Conservatism now help or hinder the GOP?

[mattskramer]

There are two trains of thought.

One is that if Republicans move to the right and more strongly embrace the conservatives, they will gain more support and votes than they will lose. The train of thought is that they might lose some moderates but that they will make up for it by winning right-wingers and distinguish themselves from Democrats.

On the other hand, there are moderates who think that the Republican candidates should move even more to the middle. They think that if the candidates move too far to the conservative right side, then they will alienate the moderate undecided group.

My thinking is more toward the moderates and I believe that any significant move to the right by Republicans will win some vocal conservatives but lose many more of the moderate undecided. Your thoughts?”

 

[JimH52]

There are two trains of thought.

One is that if Republicans move to the right and more strongly embrace the conservatives, they will gain more support and votes than they will lose. The train of thought is that they might lose some moderates but that they will make up for it by winning right-wingers and distinguish themselves from Democrats.

On the other hand, there are moderates who think that the Republican candidates should move even more to the middle. They think that if the candidates move too far to the conservative right side, then they will alienate the moderate undecided group.

My thinking is more toward the moderates and I believe that any significant move to the right by Republicans will win some vocal conservatives but lose many more of the moderate undecided. Your thoughts?”

I think you are right. Rush and his gang are systematically shooting themselves in the foot with the rhetoric they are spewing. The Neos need to ask themselves, "Would McCain as President be better than the Hill or Obama?"

What are these guys thinking? Do they think Reagan will rise from the grave and take the nomination. It is just a big puzzle to me.

There is no front runner that will return the republican party to the hay days of Reagon. It is not going to happen so either embrace McCain or shut up, RUSH, you big fat drug addict you!

 

[William Joyce]

There is no question that conservatism is dead. The nomination of John McCain, who is not conservative on any issue to speak of (I don't include the war, as that is a neocon project), just confirms the death of a movement that has been a long time in dying.

I think much of this has to do with America's changing demographics, but there are other factors, like the acceptance of the welfare state. The truth is that most folks accept high levels of taxing and spending, if only because they've been around so long and nobody -- not even Reagan -- can bring them down. Social issues have been almost totally won by liberals -- abortion, gays, you name it. Only gun rights remain.

So I don't know how to answer your question, but there does remain a group of Americans who are conservative. The GOP is not their friend. I don't know where they'll go.

 

[JimH52]

The GOP needs to understand that, greatly attributed to bush, the far right has been weakend to insignificance. The only manner in which the GOP can survive is to move to the center. McCain gives them that chance. Rush and his allies will be dragged kicking and screaming to moderation.

I must say, it is a vision I greatly enjoy.

 

[William Joyce]

The GOP needs to understand that, greatly attributed to bush, the far right has been weakend to insignificance. The only manner in which the GOP can survive is to move to the center. McCain gives them that chance. Rush and his allies will be dragged kicking and screaming to moderation.

I must say, it is a vision I greatly enjoy.

But there's nothing "far right" about Bush. He's a liberal on everything and a neocon on the war. He's for open borders, profligate spending, you name it. McCain is just another Bush.

 

[CharlestonChad]

But there's nothing "far right" about Bush. He's a liberal on everything and a neocon on the war. He's for open borders, profligate spending, you name it. McCain is just another Bush.

Bush is an evangelical version of McCain. He already endorsed McCain. If that doesn't shift the moderate vote to the democrats side, then it might take a major scandal to do it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Conservatism isnt dead, it's never been tried yet. If President Bush had actually tried it and the Republican Congress actually stood up for it, they wouldnt have lost in 2006. We wouldnt have had that atrocious immigration bill. We wouldnt have had all the corruption and overspending.

The principles of conservatism are still correct. It's just finding a dang politician who tries to impliment them when he gets to Washington is impossible!

 

[Diuretic]

I'm loathe to enter a discussion about conservatism vis-a-vis the GOP because it's a purely domestic issue. However I will offer the observation that conservatism has to be distinguished from reactionary forces. Conservatism has a place in any society, it's a natural and desirable tendency that serves as a useful counterbalance to the more extreme progressive forces. It holds up the forces of progress long enough for most of us to look at what's proposed and to find a position on it. It doesn't stop progress, it just forces a bit of a hold while things are being checked out.

On the other hand reactionary forces, which are violently opposed to any change at all, are easily identified and easily defeated by the moderate progressive forces which find it easy to expose the reactionaries to the (usually) moderately cautious electorate.

It seems to me that any political party that seeks to harness reactionary forces may as well write its suicide note.

 

[Gunny]

There are two trains of thought.

One is that if Republicans move to the right and more strongly embrace the conservatives, they will gain more support and votes than they will lose. The train of thought is that they might lose some moderates but that they will make up for it by winning right-wingers and distinguish themselves from Democrats.

On the other hand, there are moderates who think that the Republican candidates should move even more to the middle. They think that if the candidates move too far to the conservative right side, then they will alienate the moderate undecided group.

My thinking is more toward the moderates and I believe that any significant move to the right by Republicans will win some vocal conservatives but lose many more of the moderate undecided. Your thoughts?”

The current fracture between hard-line conservatives and moderate conservatives has been coming for decades -- since the Carter years -- and predictable.

Those considered moderate conservatives and/or centrists now would have been labelled as liberals pre-Carter. When he jerked the Democrat party hard left, he left a lot of people with no choice but vote Republican or don't vote.

The hard right no longer controls the Republican party and their last candidate was Bob Dole. IMO, a hard-line candidate doesn't have a chance in Hell of winning a presidential election. As was proven with Clinton, moderates will vote for who they think is the best candidate, not necessarily along party lines.

