The New GOP

[Chief Rum]

Okay, I suggested it in the election thread. So who's with me?

Platform to be established through further discussion, but as of right now, the basic principles will be as follows:

1) Less spending, less taxes
2) Socially centrist, with maybe a slight lean to the right
3) Absolutely no religious meddling in government affairs

I'll call it the Chief Rum Party for now, to force us to come up with a better name.

I guess I'll stump it on my own until I get any support.

I think the old GOP has outlived its usefulness, and some seem to think it should be even more conservative. IMO, that's dinosaur thinking, and only further going down the road that handed this country to the other side.

So this is the GNP, I guess.

[SirFozzie]

The Grand New Party.

[MrBug708]

Keep health care private and I'm sold.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Keep health care private and I'm sold.

Oh, that's a lock. See, principle #1 in the first post.

[DaddyTorgo]

what's foreign policy like?

[DanGarion]

How about the environment?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

what's foreign policy like?

Well, keep in mind, that what I have laid out in the first post is supposed be the basis, and what we build from that is up to the party membership in general. So my take on foreign policy is only my take, and may differ a little from the desires of the majority. But here's what I would like:

Rule #1: No more nation-building. Not because taking out Saddam was wrong or anything like that, but the cost is just too high, in financial terms, in political capital with the rest of the world, and particularly in the cost of American lives, and for what gain?

Rule #2: We still support defense and the armed forces. Defense spending would still be a staple of the budget, but not to Cold War levels, but not so low that we fall behind any other country in the world militarily. IMO, maintaining our superiority in the military and in military technology is critical.

Rule #3: We stop the world's policeman bull, and only spend the resources where it makes sense for us and American interests (particularly economic). Too much of the world depends on the American military to be there. Maybe if we weren't, they would actually start taking care of stuff themselves for once.

Rule #4: We return to working with the United Nations, and more importantly, work to actually make that an organization that matters and actually has teeth. And if that doesn't work, I wouldn't be against withdrawing from it altogether. Spending resources on a pointless organization violates principle #1.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

How about the environment?

Business/commerce over extreme environmental concepts. But moderate environmental ideas over extreme capitalistic exploitation. I don't think we should push green values to the point where we are hurting ourselves economically by doing so. But I don't think it's unreasonable to strongly pursue renewable energy resources, and to be much more in favor of preserving natural resources.

But by and large, humans before plants and animals, and Earth before humans.

Once again, though, that's just my take. These are things best hashed out with further discussion. I think most of the perspectives should ideally fall closer to the center.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Well, keep in mind, that what I have laid out in the first post is supposed be the basis, and what we build from that is up to the party membership in general. So my take on foreign policy is only my take, and may differ a little from the desires of the majority. But here's what I would like:

Rule #1: No more nation-building. Not because taking out Saddam was wrong or anything like that, but the cost is just too high, in financial terms, in political capital with the rest of the world, and particularly in the cost of American lives, and for what gain?

Rule #2: We still support defense and the armed forces. Defense spending would still be a staple of the budget, but not to Cold War levels, but not so low that we fall behind any other country in the world militarily. IMO, maintaining our superiority in the military and in military technology is critical.

Rule #3: We stop the world's policeman bull, and only spend the resources where it makes sense for us and American interests (particularly economic). Too much of the world depends on the American military to be there. Maybe if we weren't, they would actually start taking care of stuff themselves for once.

Rule #4: We return to working with the United Nations, and more importantly, work to actually make that an organization that matters and actually has teeth. And if that doesn't work, I wouldn't be against withdrawing from it altogether. Spending resources on a pointless organization violates principle #1.

i think i like the sound of a lot of this, with more hashing-out of course

[DanGarion]

See the problem with all of this is you are making too much sense.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

See the problem with all of this is you are making too much sense.

lmao

[stevew]

How are we funding this thing?

I'd suggest for starters, a ban on all federal medicare/social security/Payroll taxes whatsoever.

