The New GOP

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As I mentioned in another thread though, it's the social portion that's the much higher priority for me (and a lot of the current party). If we aren't working toward that then frankly the fiscal stuff pales in comparison & becomes pretty shallow/unmotivating.

If that's the case, then partner up with the nanny state Dems so you two can team up and try and turn us into the United Socialists of America and the rest of us can get on with promoting freedom and the Constitution.

See you out there.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As I mentioned in another thread though, it's the social portion that's the much higher priority for me (and a lot of the current party). If we aren't working toward that then frankly the fiscal stuff pales in comparison & becomes pretty shallow/unmotivating.

I keep writing up responses to things and then deleting them before I post them. I think your response is fair and you obviously have more at stake in this than I do since I am an Independent voter.

All I know is that I am pretty frustrated, I feel that I have not had a viable candidate to vote for in almost a decade. Bush was not fiscally conservative, he spent so much in excess he would make Democrats proud. Obama's best trait is that he was not George Bush. McCain ended up being the puppet of the religious right just trying to get moderate votes... Don't get me started on what I feel about Gore (as most of my family is from Tennessee and pretty much everyone there knows what a slimeball he is), etc.

I can't guarantee anything , but I know that a GOP candidate in 2012 that dropped the social agenda completely, campaigned on cutting spending, cutting out the bloat from all kinds of places (including both un-needed social programs as well as military and such), and looked at other conservative economic reforms to stimulate business would be in consideration for at least my vote. (Obviously this could change if Obama ends up being the next best thing since sliced FDR as many Democrats would lead people to believe, but the economy is so messed up right now, I doubt Jesus could turn it around in 4 years entirely).

[timmynausea]

Jesus' stimulus package: all you can eat fish and wine.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I can't guarantee anything , but I know that a GOP candidate in 2012 that dropped the social agenda completely...

I stopped right there, because whatever else doesn't matter as that person would never win the nomination. People who keep saying that the Republicans ought to separate themselves from the social conservatives are missing something. Social conservatives are the Republican party, at least on the national scale. Your best bet is a guy like McCain who'll pay lip service to the social right, but really doesn't care to much about their cause (of course, he wasn't that fiscally conservative either, but be that as it may).

When someone said the Republicans are a group holding the Bible in one hand and a gun in the other, they may have been sort of cruelly dismissive. But it is a good explanation of the heart of the GOP, and I don't see that changing. It is much more likely the fiscal conservatives will jump parties at this point than the RR. If Libertarians didn't go to insane extremes so often, they'd probably have a shot at winning them.

[lordscarlet]

The problem is that the Republican party really is two parties. They have joined together to attempt to win elections, but it is barely held together. I think that it is starting to come apart. I grew up thinking I was a Republican. The reality is that I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal (Libertarian for the most part) and I have voted Democrat the majority of the time as an adult.

The Republican party consists mostly of two groups:

Fiscal conservative + Social conservative
Fiscal conservative + Social liberal

The republican party is tied together by their fiscal views, but I think the social gap is widening. For all those that thing the party would die without the social right wingers, I think it would be interesting to see how many voters they would gain who, like Jon, care much more about social issues than fiscal ones. I am the opposite of Jon: I vote Democrat for the exact same reason that he votes Republican; the social issues are much more important to me than the fiscal ones. The difference is that I have the opposite opinion about how those social issues should be handled. I imagine that Jon and I probably line up fairly closely when it comes to fiscal matters.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Jesus' stimulus package: all you can eat fish and wine.

So, would Sarah Palin oppose Him in order to protect the Alaskan fisheries lobby?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

The problem is that the Republican party really is two parties. They have joined together to attempt to win elections, but it is barely held together. I think that it is starting to come apart. I grew up thinking I was a Republican. The reality is that I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal (Libertarian for the most part) and I have voted Democrat the majority of the time as an adult.

The Republican party consists mostly of two groups:

Fiscal conservative + Social conservative
Fiscal conservative + Social liberal

The republican party is tied together by their fiscal views, but I think the social gap is widening. For all those that thing the party would die without the social right wingers, I think it would be interesting to see how many voters they would gain who, like Jon, care much more about social issues than fiscal ones. I am the opposite of Jon: I vote Democrat for the exact same reason that he votes Republican; the social issues are much more important to me than the fiscal ones. The difference is that I have the opposite opinion about how those social issues should be handled. I imagine that Jon and I probably line up fairly closely when it comes to fiscal matters.

