So Conservatives, What Have We Learned From This Trump Thing?

[r9etb]

The ONLY reason Reagan was ALLOWED any tv face time is because the eastern elites took his folksy ways as proof he was an ignorant rube,and they thought allowing him air time would further harm the credibility of the GOP amongst the unaffiliated voters.

Pffft.  You're so caught up in being a curmudgeon that I find it difficult to take you seriously.

Reagan was part of a serious political movement that had been putting in the hard intellectual and organizational work over years to get themselves into position to mount a strong presidential run.

The current Republican Party has no comparable movement or candidate, and has had none for the last three elections.

[sneakypete]

Should we change if it has? Right and wrong have not changed. Truth has not changed and I will not change.

@Idaho_Cowboy

 

[r9etb]

You mean other than the smart, principled, effective and has read the Constitution and understands how the various branches of the US government are supposed to work part?

I could name a few dozen people who meet that standard, but that doesn't mean they should be running for president.  I have higher standards for presidential candidates.  Executive experience is a biggie. 

And what in Ted's background would indicate he'd be an "effective" president, when he hasn't even had enough time in office to be an effective Senator?

[sneakypete]

Pffft.  You're so caught up in being a curmudgeon that I find it difficult to take you seriously.

WHAT? Say it ain't so!

I am heartbroken! This may be the end!

>>
The current Republican Party has no comparable movement or candidate, and has had none for the last three elections.<<

Gee,I wonder why? Have any thoughts on that one,bubba?

@r9etb

[r9etb]

Yes, and the GOP does exactly that.  However, "that" (candidates that represent their values) clearly does not mean conservatives.

No, the GOP does not.  Sure, there are preferred candidates among the power brokers, but that's not the same as building a serious stable of candidates.  The process is pretty much one of seeing who bubbles to the top among the couple of dozen who announce, and picking from among them.

Look at the mess we had this time: not a single statesman among 'em, and only one recognizable adult (Kasich, who's about as exciting as porridge).

[Suppressed]

@montanajoe

The real problem is the real conservatives are pushed to the back of the room by the religious communists that think worshipping their form of God makes them conservatives,when the exact opposite is true. IF they had the power,they would make the whole world a Christian form of Islam,with people punished for "sinning against our lord!"

The west went thought this crap during the Reformation to remove the governing power of the Catholic Church over the lives on the citizens,and fought from 1517 to around 1685 to win freedom from religious repression in the west.

Do we really need to go through this crap again,but with the Protestants this time?

I fear that we unfortunately must.

Look at the TEA Party movement, destroyed by big-government social "conservatives" who tried to co-opt it, running it into the ground.  How many local groups collapsed after they instituted a religious test and chased off all the small-government folks who drove the movement? I know mine's not the only one, as I've heard it over and over, from people across the country.

Unfortunately, they are a big, loud bloc.

[Doug Loss]

No, the GOP does not.  Sure, there are preferred candidates among the power brokers, but that's not the same as building a serious stable of candidates.  The process is pretty much one of seeing who bubbles to the top among the couple of dozen who announce, and picking from among them.

Look at the mess we had this time: not a single statesman among 'em, and only one recognizable adult (Kasich, who's about as exciting as porridge).

Oh bull.  That's not remotely how it works and you know it.  Cruz did exactly that (bubble to the top) and they joined Trump in shutting him down.  Pretending otherwise just makes you look ignorant of how the GOP works.

[sneakypete]

I fear that we unfortunately must.

Look at the TEA Party movement, destroyed by big-government social "conservatives" who tried to co-opt it, running it into the ground.  How many local groups collapsed after they instituted a religious test and chased off all the small-government folks who drove the movement? I know mine's not the only one, as I've heard it over and over, from people across the country.

Unfortunately, they are a big, loud bloc.

@Suppressed

Yup! Like Jake and Elwood,deys on a mission from GAWD!

[musiclady]

I fear that we unfortunately must.

Look at the TEA Party movement, destroyed by big-government social "conservatives" who tried to co-opt it, running it into the ground.  How many local groups collapsed after they instituted a religious test and chased off all the small-government folks who drove the movement? I know mine's not the only one, as I've heard it over and over, from people across the country.

Unfortunately, they are a big, loud bloc.

Interesting.  I'm an Evangelical socially Conservative Christian and in our town was part of the very early Tea Party group.  A group of Christians (or so they said) got mad and started another TP group with religious litmus tests, and we stayed in the original group with the original purpose.

As socially conservative and Christian as I am, I think that movement harmed the TP.  There are a lot of Christians who get all their information from blogs and not Scripture, who unfortunately spew forth some very non-Christian things.

It's due, IMO, to the dumbing down of the Church thanks to the contemporary movement that has watered down theology for coffee and donuts during entertaining "worship."

A little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.......

[Jewbacca]

There were good reasons Cruz and Trump were by far and away the most popular candidates. Its just that not enough of us recognized the scam Trump was running.

Yep.  I have a good friend who maxed out contributing to Cruz.  He is seriously going to vote Clinton as the lesser-of-evils.  I tried to talk him into a Gary Johnson vote at least, but he's firm.

I can probably get drunk enough to vote for Trump, but I will have to have someone drive me to the polls.

[r9etb]

Look at the TEA Party movement, destroyed by big-government social "conservatives" who tried to co-opt it, running it into the ground.  How many local groups collapsed after they instituted a religious test and chased off all the small-government folks who drove the movement? I know mine's not the only one, as I've heard it over and over, from people across the country.

The principal cause of the TEA Party movement's downfall is that it gloried in its decentralization, and (from what I could tell) positively refused to organize on anything larger than a small-region basis.  Which works fine on the scale of a Congressional district; but it didn't work well at the state level (how many TEA Party Senate candidates actually won?); and there was never a national organization -- and thus no coherent and consistent set of ideas, and no "face of the TEA Party" that could define what the TEA Party movement actually stood for. 

And thus the TEA Party has been unsuccessful competing with the big boys on the national stage ... which pissed off a lot of TEA Party people even more than they already were.  It has to be said: these some of the same angry people who brought us Trump.

[musiclady]

The principal cause of the TEA Party movement's downfall is that it gloried in its decentralization, and (from what I could tell) positively refused to organize on anything larger than a small-region basis.  Which works fine on the scale of a Congressional district; but it didn't work well at the state level (how many TEA Party Senate candidates actually won?); and there was never a national organization -- and thus no coherent and consistent set of ideas, and no "face of the TEA Party" that could define what the TEA Party movement actually stood for. 

And thus the TEA Party has been unsuccessful competing with the big boys on the national stage ... which pissed off a lot of TEA Party people even more than they already were.  It has to be said: these some of the same angry people who brought us Trump.

The majority of people who identified as Tea Party opposed Trump.

I think you're conflating two different groups here.

[Smokin Joe]

What I've learned is that the Trump Party doesn't reflect my values.  I do not want and will not seek any reconciliation with Trump supporters.    The first order of business is to defeat Trump and discredit the dark soul of Trumpism.   After that,  I'll see if there's any part of the Republican Party that's worth saving from my perspective.   The Libertarian alternative is looking better and better the more I investigate it.

Check out the Constitution Party, too.

[r9etb]

Oh bull.  That's not remotely how it works and you know it.  Cruz did exactly that (bubble to the top) and they joined Trump in shutting him down.  Pretending otherwise just makes you look ignorant of how the GOP works.

Oh, pooh. 

For all his good qualities, Cruz still wasn't a good presidential candidate. 

And this is the third election in a row where the GOP has not been able to field a good candidate.  Clearly they're not doing the work you accuse them of doing.

[Bigun]

Oh, pooh. 

For all his good qualities, Cruz still wasn't a good presidential candidate. 

I beg to differ!  Cruz would have made a GREAT candidate and the establishment knew it!   Hence his problems.

And this is the third election in a row where the GOP has not been able to field a good candidate.  Clearly they're not doing the work you accuse them of doing.