Flat rate income tax of 15% kicking in at about 50k per family.

Ease out social security from a certain point forward. There's other ways to handle this. Honor commitments already established.

Quit funding the majority of programs to states. If they can't figure out how to afford it, maybe they don't need to be doing it.

Eliminate tax refunds/EIC, all that shit.

We build roads, we provide defense. And the Mail.

[sooner333]

I like the premise, but I believe there needs to be at least a states-rights part of the platform. Roe v. Wade has to go, not because it's necessicarily evil to be pro-choice, but because the Constitution did not reserve a right to privacy. I'm personally pro-life (with some exceptions), and I know my state would support that platform, but it's certainly not nationwide policy.

I support a party that nationally taxes and spends less, but I do believe certain decisions need to be made on the state and local level. Even as a conservative, I know that government needs to provide some things and make laws, but local is better and I think the party has lost its focus on that.

[SirFozzie]

Roe v Wade would be a killer each way. Pro-choice, you lose the right side of it. Pro-Life, you lose the left side.

Trying to find a middle ground (Impossible I know, but...) "Safe, Rare and legal". I would spend lots of money on giving mothers more options to carry the baby to term, I dunno tax credits or what have you, or free healthcare if they bring the baby to term.

[Chief Rum]

I like that ideas are being tossed around. Hopefully, more will come here and offer their own ideas, and we can begin to get a sense of what people would support in this new party. I am going to be at work all day tomorrow, but I look forward to reading this thread when I get home.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Keep health care private and I'm sold.

You are aware that for what America presently spends per insured person on health care mot European countries manage to cover their entire population ....

(ie. the present American system is very inefficient and encourages the money spent to be done extremely inefficiently - the amount of pointless tests my family has had foisted on us in the short time over in Florida is incredible - each of which 'costs' and helps ultimately increase the overall insurance costs for people)

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Roe v Wade would be a killer each way. Pro-choice, you lose the right side of it. Pro-Life, you lose the left side.

Trying to find a middle ground (Impossible I know, but...) "Safe, Rare and legal". I would spend lots of money on giving mothers more options to carry the baby to term, I dunno tax credits or what have you, or free healthcare if they bring the baby to term.

I wasn't going to comment on anything further for now, but then I saw this last from Sir Foz. I really like this last concept, finding ways to keep abortion "legal" per say, but giving strong encouragements to carrying the babies to term. Very good idea, Foz.

(Oh, and I am pro-life, BTW)

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

You are aware that for what America presently spends per insured person on health care mot European countries manage to cover their entire population ....

(ie. the present American system is very inefficient and encourages the money spent to be done extremely inefficiently - the amount of pointless tests my family has had foisted on us in the short time over in Florida is incredible - each of which 'costs' and helps ultimately increase the overall insurance costs for people)

Okay, I'll respond to this, too. Marc is right--there is far too much glut in the American health care system, private and public. I think we should strongly encourage ways to make this system more efficient (but keeping it primarily private, as much as possible).

[JetsIn06]

I like this. You may be able to convert me.

[Karlifornia]

I like a lot of your ideas, Chief, but I think I'm just too far left on #2 in your original post. I don't think I could budge on that.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I like a lot of your ideas, Chief, but I think I'm just too far left on #2 in your original post. I don't think I could budge on that.

2) Socially centrist, with maybe a slight lean to the right
3) Absolutely no religious meddling in government affairs

I'm with you Karl, but #3 sort of saves it for me.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

2) Socially centrist, with maybe a slight lean to the right
3) Absolutely no religious meddling in government affairs

I'm with you Karl, but #3 sort of saves it for me.

How much of #2 can hold true without #3? I think #3 is pretty much impossible, unless people stop having religious beliefs altogether

[Dutch]

The GOP needs to adjust, no doubt about it. With absolutely no leadership left, it's the perfect time to reshape and remold. It wouldn't be the first time a party had to do so and it's essential to the survival of the 2-party system.