I think I'm probably right on the same side as you. Fiscal conservative + social liberal.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I think your response is fair and you obviously have more at stake in this than I do since I am an Independent voter.

Not to pick on you in particular, but that is absolutely the wrong attitude to have and will ensure that the JimGA's and Social Conservatives dominate the GOP for years to come. And since 3rd parties are basically impossible these days (best chance is a singular prominent independent - that's why I hate Perot for not trying to start a party when he was garnering 15-20% of the vote) it's going to leave fiscally conservative/socially moderate libertarians holding their nose every election cycle.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Not to pick on you in particular, but that is absolutely the wrong attitude to have and will ensure that the JimGA's and Social Conservatives dominate the GOP for years to come. And since 3rd parties are basically impossible these days (best chance is a singular prominent independent - that's why I hate Perot for not trying to start a party when he was garnering 15-20% of the vote) it's going to leave fiscally conservative/socially moderate libertarians holding their nose every election cycle.

Well, even though I have voted Republican at times in local elections, I mainly have done so more since moving to Massachusetts. For the most part, I have voted more Democrat than republican (the only time I voted Republican for President so far was 2000). So I don't necessarily think it is my place to come into someone else's party and tell them that they have to reform.

What I am saying is the attitude that he or other have of being social policy first above everything else does not appeal to me, and will force me to continue to either consider Democrat or Third party in most cases. I do not believe I am alone in that. So I am thinking maybe the best thing for them to do is try to run their religious right campaign next election, write them completely off and once they fail big time and come crawling back to the fiscal conservatives for help, they might be willing to reconsider. This election I voted for Barr/Libertarian for president mainly for that reason.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Alan T

What I am saying is the attitude that he or other have of being social policy first above everything else does not appeal to me, and will force me to continue to either consider Democrat or Third party in most cases. I do not believe I am alone in that. So I am thinking maybe the best thing for them to do is try to run their religious right campaign next election, write them completely off and once they fail big time and come crawling back to the fiscal conservatives for help, they might be willing to reconsider. This election I voted for Barr/Libertarian for president mainly for that reason.

+1

[st.cronin]

I think you'll hit the sweet spot of the mainstream with a platform built around:

- Conservative economic policy (lower taxes, free trade, etc.)
- Liberal social policy (pro-choice, reasonable immigration policy, etc.)
- Pragmatic foreign policy

[Surtt]

If the GOP does blame McCain for the loss and swings even more to the right (which I think it will.)
I would not be surprised it a centralist 3rd party candidate makes a creditable run in 2012.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Surtt

If the GOP does blame McCain for the loss and swings even more to the right (which I think it will.)
I would not be surprised it a centralist 3rd party candidate makes a creditable run in 2012.

Yep. I could see Bloomberg making such a run. Heck, if the economy goes really south, I could see Bloomberg (I) WINNING.

[ISiddiqui]

Bloomberg '12!

[ISiddiqui]

Dammnit cronin, beating me to it!

[st.cronin]

I love all them NY mayors. Bloomberg, Rudy, Koch. I don't care much for NY but it definitely gets the best mayors.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Alan T

So I am thinking maybe the best thing for them to do is try to run their religious right campaign next election, write them completely off and once they fail big time and come crawling back to the fiscal conservatives for help, they might be willing to reconsider.

But the fiscal conservatives are stuck in the same leaky boat. I've already acknowledged that neither can win without the other (unfortunate reality that may be) and it takes us back to what I described in another thread: A Dem dynasty opposed by what amounts to a pair of third parties.

Which is actually something that the more-parties-the-merrier crowd should be excited about, as should the compromise/negotiate crowd when it comes to Congress. I can very much imagine a scenario where Congress is split three ways and no one has a majority & the amount of vote swapping needed to get anything passed would be astonishing for US politics.

[lungs]

When has social conservatism ultimately won in this country? I'm not thinking small things but more along the lines of slavery/segregation and now gay rights seems to be the big item.

