Should the republican party move towards a Rockeffeller Republican type party?

[Yurt]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

Well let's see. What did the Rockefeller wing of the GOP get us:
Enormous explosion in government agencies, like EPA
Complicated tax code
Wage and price controls
WIN buttons
Vietnam War
Steel tariffs (Yes, Bush was very familiar with the Rockefeller wing).

Why the **** would anyone vote for that??

i said, type, not exactly...

 

[Mojo2]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

Yeah. That's the ticket.

Split the vote and assure a Hillary victory.

Great strategy.

Not.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Well yurt I would already say we have a Rockefeller wing and republican will never win as demo lite as one already posted. What is missing(and I guess in this porno-political crowd I can say this) is a set of balls. The emasculation of our culture and our menfolk has caused a vacuum of leadership.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Should the republican party move towards a Rockefeller Republican type party?

Move towards?

They've been that kind of party for most of the last 70 years.

How much more could you move towards where you already are?

 

[The Rabbi]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

Well let's see. What did the Rockefeller wing of the GOP get us:
Enormous explosion in government agencies, like EPA
Complicated tax code
Wage and price controls
WIN buttons
Vietnam War
Steel tariffs (Yes, Bush was very familiar with the Rockefeller wing).

Why the **** would anyone vote for that??

i said, type, not exactly...

OK, let's see what Rockefeller Republicans are for.
They are for big government, big business. That's why we got the policies under Nixon and to some degree Bush that we did.
The Reagan/Goldwater wing is where we need to be. Lower taxes, less government, more personal freedom. We need that kind of thing now more than ever.

 

[Yurt]

Should the republican party move towards a Rockefeller Republican type party?

Move towards?

They've been that kind of party for most of the last 70 years.

How much more could you move towards where you already are?

you obviously don't know what you're talking about. read up on it and educate yourself.

 

[Yurt]

Well let's see. What did the Rockefeller wing of the GOP get us:
Enormous explosion in government agencies, like EPA
Complicated tax code
Wage and price controls
WIN buttons
Vietnam War
Steel tariffs (Yes, Bush was very familiar with the Rockefeller wing).

Why the **** would anyone vote for that??

i said, type, not exactly...

OK, let's see what Rockefeller Republicans are for.
They are for big government, big business. That's why we got the policies under Nixon and to some degree Bush that we did.
The Reagan/Goldwater wing is where we need to be. Lower taxes, less government, more personal freedom. We need that kind of thing now more than ever.

i don't think they would stand for the size of government we have today. i have no problem with being pro business, it helps grow the economy. taxes under clinton are fine. they also were more liberal on social issues, which the republican party needs to be. the gop used to be a virtual everyman's party because, while they looked out for the rich, they also realized the need to take care of the poor, not the extent the dems do, because reliance on government is never a good thing.

perhaps i used a bad example, what example do you think would better fit based on what i said above?

 

[Yurt]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

Yeah. That's the ticket.

Split the vote and assure a Hillary victory.

Great strategy.

Not.

what?

 

[The Rabbi]

i said, type, not exactly...

OK, let's see what Rockefeller Republicans are for.
They are for big government, big business. That's why we got the policies under Nixon and to some degree Bush that we did.
The Reagan/Goldwater wing is where we need to be. Lower taxes, less government, more personal freedom. We need that kind of thing now more than ever.

i don't think they would stand for the size of government we have today. i have no problem with being pro business, it helps grow the economy. taxes under clinton are fine. they also were more liberal on social issues, which the republican party needs to be. the gop used to be a virtual everyman's party because, while they looked out for the rich, they also realized the need to take care of the poor, not the extent the dems do, because reliance on government is never a good thing.

perhaps i used a bad example, what example do you think would better fit based on what i said above?

No, they were pro-BIG business. Very different. So tariffs and others barriers to trade that helped big business over small business.
The Tea Party is a better fit. You help people who really need it by allowing businesses to form and grow. They both hire more people and pay more in taxes, so you can fund programs that are actually needed. Gov't needs to be pushed down to the state and local level, where it is more responsive to the voters. Block grants from the Feds for things like Medicare and let each state work out how they want to deal with their problems.
The era of big government is over. Because either we will shrink it or it will absorb all of us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

No, you would not. You have been hanging with the TPM reactionaries as is common knowledge.