 

[CrpRavens30]

The thing is neither party has a decent candidate to vote for in this election..

Hillary is corrupt..

Obama has no bussiness running for president, thanks to his race he is where he is..

McCain is corrupt and not a conservative..

 

[mattskramer]

Conservatism isnt dead, it's never been tried yet. If President Bush had actually tried it and the Republican Congress actually stood up for it, they wouldnt have lost in 2006. We wouldnt have had that atrocious immigration bill. We wouldnt have had all the corruption and overspending.

The principles of conservatism are still correct. It's just finding a dang politician who tries to impliment them when he gets to Washington is impossible!

Wasn’t Reagan practically the epitome of conservatism?

If not, then I suggest that neither pure liberalism nor pure conservatism has been tried yet.

 

[Gunny]

Wasn’t Reagan practically the epitome of conservatism?

If not, then I suggest that neither pure liberalism nor pure conservatism has been tried yet.

Reagan was not the epitome of conservatism. He was the epitome of 80s conservatism; which, included appealing to moderates/centrists that abandoned the Democrat party under Carter's watch.

 

[jillian]

Reagan was not the epitome of conservatism. He was the epitome of 80s conservatism; which, included appealing to moderates/centrists that abandoned the Democrat party under Carter's watch.

Please tell me you don't believe that. And you keep bringing up Carter, but Democrats voted for Nixon who was fairly representative of the republican party in his day.

After him your party went loony to the right.... It started when Reagan let the religious right sit at the table. He did it with a wink and a nod. Everyone after him treated them like they were important, so they became important. It's also why your party isn't reflective of normal people any longer. Has less to do with "conservativism" than priorities...

 

[mattskramer]

Reagan was not the epitome of conservatism. He was the epitome of 80s conservatism; which, included appealing to moderates/centrists that abandoned the Democrat party under Carter's watch.

Okay. Then would you contend that conservatism has not been tried yet?

 

[Diuretic]

The thing is neither party has a decent candidate to vote for in this election..

Hillary is corrupt..

Obama has no bussiness running for president, thanks to his race he is where he is..

McCain is corrupt and not a conservative..

His race? Which bit? The caucasian bit or the African bit?

 

[CrpRavens30]

His race? Which bit? The caucasian bit or the African bit?

What do you think? The African bit is the only reason he is currently in national politics.. What has he done? All he talks about is change, what does that mean and how will he change it?

 

[mattskramer]

What do you think? The African bit is the only reason he is currently in national politics.. What has he done? All he talks about is change, what does that mean and how will he change it?

His Positions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama

His Voting Record:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

 

[Diuretic]

What do you think? The African bit is the only reason he is currently in national politics.. What has he done? All he talks about is change, what does that mean and how will he change it?

That's an interesting point of view. His mother was caucasian, his father African. But you see his father's genetic matter as being the only reason he's in politics. Interesting that he only needs half of his inherited genetic matter to be successful - imagine if he used both halves?

 

[Gunny]

Please tell me you don't believe that. And you keep bringing up Carter, but Democrats voted for Nixon who was fairly representative of the republican party in his day.

After him your party went loony to the right.... It started when Reagan let the religious right sit at the table. He did it with a wink and a nod. Everyone after him treated them like they were important, so they became important. It's also why your party isn't reflective of normal people any longer. Has less to do with "conservativism" than priorities...

Believe it? I LIVED it, and know it to be true.

That crap about Reagan letting the religious right sit at the table is just that ... crap. The religious right happened to be a powerful political force at the time, in their own right. You can't just ignore the majority; although, you lefties damned-sure try your best to to do so even if it means circumventing democracy via legislating from the bench.

Nixon was easily farther to the right than Reagan.

LMAO. I have no party. Despising what has become of the Democrat party -- the last political party I was a member of, btw -- does not a Republican make. You think YOUR party is reflective of normal people? Not by a long shot.

IMO, NEITHER party is reflective of the people, so you can get off your soapbox with me and get on down there with the people you chastise so vehemently.

Both parties are reflective of perpetuating their bureaucracy period. It's just a matter of who gets to set at the head of the table for awhile.

As for me, I'll vote either for the lesser of two evils, or against who I don't want to see in the White House. Right about now I'll vote for anyone against either of the two assclowns running as Democrats. Does that mean I like McCain or support him? Not by a longshot. But he'll do less damage than Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum will.

 

[midcan5]

What do you think? The African bit is the only reason he is currently in national politics.. What has he done? All he talks about is change, what does that mean and how will he change it?

The trouble with this question is it helps to create a fantasy world. Imagine if Bush were asked this 8 years ago? Actually he was and the BS flew hot and heavy concerning his accomps in Texas. All Fantasy but who knew. What did FDR do before becoming president? Point is Obama and Hillary have values that are positive values and values in line with the good side of American politics. Smart people who can make change.

Bring em home now.

"By almost all measures, Obama has been a solid liberal, both in his early career as a community organizer and then as a local politician. In the Illinois State Senate he supported increased funding for healthcare and education and wrote bills to publicly finance judicial campaigns and create a state earned-income tax credit. His charisma, intellect and ability to build bipartisan coalitions were evident early in his career, fueling progressives' high hopes for him. In the US Senate, for the most part he has stuck with his party on key votes when so-called moderates didn't. For example, Obama voted against the corporate-written Central American Free Trade Agreement. And he was particularly outspoken after Hurricane Katrina, leading the charge among lawmakers demanding answers about the government's failure to protect New Orleans."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota