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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/04/AR2008110403872.html) 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]

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]

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]

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

:D :D :D :D

[kcchief19]

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]

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]

...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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Fighter of Foo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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! :D

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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*

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://modernwhig.org/)

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

[lungs]

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]

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]

Just food for thought:

The Modern Whig Party (http://modernwhig.org/)

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

Wignasty is the self-appointed presidential candidate for life. :lol:

[KWhit]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Big Fo]

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...

It works for the Democrats and the Republicans.

[SFL Cat]

Apparently not big enough, however.

Yep, missed by about 200,000 votes out of 8 million cast.

[JPhillips]

There's anecdotal evidence that she solidified the Jewish voting block for Obama.

[JonInMiddleGA]

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.

But the sometime limited polling data on the subject (cited during coverage on election night & linked by me here sometime Tuesday morning'ish) indicates otherwise. The gist of it was something to the effect that Independents who thought the VP was important in their decision to vote split slightly in favor of McCain (54% IIRC) & that 90% of Republicans who thought it was important voted also voted for McCain.

Her inclusion on the ticket may have sent a few more Dems to the polls in response but I'm just not seeing or hearing much from the final tally to indicate that she did anything but help McCain's margin. As one pundit put it Tuesday night "she did what she was supposed to do, she just couldn't do enough of it".

[JonInMiddleGA]

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

Brings me back to something I thought about Tuesday night but don't believe I've mentioned yet.

Was McCain's call off the debate gambit & it's lack of success the most pivotal moment of the actual campaign (i.e. never mind the prevailing conditions leading up to & during the campaign for a minute)? It seemed to me at the time, and at least as much so in hindsight, that he wanted that to be his home run shot and at best he fouled it off. I don't think he really took a good swing at another pitch after that.

[Cork]

But the sometime limited polling data on the subject (cited during coverage on election night & linked by me here sometime Tuesday morning'ish) indicates otherwise. The gist of it was something to the effect that Independents who thought the VP was important in their decision to vote split slightly in favor of McCain (54% IIRC) & that 90% of Republicans who thought it was important voted also voted for McCain.

Her inclusion on the ticket may have sent a few more Dems to the polls in response but I'm just not seeing or hearing much from the final tally to indicate that she did anything but help McCain's margin. As one pundit put it Tuesday night "she did what she was supposed to do, she just couldn't do enough of it".

Accoring to reports, she didn't even know that Africa is a continent and thought it was a country. If true, that is astounding.

-Cork

[Fighter of Foo]

But the sometime limited polling data on the subject (cited during coverage on election night & linked by me here sometime Tuesday morning'ish) indicates otherwise. The gist of it was something to the effect that Independents who thought the VP was important in their decision to vote split slightly in favor of McCain (54% IIRC) & that 90% of Republicans who thought it was important voted also voted for McCain.

Her inclusion on the ticket may have sent a few more Dems to the polls in response but I'm just not seeing or hearing much from the final tally to indicate that she did anything but help McCain's margin. As one pundit put it Tuesday night "she did what she was supposed to do, she just couldn't do enough of it".

I have a post in the big thread detailing the crosstabs in a VP poll that showed Palin not only called more attention to herself than any VP in recent history, but also that her appeal steadily decreased since she was announced. I don't have time to look it up right now.

[RendeR]

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.


As Alan sorta described thats a net LOSS for the republicans, there are far more moderates than there are right wing religo-nazis (sorry, it slipped out) and Palin was aimed at the wrong crowd. She was indeed a dead anchor screwing any realistic chance McCain had. Terrible terrible decision.

[RendeR]

Brings me back to something I thought about Tuesday night but don't believe I've mentioned yet.

Was McCain's call off the debate gambit & it's lack of success the most pivotal moment of the actual campaign (i.e. never mind the prevailing conditions leading up to & during the campaign for a minute)? It seemed to me at the time, and at least as much so in hindsight, that he wanted that to be his home run shot and at best he fouled it off. I don't think he really took a good swing at another pitch after that.


Honestly to me anyway, it felt like McCain was always looking for 'something' he could swing iwth and he just had no real ammunition. Everything about this election was bad for his party and has been for 8 years. I'm really impressed at how well he did manage to do given the completely empty cupboard he had to work with.

[RendeR]

Cam: You asked me earlier to elaborate on something, but I'm not really clear what you were looking for, can you help me a bit so I can respond to you?

[SportsDino]

I think there is room to cut the budget:

- get out of the business of corporate welfare first, this pork budget related to corporations is nuts. These are places that would be better at making money if they were not weakening themselves up at the government titty.

- No Iraq, was against it before it started because I thought they would bungle it, they did worst than I imagined them bungling it. Saves a big chunk.

- Pull out of Afghanistan, they need to police their own country. If we know of terrorist cells, blow the crap out of them before pulling out. If a democracy is not strong enough to defend itself its not going to survive as a democracy.

- Stop subsidies, yes that includes agriculture.

- Stop bailing out banks. The government should soak up a bunch of potentially revenue generating real assets instead of pooring money down the finance corruption drain (I can't deny it anymore, its just pure outright corruption at this point hiding behind the complexity of the market).

- Reduce the 'war on drugs', prisons are expensive. Prosecute fraud on Wall Street and maybe offer really huge fines/recompensation in place of jail time.

- Cut overhead across the board, particularly fire half of Congress (I'd even say go down to 1 senator per state), nuke the Department of Education (pure bureacracy not a single dollar goes toward improving student performance, its all management, the real work is done by the money given to states which eventually is given to schools).

- Simplify the IRS, first by eliminating loopholes and crazy complication of the tax code. I would support simplification even if they raise taxes on most brackets. Once the budget is cut and the code simplified, racket down the brackets till they make sense. (I disagree with flat tax and national sales tax proposals, they will increase wealth gap and strangle out people trying to rise up from the lower classes which is what we need for economic growth)

- Tax the wealth where needed, I disagree with the economics that a 1% capital gains reduction grows the economy... if anything we are seeing the opposite, an increase in speculative investment and decrease in real economic growth. Incentives should be aimed towards growing businesses (lower taxes for employees, less stupid fees, less barriers to entry, lower corporate taxes for growing the business, but more taxes on extracting the wealth from the company), not making it easier to gamble. Right now I think taxes have been rigged towards being friendly for RAIDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS for INDIVIDUAL GAIN, rather than increasing the size and value of the company for long term investment. It almost makes more sense for billion dollar businesses to pay out multiple millions in bonuses than be taxed for the amount at a high corporate rate, its 15% versus 35%... simple math for businesses that are incompetent at long term planning as it is.

- More small business, not through pork, pork seems to be gobbled up by the big boys anyway, reduce expenditures that are solely out there to make it harder to make your own business (or political party for that matter). This may be more of a state thing. As for not so small business, I think now would be a good time for a bunch of unemployed automotive talent to make a new U.S. automaker for instance.

- Stop giving research grants to the wrong people. As in alternative energy subsidies going to OIL COMPANIES. Of course they are publicizing their research into alternative energy, they want to get that GOVERNMENT HANDOUT. Big oil has no interest in truly making green fuel, take away the pork, remove the barrier to new entrants, and watch an alternative energy actually come into being this coming decade rather than another ten years of 'well the technology just isn't feasible yet...'. Its an example of government interface holding an industry back in my opinion.



So anyway, I agree with the general premise of the Chief Rum Party, I do think a central platform should be to declare a 'war on bad budget and business practices'. The only war that will actually make us money instead of spend it.

[JediKooter]

My point all along is:

2) Palin pushed more moderates to vote for Obama which means more votes for the Democrats



That's me right there Alan. I was a registered Republican (a very liberal Republican) up until the 2004 elections, where I switched to Non Partisan as I felt the Republican party had become a pawn for the religious, focusing too much on issues such as abortion and family values rather than issues that affect everyone.

With Palin on the Republican ticket, even though I like McCain, I felt this was another pander to not just the religious, but, the ULTRA religious and that swayed me to Obama.