But ultimately while social conservatives slow down rampant socially liberal policies they ultimately lose and then pick a new issue to throw their weight behind.

When old people die and younger people come of age, old ideas die and new ideas are brought to the forefront. Yes, if the Republicans abandon the social conservatives now, they will pay deep consequences for a while, but the social conservatives will move onto something else.

It's how we've evolved (or devolved depending on your take) as humans for a long time and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[adubroff]

The interesting thing about where the Republican party is that to be successful, they need to keep the social conservatives unhappy and the fiscal conservatives happy. Fiscal sanity is something you can exercise on a day to day basis. It's like brushing your teeth.

Social conservatives are motivated by issues that they wish to achieve. For example, a social conservative might want prayer in schools. As soon as you give him that, he will want something more extreme, and the more extreme it becomes, the more likely it is to piss off the Fiscal conservatives. Prayer in school, ok we'll stomach that but don't start with creationism. ...eventually you reach a breaking point. Also, you end up definiing yourself out of existence, todays social conservative becomes a moderate. But if you never make progress, people stop trusting you to actually do what you're saying. This makes you look incompetent, and if you look incompetent, people will look elsewhere, eventually.


I am not sure the recipe is a bad one. It was on a two Presidential election win streak going into last night and arguably it took an extremely likeable opposing candidate, an incredibly dull one, a horrible down economy and a failure in the oval office to beat it here.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by lungs

When has social conservatism ultimately won in this country? I'm not thinking small things but more along the lines of slavery/segregation and now gay rights seems to be the big item.

But ultimately while social conservatives slow down rampant socially liberal policies they ultimately lose and then pick a new issue to throw their weight behind.

When old people die and younger people come of age, old ideas die and new ideas are brought to the forefront. Yes, if the Republicans abandon the social conservatives now, they will pay deep consequences for a while, but the social conservatives will move onto something else.

It's how we've evolved (or devolved depending on your take) as humans for a long time and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

But the abolition of slavery has very little to do with gay rights or abortion rights, or anything of that nature (in my opinion).

When this country ended slavery, the moral reasoning was clear: it was fundamentally unjust to own another person as property. This wasn't a civil right, it was a human right (and it needed the support of ultra-religious Christians to help push it as an issue).

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is much more of a civil rights issue to me. I don't think we are to the point in society where the case has been made that the government, representing The People, have a duty to recognize a marriage that more than half of society refuses to acknowledge. Personally, I'm all in favor of the government getting out of the marriage business. If it's this divisive an issue, then let society argue it instead of the politicians.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

But the abolition of slavery has very little to do with gay rights or abortion rights, or anything of that nature (in my opinion).

When this country ended slavery, the moral reasoning was clear: it was fundamentally unjust to own another person as property. This wasn't a civil right, it was a human right (and it needed the support of ultra-religious Christians to help push it as an issue).

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is much more of a civil rights issue to me. I don't think we are to the point in society where the case has been made that the government, representing The People, have a duty to recognize a marriage that more than half of society refuses to acknowledge. Personally, I'm all in favor of the government getting out of the marriage business. If it's this divisive an issue, then let society argue it instead of the politicians.

I'm completely with you on government getting out of the marriage business but you know that is much too simple of a solution for that consensus to be reached.

I also agree that slavery and gay marriage are completely different but I think my overall point was the fact that as a country we've moved from obvious human rights violations in the case of slavery to a civil right. We've gotten more liberal with things. Conservatives lost.

Now on the other hand, I wonder about the future. As pointed out, minorities are voting fairy strongly against gay marriage. Minorities tend to vote (D) and minorities soon won't be minorities. Put 2 and 2 together and although it seems very absurd at this moment to even think this will happen but is it possible that the Democrats could end up becoming the socially conservative party at some point (not talking 5-10 years but more 30-40)?

Social conservatives have switched sides before, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did it again.

[Chief Rum]

Glad to see this has taken off a bit. There is still far more to discuss.

And once again, before saying what I am about to say, I want to point out that my goal in starting this thread was to allow the majority to speak and mold this GNP in the ways which fit them best, preferably at least starting with the base I put down in the first post (at least from my personal perspective).

