The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: sinkspur on March 12, 2014, 11:41:25 pm
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/dreaming-of-president-ted-cruz-will-turn-into-a-nightmare-for-the-gop/article/2545480
Dreaming of 'President Ted Cruz' will turn into a nightmare for the GOP
BY NOEMIE EMERY | MARCH 11, 2014 AT 3:12 PM
As with most things, there are good and bad aspects of the Tea Party movement. And all the bad ones were on display March 6 in a speech by Ted Cruz to the Conservative Political Action Conference that replayed every silly thing ever said by conservatives and added some riffs of his own.
He began with a mocking refrain about "presidents" Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney (two of them veterans impaired by their trauma), chiding them for not being his kind of conservative. He also asked if we remembered their reigns.
Well, we do remember, and we remember one more that for some reason is never brought up in this context: the glorious tenure of "President" Barry M. Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, far more in-your-face than Ronald Reagan, who lost by far more than those other worthies. Goldwater lost in one of the great drubbings in history, lost by more than any Republican but Alfred M. Landon, and carried only his home state and five southern states for all the wrong reasons (opposing -- for a fairly innocent reason -- the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
No one followed the Cruz playbook more than Goldwater, and no one has managed to lose so conclusively. He offered a choice, not an echo, and nobody took it. But how, if Cruz is so right, could this have happened? It can’t, which is why it is never brought up in this context. In his world, it doesn’t exist.
As the Goldwater debacle has been excised from history, so have the actual reasons why Dole, McCain and Romney all lost. Dole lost because the Bill Clinton he faced in 1996 was not the Clinton of 1993-94, but the Third Way Bill Clinton, who with the help of Dick Morris was triangulating his way between Newt Gingrich and congressional Democrats -- the Bill Clinton who would sign the welfare reform bill and say the era of big government was over and gone.
Under the restraints exercised by the Republican Congress, the economy was beginning to hum, and we were still in our decade-long vacation from history. No incumbent producing peace and prosperity has ever been ousted by the opposition party, and Clinton was no exception. Reagan himself could not have won in these conditions, and he could not have won either were he running to succeed a president of his party when the economy collapsed six weeks before the election. When the markets collapsed, McCain was leading Obama, and his lead had been widening. Luck beat McCain, not ideology, and without this he might well have won.
As for "President" Romney, exit polls showed he carried the electorate on critical measures like values and leadership, and lost because he failed badly on one single measure: "cares about people like you."
This suggests that he lost not because he needed to be more like Cruz, who gives not a clue that he cares about anyone, but more like compassionate conservative George W. Bush, who did very well with the Hispanics and the lower-middle-class white voters whom Romney so drastically lost.
Cruz also said Democrats celebrate when Republicans move to the middle, but what really makes Democrats happy is when Cruz does things like shutting down the government (which trashed the GOP brand until health care revived it and sank the Republican slate in Virginia), forcing Republican senators into difficult votes that do not make their re-election more likely.
Republicans need much advice from pragmatic advisers. But not from a source like Ted Cruz.
Noemie Emery, a Washington Examiner columnist, is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."
-
(http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/400884/BrokenRecord.gif)
-
(http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/400884/BrokenRecord.gif)
No more of your illustration than those who think Ted Cruz is the next Ronald Reagan.
He ain't.
-
http://therightscoop.com/must-listen-mark-levin-tells-the-story-behind-the-story-on-david-jollys-florida-race/
-
As for "President" Romney, exit polls showed he carried the electorate on critical measures like values and leadership, and lost because he failed badly on one single measure: "cares about people like you."
By contrast, Reagan won the "cares about people like you" vote hands down.
After having donned by asbestos suit I am going to say that this is a very cogent analysis.
-
The same phantom posters who pushed Palin for President here must be pushing Cruz for president now..... at least that is what one person seems to believe. The person must be really invisible because I've missed the endorsement here for any one person for president in 2016. If by any chance it is Cruz I'm good with it, same with Perry or Walker - Paul makes nervous because of his dad.