There we definitely agree!

[Smokin Joe]

The principal cause of the TEA Party movement's downfall is that it gloried in its decentralization, and (from what I could tell) positively refused to organize on anything larger than a small-region basis.  Which works fine on the scale of a Congressional district; but it didn't work well at the state level (how many TEA Party Senate candidates actually won?); and there was never a national organization -- and thus no coherent and consistent set of ideas, and no "face of the TEA Party" that could define what the TEA Party movement actually stood for. 

And thus the TEA Party has been unsuccessful competing with the big boys on the national stage ... which pissed off a lot of TEA Party people even more than they already were.  It has to be said: these some of the same angry people who brought us Trump.

The TEA party is a grassroots thing. It sure looked to me that every time someone wanted to talk about a 'national' TEA party group, it went top down, then just down in a hurry.
It is a lot like herding cats, in that the true TEA party was folks gathered around an idea, and not a Party in the capitalized sense.

As Parties go, I like the Constitution Party, simply because it is getting back to the basics.

A lot of familiar sacred cows and beloved oxen get gored in that, but they were never Constitutionally authorized anyway.
I think a lot of TEA party people looking for a political home could find one there, and that with a little work, the party could compete with the big boys. A lot of desperation (keeping the Democrat out) is involved in the current GOP support, because the Party has NOT done what it says it stands for, with a few exceptions, and those individuals who do, end up in conflict with the bulk of the GOP.

I'm not sure the GOP can be salvaged, and I think a lot of the TEA party groups broke up as the GOP attempted to co-opt them to increase the GOP base with absolutely no intention of even making concessions to those voters. The Constitution Party is already in alignment with much of the fiscal policy sought by TEA party voters because there is a Constitutional basis for sound fiscal policy and smaller government.

[r9etb]

The majority of people who identified as Tea Party opposed Trump.

I think you're conflating two different groups here.

I don't think I am conflating them at all.  And I don't mean to suggest that all TEA Partiers should be tarred with that brush. 

That said, I believe that the animating features of both the TEA Party movement and the Trump candidacy are the same: anger and frustration with the way things are now.   And I think there's a significant overlap between Trump supporters, and those who showed up at the TEA Party rallies.  And I think Trump is a good enough demagogue to have successfully played to the anger and frustration -- especially on the matter of immigration.

[sneakypete]

Yep.  I have a good friend who maxed out contributing to Cruz.  He is seriously going to vote Clinton as the lesser-of-evils.  I tried to talk him into a Gary Johnson vote at least, but he's firm.

I can probably get drunk enough to vote for Trump, but I will have to have someone drive me to the polls.

@Jewbacca

The ONLY way I would vote for Trump is if were running against JEB or any other member of the Bush Crime Family. Which ain't saying much because I would vote for someone named Satan before I would vote for someone named Bush.

[Bigun]

The TEA party is a grassroots thing. It sure looked to me that every time someone wanted to talk about a 'national' TEA party group, it went top down, then just down in a hurry.
It is a lot like herding cats, in that the true TEA party was folks gathered around an idea, and not a Party in the capitalized sense.

As Parties go, I like the Constitution Party, simply because it is getting back to the basics.

A lot of familiar sacred cows and beloved oxen get gored in that, but they were never Constitutionally authorized anyway.
I think a lot of TEA party people looking for a political home could find one there, and that with a little work, the party could compete with the big boys. A lot of desperation (keeping the Democrat out) is involved in the current GOP support, because the Party has NOT done what it says it stands for, with a few exceptions, and those usually individuals who end up in conflict with the bulk of the GOP.

I'm not sure the GOP can be salvaged, and I think a lot of the TEA party groups broke up as the GOP attempted to co-opt them to increase the GOP base with absolutely no intention of even making concessions to those voters. The Constitution Party is already in alignment with much of the fiscal policy sought by TEA party voters because there is a Constitutional basis for sound fiscal policy and smaller government.

The TEA party movement is not, was never untended to be, and never will be a homogeneous national  movement  and rumors of  it's death are vastly exagerated.