The good news is that the ideals of the center-right are left for the taking by the new leadership. The Democrats, in their zeal to defeat President Bush (I know he's not running, but that was recipe for success) they have all but left the center-right up for grabs. The "new" GOP will have to recapture that territory and I agree that it's not "religious" territory to grab and the Republican Party would be smart to avoid allowing that to be such a crutch in today's day and age. (The terrority of the center-right is generally Americans that like America the way it is and doesn't want so much "change" when the change is to much towards a socialistic state or a religious state or an unchecked private sector CEO state.)

More good news is that beyond the baggage that President Bush ended up being, the Iraq War defined the Dem idealogy abroad and shaped the climate for this election. That won't be an issue in 2016*.

There isn't much ground to make up, but it will take some effort to make it up.

As for a low-tax/minimal spending government, and with the notion of rebuilding, it might be a good time for the liberatarians to make some in-roads into the aiding with the redefinition of the opposing party to the Democrats. After all, you don't build a 3rd party in this country, you rebuild the losing party.

(*I am certain it will take more than 4 years for the GOP to rebuild and I see no reason right now why Obama can't win re-elecion in 2012.)

[flounder]

There's an article in the Washington Post by Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona laying out a similar road for the GOP to follow.

I suggest that we return to first principles. At the top of that list has to be a recommitment to limited government. After eight years of profligate spending and soaring deficits, voters can be forgiven for not knowing that limited government has long been the first article of faith for Republicans….

Second, we need to recommit to our belief in economic freedom. Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” may be on the discount rack this year, but the free market is still the most efficient means to allocate capital and human resources in an economy, and Americans know it. Now that we’ve inserted government deeply into the private sector by bailing out banks and businesses, the temptation will be for government to overstay its welcome and force the distribution of resources to serve political ends. Substituting political for economic incentives is not the recipe for economic recovery….

In some respects, raising a new standard was made easier by yesterday’s rout. The Republican Party is not bound by election-year promises made by its presidential nominee. More important, the party is finally untethered from the ill-fitting and unworkable big-government conservatism that defined the Bush administration.

[Senator]

The GOP isn't a well oiled machine, it is a loosely run organization of political debts and networking. You will never have a unified platform.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Senator

The GOP isn't a well oiled machine, it is a loosely run organization of political debts and networking. You will never have a unified platform.

Good thing this isn't the GOP then. What I am presenting here is a rejection of the GOP status quo, as it has come to be in the past few years, dominated by a religious right conservatism and an abandonment of some of the most basic of the original Republican ideals that has essentially left us at the most "left" the government has ever been. That organization has been rather ineffective, wouldn't you say?

There is no platform which will satisfy everyone. Everyone knows that. Point is, the platform as it stands now is not acceptable to fiscal Republicans. So I am presenting an alternative.

You're free to choose whichever one fits your personal ideology best.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by stevew

How are we funding this thing?

I'd suggest for starters, a ban on all federal medicare/social security/Payroll taxes whatsoever.

Flat rate income tax of 15% kicking in at about 50k per family.

Ease out social security from a certain point forward. There's other ways to handle this. Honor commitments already established.

Quit funding the majority of programs to states. If they can't figure out how to afford it, maybe they don't need to be doing it.

Eliminate tax refunds/EIC, all that shit.

We build roads, we provide defense. And the Mail.

If you cut most foreign military commitments, the rest is uber easy to pay for.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

If you cut most foreign military commitments, the rest is uber easy to pay for.

Some, not all (or possibly even not most). Strategic bases at various places across the world are a necessary evil. Until we get teleporters, at least.

And in essence, we're defining the Libertarian Party without some of the more lunatic extreme ideas involved there. Which is precisely where my political leanings are.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Why the hard-on for building roads? I understand the initial building projects like the Interstate Highway Act of '56 that built the highway system, but how many more highways does the federal government need to build?