Hands down, it was Palin, not McCain that made me vote for Obama.

I will continue to be "Non Partisan" as I don't fully agree with the Democrats or the Republicans platforms and there really is no viable 3rd party yet, in my opinion, that I can align with.

[SFL Cat]

As Alan sorta described thats a net LOSS for the republicans, there are far more moderates than there are right wing religo-nazis (sorry, it slipped out) and Palin was aimed at the wrong crowd. She was indeed a dead anchor screwing any realistic chance McCain had. Terrible terrible decision.

Well, if the athiest-moneywhores...er moderates are so fickle that they are willing to jump to a guy with Marxist and socialist ties simply because a candidate doesn't try to hide his/her religious convictions in the closet, then that's a group that ain't worth wasting time on pursuing IMO.

[JPhillips]

Well, if the athiest-moneywhores...er moderates are so fickle that they are willing to jump to a guy with Marxist and socialist ties simply because a candidate doesn't try to hide his/her religious convictions in the closet, then that's a group that ain't worth wasting time on pursuing IMO.

The problem wasn't too few Republicans, it was too many.

[JediKooter]

Well, if the athiest-moneywhores...er moderates are so fickle that they are willing to jump to a guy with Marxist and socialist ties simply because a candidate doesn't try to hide his/her religious convictions in the closet, then that's a group that ain't worth wasting time on pursuing IMO.

Fickle no, common sense yes. Following a party blindy like a mindless zombie is not a quality to be proud of.

Looks like it was worth it this time. McCain could have used the votes. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

The flip-side, of course, is that if people who normally vote along with you for many of the same candidates are willing to vote against many of their beliefs to get the fuck away from people like you, then what good are you doing your party?

How much party is left without them? Or more to the point, how many elections did they win without the social conservatives? But maybe every 25 years or so is satisfactory for some people.

[ISiddiqui]

The reason why, while I'd like to jettison the social conservatives, but why it'd be a horrid idea is mainly because both parties are large coalitions. The Dems have their moderates and their far more progressive sphere (these ran into each other during the Clinton Health Care debacle of 1993). The Repubs have their moderates and the RR. If the RR leaves, you are left with the moderates and in a first past the post system means that the Dems will win far more (1 coalition party vs. two parties about half that size). In a Parliamentary system, it'd be perfectly ok. But that's not what we have.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How many elections did they win with JUST the social conservatives?

That's the point I've made in at least three different threads now, thanks for agreeing. See, there is still common ground to be found amongst the different factions.

[lungs]

There's got to be diminishing returns for social conservatism to hold onto archaic beliefs. Don't get me wrong, they are still large enough to have a large impact but it only makes sense that as old people die off and younger people come of age there are going to be different values that are almost universally more liberal than the previous generation.

Social conservatives need to begin the process of giving up on this generation's abominations and see what the next generation is going to throw out there. If they don't realize this soon, their lack of relevancy will become prevalent in due order.

[RendeR]

Well, if the athiest-moneywhores...er moderates are so fickle that they are willing to jump to a guy with Marxist and socialist ties simply because a candidate doesn't try to hide his/her religious convictions in the closet, then that's a group that ain't worth wasting time on pursuing IMO.


See, this is an example of the ignorant crap the republicans got hurt by. people getting all uppity and defensive because obama actually knows something about OTHER forms of government.

Perhaps its time to realize that Capitalism has a lot of problems and Democracy is a great idea but we're not a pure form of either. Other forms of governance have advantages too and knowing them just MIGHT help our Country.

God forbid the right wing actually open their minds and think outside their lecturns for a decade or two.

not worth wasting time persuing? they cost you this election, you damn well better persue them and find out what THEY want your party to be doing instead of trying to force feed them whaqt the party members want. talk about socialistic.

[SFL Cat]

See, this is an example of the ignorant crap the republicans got hurt by. people getting all uppity and defensive because obama actually knows something about OTHER forms of government.

Perhaps its time to realize that Capitalism has a lot of problems and Democracy is a great idea but we're not a pure form of either. Other forms of governance have advantages too and knowing them just MIGHT help our Country.

