Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Has anyone here left the Republican Party for any reason other than it is too conservative?
Has anyone here left the Republican Party for any reason other than it is too conservative?
If anything, the Republican Party needs to return to its conservative roots and ditch the neo-conservatives who inhabit the upper echelons of the Republican hierarchy.
No, that's the Theo-Cons you can't ditch, but you don't have to let them lead the party. You work on their issues in the background, do not leave them behind but we don't have to focus on their issues to the detriment of all the rest of the Conservatives.
The "Neo-Cons" are an even smaller number than the religious right. It is they you can't abandon. Reagan had a good balance. The RR was not the driving force behind the party, conservatism was, the RR was just another part of it. You don't necessarily have to abandon them, but you certainly do not need to focus only on their issues and forget what's important to the rest of the party.
Before we go any further, please give me your definition of a "neo-con."
Before we go any further, please give me your definition of a "neo-con."
I don't know his definition of neo-con, but the generally accepted definition (unless you count all the people who pull it out as a generic insult) is the new brand of conservatives who left the Democratic party because it was too liberal. Generally, they buy into a few conservative concepts, but don't understand the concepts of smaller government and lowering spending.
I don't know his definition of neo-con, but the generally accepted definition (unless you count all the people who pull it out as a generic insult) is the new brand of conservatives who left the Democratic party because it was too liberal. Generally, they buy into a few conservative concepts, but don't understand the concepts of smaller government and lowering spending.
I don't know his definition of neo-con, but the generally accepted definition (unless you count all the people who pull it out as a generic insult) is the new brand of conservatives who left the Democratic party because it was too liberal. Generally, they buy into a few conservative concepts, but don't understand the concepts of smaller government and lowering spending.
I'm with Gunney!That would be me, except that unlike the label asserts, I definitely an all for government at the lowest level and conservative spending. I'm also a Christian, but I don't believe in theocracy. I also am against the degredation of the morals and principles that this nation is based on.
Before your time, but Democrats used to believe in the last two, and were willing to use military force to right wrongs.
Where would you have us go if not to the party that best represents our ideals? It isn't like there are more than two choices. Would you rather we continue to support the Democrats?
That was the Definition in the 80s. Currently the opposition uses it and has defined it much differently...
The Neo-Con of the 80s left the D Party to join the R Party riding Reagan's popularity... The Neo-Con of today forgets important concepts of Conservatism like small government, the border, etc.
Leaving the R Party rather than going to the Caucuses and changing it is a mistake. All you are left with is third party and a massive 1% of the total vote, if you are lucky. If more actual Conservatives showed up at the Caucuses we could take the party back very quickly...
Riding Reagan's coattails was not the deciding factor ..... Jimmy Carter's failure and moving the party left was the deciding factor. That happened before we knew Reagan was anything more than the Governor of CA. And Reagan managed to appeal to us without splitting the Republican party.