But here is what I am seeing: there is a divide here, it seems, between the people who want to take the Republican Party and try to shift it back toward the center and fiscal responsibility (as opposed to social), and the people willing to abandon the Republican Party to make a new stand all their own.

And I will say, my intent is the latter. I don't want to rebuild the GOP in a fiscal conservative image. IMO, it is hopelessly run by social conservatives and the religious right, who are almost as far from me politically as the most left-leaning liberals.

No, my intent is to REJECT the GOP. Good riddance, social conservatives. I'm taking my ball and going to play on a new court, one I think has more potential to help this country remain great, and one that I think will be (or can be) much, much more relevant.

What the social conservatives do with the GOP is up to them. I am trying to charter the GNP here, the Chief Rum Party, the "Gawd, I really hope someone forces me to change the name of the party" Party (no one's come up with a really good suggestion yet).

Yes, I know that, right now, we can't beat the Dems separately. Well, you know what, we ain't beating them together either are we? JIMG mentions above the Dem dynasty and the two third parties that make up the old GOP. I am actually not afraid of doing that. I think that sometimes--no, most of the time--change is scary, and people fear to make that change when it needs to happen. Tuesday should be a wake up call to the GOP, or at least to those members for whom the GOP is no longer a relevant devotee to their most important issues and ideals and principles. This change, IMO, needs to happen, and the longer we ignore it, the further we move from being in step with what this country needs.

I want to see a new Fiscal Conservative Party, or whatever we call it, and if we falter before the Dems for a few years, so be it. At some point, the Dems will need us. At some point, the Dems will have to convince both fiscal and social conservatives to get their agenda through. I don't mind working together with social conservatives to achieve mutual goals, of which there will doubtless be many, since we (supposedly) share a lot of common goals. But I don't want them in my party anymore. Or more to the point, I can't force them out of my party, so I am throwing a new one, and they can have the old one.

Reject social conservatism where it doesn't make sense, and join a new party aiming to meet the goals of those members of the GOP the social right has long ago decided to ignore.

[st.cronin]

I'm with you, Chief. Some ramblings:

We want Americans, and the world in general, to be happy and prosperous. We want people to have the ability to make their own destiny. This is the premise of America, that every American has the means and the responsibility to make his own life.

For the most part, that's what this country is right now. The problems/challenges we face are:

- Persistent poverty. There are an unacceptable number of Americans who live below the poverty line (although very few are extremely poor).

- An unacceptably large budget deficit. I am not convinced that any budget deficit is a bad thing, and I'm not quite convinced that our deficit is too large - but its certainly something that gives lots of smart folks quite a bit of pause, and it may lead to an erosion of power - and power is what makes the greatness of America possible.

I'm not going to mention the middle east or the current economic crisis; the middle east is a bitch, and different people have different ideas. The current economic crisis seems likely to lead to some short term pain, and its possible that it could lead to something much worse - but historically its just some noise on the charts.

Foreign policy is a leading issue for me. I am unabashedly imperialist. But what is important is that my country be stronger than any other, and that as long as we have enemies that they should suffer more than us.

So, lets talk about how we're going to smooth out the budget, and raise the living standards of the bottom fifth of Americans, while maintaining the romantic ideals that make this country one of the best ideas mankind has ever had, and while maintaining/re-establishing our position as the world's one superpower.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think you'll hit the sweet spot of the mainstream with a platform built around:

- Conservative economic policy (lower taxes, free trade, etc.)
- Liberal social policy (pro-choice, reasonable immigration policy, etc.)
- Pragmatic foreign policy

That just about sums up every left wing party these days

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Yes, I know that, right now, we can't beat the Dems separately. Well, you know what, we ain't beating them together either are we? JIMG mentions above the Dem dynasty and the two third parties that make up the old GOP. I am actually not afraid of doing that.

As long as you're hip to the consequences, I'm cool with that.

[QuikSand]

Since pretty much everyone in the thread (and nearly everywhere) is rallying around the cause of "fiscal conservatism," I thought I'd share a notion of mine that has been developing. I think the emperor may have no clothes there.

It sounds responsible and noble to be a fiscal conservative -- but I'm not totally sold that everyone is really on board with that idea. Okay, lots of people can support tax cuts, but it's the spending side that is usually the rub. When it comes right down to it, the people who are willing to actually stand up and support cutting or eliminating popular, good, effective, and worthwhile federal programs that are currently tax-supported -- I think there are more weak knees than meet the eye.