[Suppressed]

I can probably get drunk enough to vote for Trump, but I will have to have someone drive me to the polls.

I hope that in your drunken state, you accidently choose Johnson and not the Green Party!

[Smokin Joe]

Oh, pooh. 

For all his good qualities, Cruz still wasn't a good presidential candidate. 

And this is the third election in a row where the GOP has not been able to field a good candidate.  Clearly they're not doing the work you accuse them of doing.

Don't let the full court press of attacks on Cruz blind you to the man as a candidate. It's tough to get decent press when the MSM and other liberals are out there parading the bloviation and, frankly, lies of your opponent, or are busy saying you said things you just didn't say.

How do you fight the sort of misrepresentation of you and even your family if the press won't even pony up a sound byte for rebuttal? In a sane primary season, Cruz would have been shown far better than he was, and as the Candidate, I think he would have done just fine. The GOPe knew Cruz was an outsider, and they did all they could to scuttle his candidacy, including embracing Trump.

[r9etb]

I beg to differ!  Cruz would have made a GREAT candidate and the establishment knew it!   Hence his problems.

Nah.  He'd be far more palatable than Trump, to be sure, but he's not a good presidential candidate.  Put Cruz and Reagan; or Cruz and GW Bush, or even Cruz and Obama into the same room, and see who gets the attention.

Cruz has good qualities, but the "it" factor isn't there for most of us. 

[Smokin Joe]

The TEA party movement is not, was never untended to be, and never will be a homogeneous national  movement  and rumors of  it's death are vastly exagerated.

It is still out there, the people who believe strongly enough to stand up for those values have, by and large, not changed their minds. My suggestion to check out the Constitution Party is because there is a platform there most of us could rally around with a clear conscience.
The organization is yet young, in a political sense, there are some rougher edges, but I think the basic premise (the Constitution) is a good place to start.

[Suppressed]

Interesting.  I'm an Evangelical socially Conservative Christian and in our town was part of the very early Tea Party group.  A group of Christians (or so they said) got mad and started another TP group with religious litmus tests, and we stayed in the original group with the original purpose.

As socially conservative and Christian as I am, I think that movement harmed the TP.  There are a lot of Christians who get all their information from blogs and not Scripture, who unfortunately spew forth some very non-Christian things.

It's due, IMO, to the dumbing down of the Church thanks to the contemporary movement that has watered down theology for coffee and donuts during entertaining "worship."

A little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.......

I hope you noted I specified "big-government" and put conservative in quotes.

My problem isn't with social conservatives, per se, but with those who want to impose on others via government.  You're right...it seems many so-called Christians have never read Matthew 10:14.  Their first response is to call for Caesar to impose their will on others.

And yes...

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

There are too many intoxicated activists.

[r9etb]

Don't let the full court press of attacks on Cruz blind you to the man as a candidate. It's tough to get decent press when the MSM and other liberals are out there parading the bloviation and, frankly, lies of your opponent, or are busy saying you said things you just didn't say.

How do you fight the sort of misrepresentation of you and even your family if the press won't even pony up a sound byte for rebuttal? In a sane primary season, Cruz would have been shown far better than he was, and as the Candidate, I think he would have done just fine. The GOPe knew Cruz was an outsider, and they did all they could to scuttle his candidacy, including embracing Trump.

Again, here's where it's helpful to compare Reagan and Cruz.  Reagan was continually vilified in a media environment that was far more constrained than what we have today, and yet he still came out on top.  Why?

Because, unlike Cruz, Reagan was more than just a single guy with presidential ambitions.  He was a guy who had put in the work for years and years; had served as governor; had put in the effort to make himself known to the people who mattered; and even that's not it.

Reagan got to where he was not because he was Reagan, but rather because -- as a result of those efforts -- he rose to the top of a political movement that offered a consistent and well-thought-out political philosophy to the electorate.  The entire political movement had put in the work.

Cruz has nothing to match it.  None of the GOP candidates do; nor have had, for a long time.