End the funding of roads, the funding of airlines, etc. When the government gets involved in one mode of transit, they tend to destroy any other means. If this nation had been free-market from the start it would look much different.

[Coffee Warlord]

Well, substitute roads for a real attempt at a high speed rail network, and I'd be happy.

'Course, the sheer cost of that fiasco would be mind-numbing.

[johneh]

[quote=Chief Rum;1880109]Platform to be established through further discussion, but as of right now, the basic principles will be as follows:

1) Less spending, less taxes
2) Socially centrist, with maybe a slight lean to the right
3) Absolutely no religious meddling in government affairs

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Senator

The GOP isn't a well oiled machine, it is a loosely run organization of political debts and networking. You will never have a unified platform.

Same for the Dems. Forgot Obama and even the House and Senate -- the real change is that Dems are winning governorships and statehouses with candidates that are right of several elements of the Democratic platform.

I won't proclaim to be a GOP expert because I'm an outsider. The GOP is where the Dems were in the 1980s -- the party doesn't have clearly defined priorities. What are the core principles of the GOP?

The GOP's real main problem is that you had a social conservative as the head of your party for eight years who didn't give a rip about anything else. It's the few bad apples ruining it for everyone else. Let's face it, not every Democrat in 1988 was Michael Dukakis and not every Republican today is George Bush. But that's the brush both got painted with.

The GOP has its model -- it's not 1994, it's 1964. The Gingrich approach won't work right now. Everyone wants to be a Goldwater Republican today. A healthy dose of libertarianism and fiscal responsibility is all the GOP needs.

I seriously doubt the GOP will take as long as the Dems took to learn their lessons. Dems had to get pounded three times in a row before Clinton returned them to the right path. This election isn't that far off from 1988. The GOP can win in '12 if Obama makes mistakes and the pull their act together.

[King of New York]

Even if the new GOP adopts smaller government, less spending, as its core principle, how is it going to convince Americans who lived through the Bush administration that it would actually adhere to those principles while in power?

After eight years of hearing the old GOP talk about the virtues of less spending, less government, while spending up a storm and relentlessly expanding the federal government (especially the powers of the executive branch), I think that most centrists/independents will be hard to convince of the new GOP's, or any GOP's, sincerity for the foreseeable future.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Same for the Dems. Forgot Obama and even the House and Senate -- the real change is that Dems are winning governorships and statehouses with candidates that are right of several elements of the Democratic platform.

I won't proclaim to be a GOP expert because I'm an outsider. The GOP is where the Dems were in the 1980s -- the party doesn't have clearly defined priorities. What are the core principles of the GOP?

The GOP's real main problem is that you had a social conservative as the head of your party for eight years who didn't give a rip about anything else. It's the few bad apples ruining it for everyone else. Let's face it, not every Democrat in 1988 was Michael Dukakis and not every Republican today is George Bush. But that's the brush both got painted with.

The GOP has its model -- it's not 1994, it's 1964. The Gingrich approach won't work right now. Everyone wants to be a Goldwater Republican today. A healthy dose of libertarianism and fiscal responsibility is all the GOP needs.

I seriously doubt the GOP will take as long as the Dems took to learn their lessons. Dems had to get pounded three times in a row before Clinton returned them to the right path. This election isn't that far off from 1988. The GOP can win in '12 if Obama makes mistakes and the pull their act together.

I'd add that they need to stop looking backward for inspiration. The party of Reagan just doesn't have much relevance to people under thirty. The Republicans need to craft a vision that looks decades forward rather than behind ala the Tories. Combine that with a much more likable candidate and things can turn around over the next two or three elections.

[RendeR]

I like the general premise of all this, and I'm a Democrat.

I think one key to economic stability ids Military spending. When Reagan dove into his 300+ship fleet plans the economy boomed because the government was pushing funds into high tech and high labor requisitions (IE ships/tanks/planes) Its a huge booster to the overall economy.

