused to speak out against the birthers and the racist and the crazies, "Rational Republican" has become an "oxymoron".

Did the Democrats ever speak out against the truthers?

What's this racist shit, Democrats are the party of racism you fucking idiot.

Sure they did speak out against the truthers....

Here's what The Nation had to say...
The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts

Here's what Bill Clinton had to say...
Bill Clinton Takes on 9/11 Truthers at Hillary Fundraiser | NewsBusters.org

Here's what Bill Maher had to say...
Bill Maher Throws 9/11 Truthers Off ‘Real Time’ Set | NewsBusters.org

I could keep going....

 

[SenseCommon]

Oh, and one last thing the GOP must do in order to garner support/power in this country:

SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

You didn't say that they have to stop being to the right, politically, so I assume you mean they should all give up their religions. Why would that help?

Politics and religion shouldn't go hand-in-hand. They should be separate entities. Unfortunately, the religious Right mixes up both their political and religious beliefs. Logic doesn't count for much in their eyes.

Have your religion. But keep it out of politics!

 

[Old Rocks]

You ought to try listenng to Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh instead of forming your opinions based on what CNN says.

The path to victory is the same as it was in 1980, 1984, and 1994: small limited government, lower and simplified taxes, vigorous foreign policy. If they get back on that message they will win elections.
But if the GOP sounds only marginally competent they will still beat the tar out of the Democrats, who have welched on every promise they made in the last 2 years.

Your avatar says it all. You are hardly one of the sane conservatives that was referred to.

 

[Qball]

Oh, and one last thing the GOP must do in order to garner support/power in this country:

SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

You didn't say that they have to stop being to the right, politically, so I assume you mean they should all give up their religions. Why would that help?

Politics and religion shouldn't go hand-in-hand. They should be separate entities. Unfortunately, the religious Right mixes up both their political and religious beliefs. Logic doesn't count for much in their eyes.

Have your religion. But keep it out of politics!

Whenever I hear people say this, I'm always baffled. As if secularists only believe in fact and empirical data to guide their political views.

I'm not saying this to you, per se, but I think people aren't worried about the impact religious belief will have on politics. They're worried about it actually working and things not going the way they want them to because they don't personally identify with it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rational Republicans?

Because moderate Republicans have refused to speak out against the birthers and the racist and the crazies, "Rational Republican" has become an "oxymoron".

Did the Democrats ever speak out against the truthers?

What's this racist shit, Democrats are the party of racism you fucking idiot.

Sure they did speak out against the truthers....

Here's what The Nation had to say...
The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts

Here's what Bill Clinton had to say...
Bill Clinton Takes on 9/11 Truthers at Hillary Fundraiser | NewsBusters.org

Here's what Bill Maher had to say...
Bill Maher Throws 9/11 Truthers Off ‘Real Time’ Set | NewsBusters.org

I could keep going....

You could, but it would do no good with all too many of this bunch. They have their minds made up, and no amount of truth will change it.

 

[SenseCommon]

You didn't say that they have to stop being to the right, politically, so I assume you mean they should all give up their religions. Why would that help?

Politics and religion shouldn't go hand-in-hand. They should be separate entities. Unfortunately, the religious Right mixes up both their political and religious beliefs. Logic doesn't count for much in their eyes.

Have your religion. But keep it out of politics!

Whenever I hear people say this, I'm always baffled. As if secularists only believe in fact and empirical data to guide their political views.

I'm not saying this to you, per se, but I think people aren't worried about the impact religious belief will have on politics. They're worried about it actually working and things not going the way they want them to because they don't personally identify with it.

The religious Right goes too far. They don't know how to separate religious beliefs, from political or social ones. You can't base your reasons for believing in something, both politically and socially, solely on something you learned through your religion. The religious Right does not believe in logic or open discussion. Their beliefs are set in stone well before they could express them. If it was up to the religious Right, science and rational thought would not be existent in modern politics.

The thing about Religion is that it's non-negotiable. In politics, you have to be open to various forms of an answer, at the very least!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm interested in hearing from some of the rational conservatives here. It's no secret that I hang to the left, but I also believe that competition is good. And as long as the Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, anti-intellectual, irrationalist, and/or theocractic fringe are the movers and shakers of the Republican party, I can't see them as a viable alternative to the Democratic party.

So my question is to the more rational conservatives who I recognize are present here and in the general public. The conservatives who are not anti-evolution, obsessed with abortion, spouting over-the-top conspiracy theories, and who can debate on the merits of an idea rather than make-up patently false assertions are my target.

What comes next for you and the Republican party? Do you have any ideas how to regain control? Do you think the GOP should be conceded and another party become home for rational conservatives? What if the Democratic party officially split into Conservative Democrats and Liberal Democrats? (which seems possible these days). Would any of you consider joining a separate Conservative Democrat Party? Should you try to make the Libertarian party a viable national party?

I'm asking with sincerity. I consider it to my advantage if rational people control the opposition. After all, I don't like to think that if the party I generally support loses, then the country could have a Sarah Palin as president. I may frequently support the Democrat party, but I don't appreciate feeling like I have to support them because the alternative is so out of touch.

Sounds to me like you're defining "rational Republicans" as "Republicans who agree with me", so no, you're NOT asking with any sincerity. Next time, just be honest and address your post to "Everyone who holds my views, because I'm narrow-minded and never want to hear anything that differs from the voices in my head".