And this is, as much as anything, why the legions of self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" never get anywhere. While they say that's what they really want, any degree of detail triggers a bailout from a sizable faction. Oh, not medical research! Not the space program, where will we get the next Tang? Well, we still need to have a win-win military capability! You can't cut libraries! But we *support* special needs kids! But these banks *need* this money! But these prescriptions are too expensive for old people! But clean coal is our future! And so on...

Everyone would like a tax cut. Especially if it's adorned with some nice adjectives like "targeted" or "strategic" or related to a "stimulus." We get that. And everyone wants to cut the waste, fraud, and abuse in the government. Duh. That's like being opposed to child abuse... who isn't?

Once we get past the empty platitudes, and it comes time to actually do without a real program, we fiscal conservatives usually find that not all of our friends are still with us.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Since pretty much everyone in the thread (and nearly everywhere) is rallying around the cause of "fiscal conservatism," I thought I'd share a notion of mine that has been developing. I think the emperor may have no clothes there.

It sounds responsible and noble to be a fiscal conservative -- but I'm not totally sold that everyone is really on board with that idea. Okay, lots of people can support tax cuts, but it's the spending side that is usually the rub. When it comes right down to it, the people who are willing to actually stand up and support cutting or eliminating popular, good, effective, and worthwhile federal programs that are currently tax-supported -- I think there are more weak knees than meet the eye.

And this is, as much as anything, why the legions of self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" never get anywhere. While they say that's what they really want, any degree of detail triggers a bailout from a sizable faction. Oh, not medical research! Not the space program, where will we get the next Tang? Well, we still need to have a win-win military capability! You can't cut libraries! But we *support* special needs kids! But these banks *need* this money! But these prescriptions are too expensive for old people! But clean coal is our future! And so on...

Everyone would like a tax cut. Especially if it's adorned with some nice adjectives like "targeted" or "strategic" or related to a "stimulus." We get that. And everyone wants to cut the waste, fraud, and abuse in the government. Duh. That's like being opposed to child abuse... who isn't?

Once we get past the empty platitudes, and it comes time to actually do without a real program, we fiscal conservatives usually find that not all of our friends are still with us.

Hmm, I actually am the opposite of what you are saying here. When I call myself a fiscal conservative, that doesn't just mean to me no taxes or less taxes. I actually have said before that I know the importance of taxes and I don't mind that I have to pay them. I would rather pay the taxes moreso at a local level. What I do mind is spending more and more and more in taxes constantly to have those taxes go off to who knows what various special interest or bloated government program.

I feel that the military spending should be reduced. We should spend enough to keep a strong arm force and not become weak to other will-be predators out there, but a smaller budget on military also means perhaps it is time for us to stop being the World policecop and spending our money to go solve everyone else's problems as well. I feel we should reduce the amount that is spent to various social programs that are either excess, or bloated or just don't work the right way.

I think the absolute first step to being a fiscal conservative is having to be willing to reduce the spending all across the board. It makes absolute zero sense in cutting how much is coming in before you cut how much is going out. I obviously can't give a line by line item list of how much should be cut from what, but I think the general idea is sound. People in this country have been doing it backwards too long, where they spend the money and then realize they need more to come in.

[ISiddiqui]

That's a hatchet, not a scalpel!!

Sorry, had to.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Hmm, I actually am the opposite of what you are saying here. When I call myself a fiscal conservative, that doesn't just mean to me no taxes or less taxes. I actually have said before that I know the importance of taxes and I don't mind that I have to pay them. I would rather pay the taxes moreso at a local level. What I do mind is spending more and more and more in taxes constantly to have those taxes go off to who knows what various special interest or bloated government program.

I feel that the military spending should be reduced. We should spend enough to keep a strong arm force and not become weak to other will-be predators out there, but a smaller budget on military also means perhaps it is time for us to stop being the World policecop and spending our money to go solve everyone else's problems as well. I feel we should reduce the amount that is spent to various social programs that are either excess, or bloated or just don't work the right way.