I' have big issues with the whole Roe V Wade thing if only that no government has the right to force a woman to keep or remove a pregnancy. Its not their call. Keep the government out of hospitals, entirely. They don't belong there. I think it also falls under #3 keeping religion OUT of the government. Abortion is 99% a religious issue. no matter how its worded or stated it boils down to religion. IMO. If religion stays out of government, and government stays out of medicine, I think abortion becomes a non issue, once the general populace comes to terms with the fact that they cannot legislate their personal beliefs into someone's womb.

Keep going with this. I like what I'm reading.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

...The GOP can win in '12 if Obama makes mistakes and the pull their act together.

See now I think this is entirely the wrong thinking. The Republicans need to fogure out how to win the hearts of the nation WITHOUT requiring Obama to screw up. What I demand from my leaders is that they stand on their own merits and do not require the demise of their oponents credibility to bouy their popularity. Obama suffers a bit in my eyes because of tihs, his voctory was far more based on the total failure of the Republicans on every front than it was on his own real standards. I'm thrilled he won, but not so much thrilled as to why. I want leadership that stands out on its own without need for petty infighting to prove itself.

Originally Posted by King of New York

Even if the new GOP adopts smaller government, less spending, as its core principle, how is it going to convince Americans who lived through the Bush administration that it would actually adhere to those principles while in power?

After eight years of hearing the old GOP talk about the virtues of less spending, less government, while spending up a storm and relentlessly expanding the federal government (especially the powers of the executive branch), I think that most centrists/independents will be hard to convince of the new GOP's, or any GOP's, sincerity for the foreseeable future.

This is a HUGE point and could keep the Republicans out of power for the next 3 elections +.

[CamEdwards]

I suspect there'll be a lot of good ideas coming out of this thread, but one thing I'd suggest is to not let it die here. For those who want a re-invigorated GOP, get involved at the local or state level.

A quick question for RendeR... can you elaborate on your statement of "keep the government out of hospitals"? Are you opposed to government run healthcare and/or research and development of medical technologies, drugs, etc?

[SirFozzie]

Cam: That's the problem. They don't WANT "our type" in the GOP. (fiscally conservative, socially moderate/liberal). They've made the religious/social issue their acid test for membership. There's no place for us under the Big Tent (which is rapidly shrinking)

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

See now I think this is entirely the wrong thinking. The Republicans need to fogure out how to win the hearts of the nation WITHOUT requiring Obama to screw up. What I demand from my leaders is that they stand on their own merits and do not require the demise of their oponents credibility to bouy their popularity. Obama suffers a bit in my eyes because of tihs, his voctory was far more based on the total failure of the Republicans on every front than it was on his own real standards. I'm thrilled he won, but not so much thrilled as to why. I want leadership that stands out on its own without need for petty infighting to prove itself.

That's just not practical, nor is it human nature. If it's not broken, why fix it? In order for the American people to give the GOP another shot, the Dems will have to make enough mistakes that the voters are no longer quite so enamored with them.

The challenge for the GOP (as kcchief alluded to) is that they need to have something better to offer when those mistakes are made. I think the problem the GOP faces in SOME cases is one of packaging and implementation of ideas, not necessarily the ideas themselves.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Cam: That's the problem. They don't WANT "our type" in the GOP. (fiscally conservative, socially moderate/liberal). They've made the religious/social issue their acid test for membership. There's no place for us under the Big Tent (which is rapidly shrinking)

I truly don't understand this point of view. My wife, a pro-choice atheist, voted Republican for the first time since Reagan in '84 yesterday (long story about why Reagan got her vote back then... she wasn't a huge fan). Who is the "they" you're talking about and how is this acid test administered?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Cam: That's the problem. They don't WANT "our type" in the GOP. (fiscally conservative, socially moderate/liberal). They've made the religious/social issue their acid test for membership. There's no place for us under the Big Tent (which is rapidly shrinking)

And they showed they don't give two shits about any values except for religious/social stuff, and even that's hypocritical (no abortions ever, but killing thousands in Iraq for no reason is ok).

