Still a Republican?

flaja

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
363
Reaction score
10
Points
16
Has anyone here left the Republican Party for any reason other than “it is too conservative”?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Has anyone here left the Republican Party for any reason other than “it is too conservative”?
If you do a little research, the dissatisfaction with the Administration and the Republicans was that they were not conservative enough on enough issues. You're way off base with your question.
 

CockySOB

VIP Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
709
Reaction score
108
Points
78
Location
Midwest USA
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.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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.
When you ditch the "neo-cons," you don't have enough votes to win.
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
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.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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.
Sounds like a quandry to me. If you don't appeal to the "neo-cons" you can't win. If you DO appeal to them, some more moderate thinking is required.
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
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.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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."
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
A Neo-Con is one who attempts to combine "Progressive" ideation with "Conservative Values" and you end up with NCLB & the Pill Bill, while forgetting the border is important during a "War on Terror" and selling the ports to the UAE...

A Theo-Con is the Religious Right...
 

Hobbit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
5,099
Reaction score
421
Points
48
Location
Near Atlanta, GA
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.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
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.
and yet, some do.
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
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.
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.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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.
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?
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
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?
I'm with Gunney!
 
OP
F

flaja

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
363
Reaction score
10
Points
16
When I turned 18 I registered to vote as the 1st Republican in my family. However, following Clinton’s acquittal with 10 Republican votes I changed my registration to “no party”. I voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004 because I feared the Democrat alternative and I have regretted my vote both times. Other than Bill McCollum in the 2000 Florida senate race I have not voted for any other Republican since. I did not vote last week and I will never again vote for a Republican for any office.

I did not leave the GOP because it was not conservative enough for me in 1999. That’s part of the reason why I phrased my question the way I did. I am still a conservative, just no longer a Republican and the Party’s stampede to the Left has made the split permanent.

The neo-con/paleo-con issue is part of why I expressed the question the way I did. Some of you say the GOP is not conservative enough for you- based on what you think conservatism is.

I am a staunch social conservative, but I don’t support the likes of Alabama’s Judge Moore because I don’t want the government promoting some form of Christian that I may not agree with.

I support tax cuts, but I also support the idea of using tax policy to encourage certain behavior (taxing gasoline to encourage the use of alternative fuels for example).

I support a national public school system, with a national curriculum, standardized testing and teacher qualifications, but one in which each school is managed by the parents/guardians of the students enrolled because state and private schools don’t work (at least here in Florida where I used to be private school teacher) and having a well-education labor force and electorate is a matter of national security.

I do not like large corporations like Wal-Mart and Home Depot because they have oligarchic powers. Since the 1st Wal-Mart opened where I live in 1987 something like 15 other retail stores that had some or all of Wal-Mart’s product lines have gone out of business. One of these stores was a locally-owned regional chain that had been in business since the 1950s. Consumers are better off the more local shopping options they have.

I would support the war in Iraq if GWB knew how to win it (that is do not repeat the mistake we made in World War I: not killing enough civilians to make them understand that their country lost the war). I didn’t support Clinton’s involvement in the Balkans, but I am not an isolationist in that I think we should act whenever and wherever American property, lives or economic interested are threatened.
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
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...
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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.
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.
 
OP
F

flaja

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
363
Reaction score
10
Points
16
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...

We don't have caucuses in Florida. According to state law each major party has a state committee, but no candidate for the GOP state committee ever bothered to campaign for my vote. Furthermore, the GOP in Florida is very much a "good ol' boy network". I was planning to support a woman who wanted to challenge the Democrat incumbent in my CD in 2002. Since my CD is gerryymandered for a black Democrat the state Republican Party harassed my canididate to the point that she withdrew from the race. The GOP did not want a large black turnout in my CD to hurt other Republicans- namely Jeb Bush.

The Republican Party is too corrupt to save.
 
OP
F

flaja

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
363
Reaction score
10
Points
16
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.
He also managed to not do anything about abortion or give us school prayer or tax credits for people who paid taxes to support public schools while they sent their kids to private schools. Neither did he manage to ever submit a balanced budget to Congress.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top