I think the absolute first step to being a fiscal conservative is having to be willing to reduce the spending all across the board. It makes absolute zero sense in cutting how much is coming in before you cut how much is going out. I obviously can't give a line by line item list of how much should be cut from what, but I think the general idea is sound. People in this country have been doing it backwards too long, where they spend the money and then realize they need more to come in.

+1 The idea that most of us pay up to 6X more in federal taxes than state/local is absurd, especially when a good chunk of that money is simply coming back to the states (education, transportation being prime examples).

The military expenditures are by far the biggest thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I think the absolute first step to being a fiscal conservative is having to be willing to reduce the spending all across the board.

I won't particularly disagree with that general statement.
I also believe you're going to be very lonely.

The old adage about "whose ox is being gored" applies to the vast majority of Americans (and probably any other nationality you'd like to name).

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It sounds responsible and noble to be a fiscal conservative -- but I'm not totally sold that everyone is really on board with that idea. Okay, lots of people can support tax cuts, but it's the spending side that is usually the rub. When it comes right down to it, the people who are willing to actually stand up and support cutting or eliminating popular, good, effective, and worthwhile federal programs that are currently tax-supported -- I think there are more weak knees than meet the eye.

Ah, but the number of government programs that are nothing but bloat and waste are just as numerous as the number of programs that SHOULD be funded. And many of the things that should be funded, should be initiatives at the state level to begin with.

Add to that the sheer amount of waste prevalent in such a massive government, and there are ways to reduce spending heavily without such "hard" choices.

[SFL Cat]

Ah...the new GLP ... greedy liberal party

If McCain hadn't picked Palin and energized the social conservatives, he would have actually lost by the double digits most of the polls were projecting. I really had no strong interest in voting until he picked her, and even despite some of her cringeworthy moments (not that Biden didn't have a whole slew of his own -- he simply wasn't ridiculed/demonized like she was..."that's just Joe...we all know he shoots his mouth off without thinking.") she was the big attraction for me.

In addition, as others have stated, cutting taxes ain't the problem. Everyone promises that. Hell, Clinton and Obama both promised that. Now like Clinton, it remains to be seen whether Obama actually delivers on this, but it was promised. However, when it comes to the spending side...no one seems to have the balls to actually do something about this. While everyone seems to like to see the other guys' pork get cut, they get a little prickly when it comes to their own.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But the fiscal conservatives are stuck in the same leaky boat. I've already acknowledged that neither can win without the other (unfortunate reality that may be) and it takes us back to what I described in another thread: A Dem dynasty opposed by what amounts to a pair of third parties.

Which is actually something that the more-parties-the-merrier crowd should be excited about, as should the compromise/negotiate crowd when it comes to Congress. I can very much imagine a scenario where Congress is split three ways and no one has a majority & the amount of vote swapping needed to get anything passed would be astonishing for US politics.

I am one of those "more parties the merrier" crowd and I agree with you on this. I think this self created destruction within the republican party is a fantastic step forward for this country's politics as a whole.

Originally Posted by lungs

When has social conservatism ultimately won in this country? I'm not thinking small things but more along the lines of slavery/segregation and now gay rights seems to be the big item.

But ultimately while social conservatives slow down rampant socially liberal policies they ultimately lose and then pick a new issue to throw their weight behind.

When old people die and younger people come of age, old ideas die and new ideas are brought to the forefront. Yes, if the Republicans abandon the social conservatives now, they will pay deep consequences for a while, but the social conservatives will move onto something else.

It's how we've evolved (or devolved depending on your take) as humans for a long time and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

This is a fantastic overview of this country's changes over time. THe conservatives fight tooth and nail against change in almost any form until at some point they simply get ridden out of town and they change their focus to something new. Its the conservative side of the nation that slows down progress overall for Americans (socially speaking) however this is not entirely a bad thing, there is some good to be found in moving more slowly on many issues, its a balancing act. We need conservatives in some level enough to help us as a society understand the changes we're making fully so we avoid severe mishaps along the way. I just think they've been too much of a slowdown in the past and we need to loosen it up a little.

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm with you, Chief. Some ramblings:

We want Americans, and the world in general, to be happy and prosperous. We want people to have the ability to make their own destiny. This is the premise of America, that every American has the means and the responsibility to make his own life.