If people were truly happy with the Dems, the margin of victory would have been much more than 7-8%. They're the lesser evil and what's described here is a better way.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I truly don't understand this point of view. My wife, a pro-choice atheist, voted Republican for the first time since Reagan in '84 yesterday (long story about why Reagan got her vote back then... she wasn't a huge fan). Who is the "they" you're talking about and how is this acid test administered?

Are you honestly asking or is this sarcasm and I'm missing it?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I truly don't understand this point of view. My wife, a pro-choice atheist, voted Republican for the first time since Reagan in '84 yesterday (long story about why Reagan got her vote back then... she wasn't a huge fan). Who is the "they" you're talking about and how is this acid test administered?

The folks who "excommunicated" Peggy Noonan, Krum and Colin Powell from the party because of their doubts about Palin.

The ones who bounced William Buckley Jr from his column because he had the effrontery to endorse Barack Obama.

The discussion I heard on POTUS 08 (during PJM Political from Instapundit and several other conservative speakers) how several conservative voices "were dead to us" because they disagreed with the direction of the policy. One said "To quote Chruchill, it's easy to rat, but hard to re-rat (ie, come back to the conservative side). Even if someone acceptable to them runs in 2012, we shouldn't accept their views")

The archbishops who said that voting for Barack Obama is a mortal sin, saying that voting for Obama puts your immortal soul at risk.

The political pundits saying that the core values (running against abortion and gay marriage) will keep the party running for decades to come.

Right now, the GOP doesn't take criticism well. Some of it, I understand, the GOP is in a circular firing squad because their man got beat handily. But while I speak only for myself, and not for others, I just don't feel welcome in a party that defines who is good or not so narrowly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Cam: That's the problem. They don't WANT "our type" in the GOP. (fiscally conservative, socially moderate/liberal). They've made the religious/social issue their acid test for membership. There's no place for us under the Big Tent (which is rapidly shrinking)

I'm mostly leaving this one to those so inclined to travel down this road, but I hope you won't mind an observation at least.

I suspect I'm representative of at least a segment of the "they" you're referring to at this point), and as far as I'm concerned you're welcome ... as long as you don't interfere on the social issues. I don't care for the party stance on abortion one bit but in order to work toward goals of higher priority for me I've bit my lip & suffered it to be so. If those social aims/policies/goals aren't something you can live with then it doesn't seem to me that we belong in the same party. If they are then we can all continue to sing Kumbaya at least a while longer as we're still more likely to attain more of both our aims together than apart.

Whether the fiscals or the socials get custody of the monicker really doesn't matter much to me. I was a man without a party when I found this one, if it ceases to be compatible with my priorities then I'll look elsewhere.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Okay, I suggested it in the election thread. So who's with me?

Platform to be established through further discussion, but as of right now, the basic principles will be as follows:

1) Less spending, less taxes
2) Socially centrist, with maybe a slight lean to the right
3) Absolutely no religious meddling in government affairs

I'll call it the Chief Rum Party for now, to force us to come up with a better name.

I guess I'll stump it on my own until I get any support.

I think the old GOP has outlived its usefulness, and some seem to think it should be even more conservative. IMO, that's dinosaur thinking, and only further going down the road that handed this country to the other side.

So this is the GNP, I guess.

Ironically, this was the GOP before it got thrashed in the 1964 election. And of course, after another decade or so of soul-searching, it threw it's lot into an alliance with the grass-roots social conservative movement en route to a couple of decades of renewed vitality.

I guess things may have come full circle again. But the question is, can this "new GOP" afford to divorce the social conservatives?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Ironically, this was the GOP before it got thrashed in the 1964 election. And of course, after another decade or so of soul-searching, it threw it's lot into an alliance with the grass-roots social conservative movement en route to a couple of decades of renewed vitality.

I guess things may have come full circle again. But the question is, can this "new GOP" afford to divorce the social conservatives?