God forbid the right wing actually open their minds and think outside their lecturns for a decade or two.

not worth wasting time persuing? they cost you this election, you damn well better persue them and find out what THEY want your party to be doing instead of trying to force feed them whaqt the party members want. talk about socialistic.

First of all, we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. The founding fathers believed establishing a pure democracy would lead to anarchy...too many Sheeple in their time too, I suppose.

Secondly, you may be right. I'm sure Amerika could probably do full-blown socialism/communism much better than the U.S.S.R., China, Korea and Eastern Europe. After all we centralized education in the 70s, and the education system has never been better, right! And the government sure proved itself in its regulation and oversight of Fannie May and Freddie Mac, eh!

There will always be a problem with capitalism without conscience. When obtaining wealth becomes the "god" in a person's life, the ends justifies the means, regardless of who gets screwed, crushed or swindled.

And communism without Christ will always implode, because why exert yourself if you can't really better your position in life, and you can still basically get your "equal" share for doing next to nothing (in the U.S., these institutions are called labor unions). This was even a problem in the early Christian communes too, and it led the Apostle Paul to write in his epistle, "let those who aren't willing to work, not eat.

Finally, the government is all about legislating and controlling morality and behavior. Otherwise we would have a hyper laissez-faire society where officals at companies like Enron would be laughing all the way to the bank about how suckers and their money deserve to be separated rather than serving jail terms and personal vendettas to avenge murders, rapes, and other wrongs would be the norm. It's just when government tries to legislate morality in areas certain groups don't agree with is when we suddenly start hearing some complain about keeping all the "religious kooks" out of the government so they aren't cramming their beliefs down other people's throats.

[CamEdwards]

Cam: You asked me earlier to elaborate on something, but I'm not really clear what you were looking for, can you help me a bit so I can respond to you?

I was just looking for a further explanation of what you meant by no government involvement in healthcare. It seems to me that few people would want NO government involvement, so I was just wondering how far you wanted a free-market healthcare system to go.

[SirFozzie]

One thing I would love to see from a GNP. No, not a loyalty pledge. A MORALS pledge. If they get convicted of any politically related crime or have an adulterous affair while in office, not only will they resign, but they should have their pension plan taken from them. Too many folks (on both sides, but the hypocrisy of those supposedly running on a morals platform is a reason why the GOP is in trouble to start) think that holding office is an excuse to plunder the nation.

[SFL Cat]

That's why Republicans generally get stung far worse by scandals than Democrats...if you're gonna ride that family values horse....

[CamEdwards]

One thing I would love to see from a GNP. No, not a loyalty pledge. A MORALS pledge. If they get convicted of any politically related crime or have an adulterous affair while in office, not only will they resign, but they should have their pension plan taken from them. Too many folks (on both sides, but the hypocrisy of those supposedly running on a morals platform is a reason why the GOP is in trouble to start) think that holding office is an excuse to plunder the nation.

I agree. We can argue the reasons why Republicans have lost the trust of some Americans, but there really shouldn't be any disagreement over the fact that trust has been lost, and has to be regained.

If they can police corruption within the party, it stands to reason that voters will trust them to police corruption within the government at large.

I also have to say I agree in large part with SFL Cat about the continued need for a moral voice in conservatism (and progressivism as well). Liberty and morality (even downright religious ferver) have always gone hand in hand. It seems odd that we would have a place for religion in establishing freedoms, but not in preserving and continuing them.

That being said, conservatives can't ignore the portion of the party that is using religion to restrict liberties. I don't necessarily disagree with the result of what religious conservatives propose in some cases, but I disagree with making the argument on purely religious motivations. I can make arguments in favor of accepting things like Prop 8 or establishing more restrictions on abortion without getting into the saving of souls. They'll be long and convoluted arguments, but I can still make them. :)

It just strikes me as somewhat amusing that the response of feeling like the GOP isn't "big tent enough" is to want to start your own small tent party. Where do conservatives like me who truly do want a big tent fit in?