For the most part, that's what this country is right now. The problems/challenges we face are:

- Persistent poverty. There are an unacceptable number of Americans who live below the poverty line (although very few are extremely poor).

- An unacceptably large budget deficit. I am not convinced that any budget deficit is a bad thing, and I'm not quite convinced that our deficit is too large - but its certainly something that gives lots of smart folks quite a bit of pause, and it may lead to an erosion of power - and power is what makes the greatness of America possible.

I'm not going to mention the middle east or the current economic crisis; the middle east is a bitch, and different people have different ideas. The current economic crisis seems likely to lead to some short term pain, and its possible that it could lead to something much worse - but historically its just some noise on the charts.

Foreign policy is a leading issue for me. I am unabashedly imperialist. But what is important is that my country be stronger than any other, and that as long as we have enemies that they should suffer more than us.

So, lets talk about how we're going to smooth out the budget, and raise the living standards of the bottom fifth of Americans, while maintaining the romantic ideals that make this country one of the best ideas mankind has ever had, and while maintaining/re-establishing our position as the world's one superpower.

I love you man. I agree with this almost to the very punctuation marks you choose. *sniffle*

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Ah, but the number of government programs that are nothing but bloat and waste are just as numerous as the number of programs that SHOULD be funded. And many of the things that should be funded, should be initiatives at the state level to begin with.

Add to that the sheer amount of waste prevalent in such a massive government, and there are ways to reduce spending heavily without such "hard" choices.

This is where I set my hardline on smaller government.

Cut the house of representatives in half. We do not need the huge number of representatives in place that we have. With the advances in communications there is no reason that a smaller number of people can support and confur with a larger constituancy.

Keep the senate at 2 apiece.

Stop paying for every god damned thing for the legislators. Houses, travel, cars. THATS the pork. These people are paid a valid wage to do a job and that is to govern and manage this nation. They have a responsibility to DO their job, the nation does not have a responsibility to pander to their wants and needs. WORK for your living people. I correlate the senators and representatives and everyone else in the capitol as the same as the old world courtisans and aristocracy, they see themselves above the rest of this country and that needs to change, they are civil SERVANTS they are not lords and ladies in waiting.

Look at the numbers for what is spent on congressmen, cutting that number in half (or more if I had my way) would take a huge bite out of the spending issues in this country. a HUGE bite.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Ah...the new GLP ... greedy liberal party

If McCain hadn't picked Palin and energized the social conservatives, he would have actually lost by the double digits most of the polls were projecting. I really had no strong interest in voting until he picked her, and even despite some of her cringeworthy moments (not that Biden didn't have a whole slew of his own -- he simply wasn't ridiculed/demonized like she was..."that's just Joe...we all know he shoots his mouth off without thinking.") she was the big attraction for me.

In addition, as others have stated, cutting taxes ain't the problem. Everyone promises that. Hell, Clinton and Obama both promised that. Now like Clinton, it remains to be seen whether Obama actually delivers on this, but it was promised. However, when it comes to the spending side...no one seems to have the balls to actually do something about this. While everyone seems to like to see the other guys' pork get cut, they get a little prickly when it comes to their own.

I have to step back and wonder at those, like you, who thought Palin was anything but a gross and utter mistake. She had more ragged edges and problems hanging from her facade than almost anyone out there, no matter her supposed stand on issues, she was a terrible person in general and an obvious power monger. How can you honestly say she was attractive as a candidate?? McCain had a much better shot at this election BEFORE he named Palin, IMO that move totally destroyed any chance McCain had from that point forward.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I have to step back and wonder at those, like you, who thought Palin was anything but a gross and utter mistake. She had more ragged edges and problems hanging from her facade than almost anyone out there, no matter her supposed stand on issues, she was a terrible person in general and an obvious power monger. How can you honestly say she was attractive as a candidate?? McCain had a much better shot at this election BEFORE he named Palin, IMO that move totally destroyed any chance McCain had from that point forward.

The only point in the race where he led in the polls was after he selected Palin. And that was just days after Obama's supposed "slam dunk" acceptance speech at the DNC.

[ISiddiqui]

McCain had a much better shot at this election BEFORE he named Palin

No way. A skeptical base gives him a better shot? I mean did you see the difference in the size of the crowds McCain had and those Palin did?