I would prefer to see a robust Gerald Ford wing who is not hesitant about keep the TPMs under its heel and primarying out their candidates next Spring.

you know jake, i gave you a list of my beliefs that are right in line with RR's and you still have the nerve to lie and claim i'm with the tpm reactionaries. there are some beliefs they have that are also inline with RR's.

kindly stay out of this thread because all you're going to do is troll and lie and this is a grown up discussion.

thanks

I gave you a list of my beliefs right in the mainstream of the GOP, and you refuse to consider it.

So don't cry when you get the same from me. You align yourself with the TPM on almost every thread dealing with the issue.

So stop trolling and start telling the truth.

Now I am going to give you a chance.

Which of the following do you support or disagree?

I have said repeatedly I have voted for Romney and McCain, and I worked very hard for him in my region and state.

I supported Afghanistan, opposed Iraq. Neo-conservatism (modern American imperialism) never has served America’s long-term interests. It is time to leave Afghanistan for good.

The social programs need reform. The items of food need to exclude candy, steak, soda pop, chip, and so forth along with the tobacco and booze: those are not a right. The physically fit should be mandated to give ten hours a week to the city or the county in return for assistance. Those who aren't but can assist should be found adaptive work. Those who can't get off drugs should be forced to give up parental rights. And, phased in, no benefits for children out of wedlock.

I opposed the drug prescriptions program for seniors and No Child Left Behind as incredibly costly programs in both cases and an unwarranted intrusion into education that was best left in the hands of the school boards and the state education agencies.
I support the 2d Amendment's guarantee that I may own and bear arms.
I believe that abortion best be limited to cases of incest, rape, and the health and life of the mother.

I oppose absolute abortion, I oppose neo-conservative imperialism, I oppose birtherism, I oppose trutherism, I oppose Tentherism, and I oppose any suggestion that we are individuals only and not a part of a social compact. I oppose reactionary hatred.

I am a mainstream Republican and have been since the day I went to school with Jack (John) Ford, the president's son. I have served the party honorably since I was my state's GOP Young Republican Chair so many years ago and all through the following decades in many posts. I will continue opposing the reactionaries as I serve the best interests of the Republican Party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

Yeah. That's the ticket.

Split the vote and assure a Hillary victory.

Great strategy.

Not.

what?

Yurt is right to question this. A good solid mainstream GOP candidate can beat Hillary.

 

[JWBooth]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

Going from Dem lite to Dem ultra lite.
Suits me, I quit the state loving assholes years ago.

 

[whitehall]

Actually the post seems to be bad news for the left. Alleged moderate democrats seem to be looking for an honorable way to abandon the mess that their messiah has created and like most losers they wish that republicans were more liberal so that their defection from the radical left wouldn't be so traumatic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mainstream Republicanism is sane Americanism not dem lite.

 

[Yurt]

No, you would not. You have been hanging with the TPM reactionaries as is common knowledge.

I would prefer to see a robust Gerald Ford wing who is not hesitant about keep the TPMs under its heel and primarying out their candidates next Spring.

you know jake, i gave you a list of my beliefs that are right in line with RR's and you still have the nerve to lie and claim i'm with the tpm reactionaries. there are some beliefs they have that are also inline with RR's.

kindly stay out of this thread because all you're going to do is troll and lie and this is a grown up discussion.

thanks

I gave you a list of my beliefs right in the mainstream of the GOP, and you refuse to consider it.

So don't cry when you get the same from me. You align yourself with the TPM on almost every thread dealing with the issue.

So stop trolling and start telling the truth.

Now I am going to give you a chance.

Which of the following do you support or disagree?

I have said repeatedly I have voted for Romney and McCain, and I worked very hard for him in my region and state. again, unprovable and based on the vast majority of your posts agreeing with obama, i don't believe you, but will give you the benefit of the doubt. i disagree though and did not vote for romney and one of the reasons was his 47% comment. he didn't have a solid plan and i was not going to hold my nose and simply vote party over my beliefs

I supported Afghanistan, opposed Iraq. Neo-conservatism (modern American imperialism) never has served America’s long-term interests. It is time to leave Afghanistan for good. i support both, however, as iraq dragged on and bushed screwed it up royally, i opposed it. i agree about leaving afghanistan.

The social programs need reform. The items of food need to exclude candy, steak, soda pop, chip, and so forth along with the tobacco and booze: those are not a right. The physically fit should be mandated to give ten hours a week to the city or the county in return for assistance. Those who aren't but can assist should be found adaptive work. Those who can't get off drugs should be forced to give up parental rights. And, phased in, no benefits for children out of wedlock. i have no problem with candy, but steak, soda pop, chips, i disagree. of course the other two. i agree with the 10 hours, but it likely will cost the city more to manage it than is worth it. i disagree wholeheartedly about benefits for children out of wedlock.