[RendeR]

I was just looking for a further explanation of what you meant by no government involvement in healthcare. It seems to me that few people would want NO government involvement, so I was just wondering how far you wanted a free-market healthcare system to go.

My position isn't so much a financial one as alegal and legislative one. The government should not and IMO cannot make laws regarding how anyone elects to deal with their body. Be that choosing to not treat a given illness, abortion, pretesting in utero, and other invasive privacy issues. The government must support the system financially in SOME way, I'm certianly not sure just how MUCH they should do. I am not a fan of government run health care. I served in the Navy, those hospitals sucked... ;)


It just strikes me as somewhat amusing that the response of feeling like the GOP isn't "big tent enough" is to want to start your own small tent party. Where do conservatives like me who truly do want a big tent fit in?

Its called the Democratic party. *chuckles*

I for one love a lot of the ideas bouncing around the chief rum thread.

[stevew]

One thing I would love to see from a GNP. No, not a loyalty pledge. A MORALS pledge. If they get convicted of any politically related crime or have an adulterous affair while in office, not only will they resign, but they should have their pension plan taken from them. Too many folks (on both sides, but the hypocrisy of those supposedly running on a morals platform is a reason why the GOP is in trouble to start) think that holding office is an excuse to plunder the nation.

In general everyone should be taking this type of pledge. I think we can and should expect more out of our public officials. I mean, it's real bad on both sides, but the Republicans should be better than this. Where is the outspoken voice of reason in this party? It hasn't been the same since Newt got bounced, and really, he was far from a model citizen.

[st.cronin]

So is the modern whig party mostly ... veterans? That's what it seems like. Their website is kind of interesting, but I'm not sure I see the potential for growth beyond the fringe. What is the focus? What is the political need they fulfill?

One of the things that Ralph Nader used to say a lot (and maybe he still says it) is that there is no real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans - and by and large he's correct, although what he's wrong about is that that's mostly not a bad thing. The country is not, despite what people say, divided. I've said it a few times on this board, but you actually have to strain pretty hard to see any real ideological differences between Obama and McCain. There is massive cultural variety within our borders, but in terms of governance I think its safe to say that most Americans, deep down, think that the way we do things works pretty well most of the time. This is, I think, why 3rd parties don't tend to do well - if the Green party or the Libertarian party ever actually came to power, America would really change, in ways that I don't approve of, and that you probably don't approve, either.

[stevew]

Time to restart the Bull Moose party

Holy shit....this was actually written 100 years ago?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/26_t_roosevelt/psources/ps_trprogress.html

I mean, I didn't check it that closely, but you could use the majority of this platform today.

[stevew]

Just a few snips

The Old Parties

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people.

From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

The deliberate betrayal of its trust by the Republican Party, and the fatal incapacity of the Democratic Party to deal with the new issues of the new time, have compelled the people to forge a new instrument of government through which to give effect to their will in laws and institutions.

Unhampered by tradition, uncorrupted by power, undismayed by the magnitude of the task, the new party offers itself as the instrument of the people to sweep away old abuses, to build a new and nobler commonwealth.

Alaska

The coal and other natural resources of Alaska should be opened to development at once. They are owned by the people of the United States, and are safe from monopoly, waste or destruction only while so owned.

We demand that they shall neither be sold nor given away, except under the homestead law, but while held in Government ownership shall be opened to use promptly upon liberal terms requiring immediate development.

Thus the benefit of cheap fuel will accrue to the government of the United Stated and to the people of Alaska and the Pacific Coast; the settlement of extensive agricultural lands will be hastened; the extermination of the salmon will be prevented, and the just and wise development of Alaskan resources will take the place of private extortion or monopoly.

We demand also that extortion or monopoly in transportation shall be prevented by the prompt acquisition, construction or improvement by the Government of such railroads, harbor and other facilities for transportation as the welfare of the people may demand.

We promise the people of the Territory of Alaska the same measure of local self-government that was given to other American territories, and that officials appointed there shall be qualified by previous bona-fide residence in the Territory.