Can they afford not to?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm mostly leaving this one to those so inclined to travel down this road, but I hope you won't mind an observation at least.

I suspect I'm representative of at least a segment of the "they" you're referring to at this point), and as far as I'm concerned you're welcome ... as long as you don't interfere on the social issues. I don't care for the party stance on abortion one bit but in order to work toward goals of higher priority for me I've bit my lip & suffered it to be so. If those social aims/policies/goals aren't something you can live with then it doesn't seem to me that we belong in the same party. If they are then we can all continue to sing Kumbaya at least a while longer as we're still more likely to attain more of both our aims together than apart.

Whether the fiscals or the socials get custody of the monicker really doesn't matter much to me. I was a man without a party when I found this one, if it ceases to be compatible with my priorities then I'll look elsewhere.

Maybe instead of the Fiscal conservatives who lean socially moderate or slightly to the left being held hostage by the religious right, things should swap. Perhaps those that are both socially and fiscally conservative should have to tolerate only having one half of their agenda met in order to try to gain back Washington.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

The folks who "excommunicated" Peggy Noonan, Krum and Colin Powell from the party because of their doubts about Palin.

The ones who bounced William Buckley Jr from his column because he had the effrontery to endorse Barack Obama.

The discussion I heard on POTUS 08 (during PJM Political from Instapundit and several other conservative speakers) how several conservative voices "were dead to us" because they disagreed with the direction of the policy. One said "To quote Chruchill, it's easy to rat, but hard to re-rat (ie, come back to the conservative side). Even if someone acceptable to them runs in 2012, we shouldn't accept their views")

The archbishops who said that voting for Barack Obama is a mortal sin, saying that voting for Obama puts your immortal soul at risk.

The political pundits saying that the core values (running against abortion and gay marriage) will keep the party running for decades to come.

Right now, the GOP doesn't take criticism well. Some of it, I understand, the GOP is in a circular firing squad because their man got beat handily. But while I speak only for myself, and not for others, I just don't feel welcome in a party that defines who is good or not so narrowly.

Fighter of Foo, that was a real question. I promise to note my sarcasm in this thread to avoid any confusion.

Again, who "excommunicated" Noonan, Frum, or Powell? In the case of Powell, he came out and endorsed Obama. That's not conservatives kicking Powell out of the GOP, that's Powell wandering away. Noonan and Frum took a lot of grief for bitching about Palin while the election was over, giving talking points and ammunition to the opposition. Neither, by the way, have been "excommunicated", but faced vociferous disagreement from those who felt differently. Presumably dissent is still patriotic (okay, THAT was sarcasm)?

His name is Christopher Buckley, and he wasn't "bounced" from his column. He offered to resign as a columnist for National Review, and NR accepted.

As for the pundits on POTUS, how are they any different than the Dems who blacklisted Joe Lieberman?

Archbishops are concerned about the sanctity of human life. They have a moral, not purely Christian objection to abortion, and if they truly feel that a vote for Obama is condoning the murder of a child, they have a moral obligation to say so. You can, of course, call them hypocrites for not caring about the War in Iraq (though then I think you have to get into Church teaching on the concept of "just war").

The pundits who say abortion and gay marriage will be enough to keep the party going for decades to come are kidding themselves, but I confess to not knowing who you're talking about. Personally, I think economic conservatism is going to be much more important in getting the party back on track, but that doesn't mean that social issues don't have their place.

It just seems to me that if you want the GOP to be a bigger tent, then you've got to join and help enlarge it. Standing on the outside and waiting for others to do the work for you isn't going to help, nor is saying "change this and do that and THEN I'll be a Republican".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Perhaps those that are both socially and fiscally conservative should have to tolerate only having one half of their agenda met in order to try to gain back Washington.

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Can they afford not to?

They weren't that successful pre-Reagan though. From 32-80 the Republicans controlled congress for a total of four years and held the presidency for only four terms.