I opposed the drug prescriptions program for seniors and No Child Left Behind as incredibly costly programs in both cases and an unwarranted intrusion into education that was best left in the hands of the school boards and the state education agencies. not sure about seniors...and my liberal teacher cousin agrees with you on no child left behind. i have no opinion.

I support the 2d Amendment's guarantee that I may own and bear arms.
I believe that abortion best be limited to cases of incest, rape, and the health and life of the mother. we agree on the second. i do not have an opinion on abortion and by and large stay out of those threads.

I oppose absolute abortion, I oppose neo-conservative imperialism, I oppose birtherism, I oppose trutherism, I oppose Tentherism, and I oppose any suggestion that we are individuals only and not a part of a social compact. I oppose reactionary hatred. mostly vanilla platitudes here, but agreed on the social compact.

I am a mainstream Republican and have been since the day I went to school with Jack (John) Ford, the president's son. I have served the party honorably since I was my state's GOP Young Republican Chair so many years ago and all through the following decades in many posts. I will continue opposing the reactionaries as I serve the best interests of the Republican Party. sorry jake, but your posts indicate otherwise. you're not a flaming liberal like i tease you to be, you're more of a semi moderate democrat.

i've answered this before jake. you are incapable of backing up your claims. but since you are trying, i will be the more mature person and answer you again, since you're being a simpering five year old and demanding i go first.

be warned, if you don't address my question or post in the FZ thread, the shred of credibility you have will be gone.

 

[TheShinyOne]

The tea party is awesome. They have the exact same problems as their nemesis, they need to reform all the gerrymandered congressional districts. It's a kind of political apartheid, unnecessary. Every two years we have to run a gambit of mutually assured destruction between parties, impossible to vote for the candidate you want, have to vote against the ones you hate first. Over the long haul, we end up with the worst of both worlds in charge of things, and we get sold out. Major reform is due, but the momentum of conflict that is Republicans vs. Democrats is gone past the point of no return. Like Oprah says, racists just have to die, will probably be another seven generations before there's enough people willing to tackle the problem in a meaningful way.

To be upfront about it myself, there ought to be state-wide elections for the House similar as for the Senate, where individual citizens choose which seat number in combination with each candidate. Instead of territorial districts, states designate their seats according to a political platform. Such as seat #1 for the candidate who runs for Speaker from their state, but not necessarily, depending on their population. California is likely to have the most specialties in their party systems, such as seat #25 for the candidate who most advocates for cheaper gas prices, or whatever happens to be an issue the state's parties can build a platform on. But suppose, on election day the votes are counted, and each county is more or less included into congressional districts by default, gerrymandering obsolete by self-evident truth after the fact of the elections. Suppose most voters in any given county chooses the ballot for seat #25, naturally that district belongs to them.

Doesn't matter if my idea is wrong, though. Could be lots of better ideas out there. Just that it's never going to work with the tea party until they get innovative instead of obstructive. This idea, Rockafella Repubs, cannot go back to the way it was before, liberals understand this well, cannot just unlearn it in politics. It's too obvious trying to use religion as an excuse to instigate conflicts in the Middle East for war profits, Democrats just have to expose that and Republicans are done, better luck next time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

Let’s rephrase the OP title a bit:

Should the republican party return to a Rockeffeller Republican type party?

The answer is obviously ‘yes.’

And yes, the ranks of the GOP would increase considerably.

But what’s important for republicans to realize is that to do so isn’t to ‘change’ the party, but to return the party to its origins.

 

[Yurt]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

Let’s rephrase the OP title a bit:

Should the republican party return to a Rockeffeller Republican type party?

The answer is obviously ‘yes.’

And yes, the ranks of the GOP would increase considerably.

But what’s important for republicans to realize is that to do so isn’t to ‘change’ the party, but to return the party to its origins.

imo, my title is accurate, because i do not want to return to the same party, but similar party.

thank you for your opinion and you may be right about the return and that may very well be the way to sell it. but i see it as an updated gop party, on e that "returns", yet, refurbishes. make sense?

 

[Dot Com]

you people better do something because you can hang your hat on your 9% approval rating for only so long.

 

[Yurt]

you people better do something because you can hang your hat on your 9% approval rating for only so long.

this post shows your ignorance of history. you said the same thing in '10 and before that, when pubs were not so socially rigid, they won elections.

the dems only hope is that pubs stay socially far right. other than that, you guys lose. think about how many bush policies you whined about and now that obama continues the same, not a peep from hacks like you.