[Big Fo]

I would love to see this happen and watch the current Republican Party dissolve.

[SFL Cat]

Actually, I think the Democrat party has just as many fractures and fissions as the GOP, perhaps more. It's just that this election cycle, they could all rally around hating Bush and having a charismatic front man. Even then, the vote was essentially 50-50

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No way. A skeptical base gives him a better shot? I mean did you see the difference in the size of the crowds McCain had and those Palin did?

I agree with the assertion that the magnitude of the defeat would have been greater if he didn't veer to the right on both certain issues and with the VP selection.

If you are a republican candidate, who is more likely to vote for you, a conservative or a moderate? Based on historically low voter turnout in our country, there was a lot more upside in just getting your base to vote, rather than trying to flip moderate voters. This was a cornerstone of Republican electoral strategy in the past decade (especially since there are more self-described conservatives than liberals in the electorate), and it has worked out very well for them until this year.

I do wonder if this strategy may have to change a little, now that early voting is more pervasive. I still think that turning out the base will still be the key strategic lever, but early voting does make it more convenient and easier to vote (which increases turnout). Though somewhat far-fetched, I can picture a scenario where a culture of early voting may result in both party bases turning out reliably. In that case, the opportunity would no longer be with base GOTV, but with flipping the moderates--which would necessitate moves to the center. Of course, since there are more conservatives, the advantage would go to the republicans in this scenario, since they would need fewer moderates to flip. But, still, in this scenario they can't ignore moderates like they were able to in the past.

[albionmoonlight]

Just food for thought:

The Modern Whig Party

Fiscal conservatives, social progressives, and for a strong national defense.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

The only point in the race where he led in the polls was after he selected Palin. And that was just days after Obama's supposed "slam dunk" acceptance speech at the DNC.

Wasn't that just a simple convention bounce? Things went right back to where they were fairly quickly and only got worse from there.

[timmynausea]

The Whig party actually sounds pretty rad.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by lungs

Wasn't that just a simple convention bounce? Things went right back to where they were fairly quickly and only got worse from there.

McCain didn't actually lose the lead in the polls until the Subprime Crisis began.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Just food for thought:

The Modern Whig Party

Fiscal conservatives, social progressives, and for a strong national defense.

Wignasty is the self-appointed presidential candidate for life.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

The only point in the race where he led in the polls was after he selected Palin. And that was just days after Obama's supposed "slam dunk" acceptance speech at the DNC.

Well, that was before anyone actually knew anything about her. As soon as people got to know her, she became an anchor to his campaign.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

The Whig party actually sounds pretty rad.

While I find the owl mascot kind of cool, I'm not sure how the "we're smarter and better than you" vibe that the symbol exudes will play with the masses...

[timmynausea]

I think the good and bad of Palin basically cancelled each other out. She energized the social conservative base and turned off moderates. When it comes down to it, maybe there was nothing a VP candidate could do, but I don't think she helped much in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida where every recent election has been won or lost.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

I think the good and bad of Palin basically cancelled each other out. She energized the social conservative base and turned off moderates. When it comes down to it, maybe there was nothing a VP candidate could do, but I don't think she helped much in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida where every recent election has been won or lost.

My point all along is:

1) Palin probably did get more far-right out to vote meaning more votes for the Republicans.
2) Palin pushed more moderates to vote for Obama which means more votes for the Democrats

In the end this Republican strategy of trying to appeal to the right ended up with a zero gain for them and a plus gain for the Democrats.

If they had appealed more to the moderates, they might not have had their base vote as strongly, but they would have pulled more voters from the moderate pool. This would still mean perhaps a zero gain for the Republicans, but would have been a net loss for the Democrats.

I think that is the point I am trying to make.. sticking to your base is all good except you also are increasing your opponent's vote totals in the process and doing their work for them.

[SFL Cat]

Don't know about Ohio or PA, but she was a big draw down here in Florida. She had the kind of "star appeal" (for lack of a better phrase) that McCain never had.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Don't know about Ohio or PA, but she was a big draw down here in Florida. She had the kind of "star appeal" (for lack of a better phrase) that McCain never had.

Apparently not big enough, however.