-
The same phantom posters who pushed Palin for President here must be pushing Cruz for president now..... at least that is what one person seems to believe. The person must be really invisible because I've missed the endorsement here for any one person for president in 2016. If by any chance it is Cruz I'm good with it, same with Perry or Walker - Paul makes nervous because of his dad.
huh? (scratches head)
-
This is no endorsement of Cruz, but it seems to me that nearly every criticism of conservative nominees originates with the assumption that the GOP must segment the voters into various groups and appeal to each group according to its political interests. It seems to me that this is the Democrats' approach, and I seriously doubt Republicans are going to be able to outbid the socialists.
The way to combat segmentation is to focus on what we all have in common and articulate some universal truths that cross demographic lines. Whether that is something Cruz can do, I cannot say. I certainly encourage him to try.
I frankly don't understand those folks who are trying to limit the voices in our party, and limit our choice of candidates.
-
This is no endorsement of Cruz, but it seems to me that nearly every criticism of conservative nominees originates with the assumption that the GOP must segment the voters into various groups and appeal to each group according to its political interests. It seems to me that this is the Democrats' approach, and I seriously doubt Republicans are going to be able to outbid the socialists.
The way to combat segmentation is to focus on what we all have in common and articulate some universal truths that cross demographic lines. Whether that is something Cruz can do, I cannot say. I certainly encourage him to try.
I frankly don't understand those folks who are trying to limit the voices in our party, and limit our choice of candidates.
And neither do I unless they have a vested interest in doing so!
-
This is no endorsement of Cruz, but it seems to me that nearly every criticism of conservative nominees originates with the assumption that the GOP must segment the voters into various groups and appeal to each group according to its political interests. It seems to me that this is the Democrats' approach, and I seriously doubt Republicans are going to be able to outbid the socialists.
The way to combat segmentation is to focus on what we all have in common and articulate some universal truths that cross demographic lines. Whether that is something Cruz can do, I cannot say. I certainly encourage him to try.
I frankly don't understand those folks who are trying to limit the voices in our party, and limit our choice of candidates.
to me it appears the other way around. The segmentation is driven by so-called "true conservatives" who to all appearances seem to believe that they are the wheat to the chaff that is everyone else, to be gotten rid of in order to have a "pure" party.
-
I'm going to jump in the fray (taking a risk, I know), and say that it cuts both ways.
The Republican party has, at least for the past 50 years, had a conservative wing and a moderate wing.
In the past, the two ends of the spectrum were able to unite for a common goal. Now, we need to be united more than EVER before, because the left is tearing America apart.
BOTH sides need to swallow their pride and get the "big picture."
If we don't, we won't survive as a nation.
It's that simple.
-
I'm going to jump in the fray (taking a risk, I know), and say that it cuts both ways.
The Republican party has, at least for the past 50 years, had a conservative wing and a moderate wing.
In the past, the two ends of the spectrum were able to unite for a common goal. Now, we need to be united more than EVER before, because the left is tearing America apart.
BOTH sides need to swallow their pride and get the "big picture."
If we don't, we won't survive as a nation.
It's that simple.
The progressive wing of the Republican party has NEVER tried to get along with the conservatives and aren't about to now. The sooner everyone understands that the better off everyone is going to be!
As someone here said the other day Conservative ALWAYS wind up fighting a two front war! They must fight the progressives in their own party while simultaneously fighting the Democrats!
-
The progressive wing of the Republican party has NEVER tried to get along with the conservatives and aren't about to now. The sooner everyone understands that the better off everyone is going to be!
As someone here said the other day Conservative ALWAYS wind up fighting a two front war! They must fight the progressives in their own party while simultaneously fighting the Democrats!
I don't think that's entirely it, Bigun.
The internet and social media has turned a much larger spotlight on the extreme ends of both parties.
Since we don't control the media, 'our' crazy uncles on the right make it EZ for them to portray conservatives as racist/bigot/homophobic/evil rich/Nazis.......just pick one. Or Two.
The moderate wing of the party is more terrified than ever to hand the reins over to the likes of Ted Cruz, etc..
Myself....I love the fight the GOP is having right now. I hope it draws blood, because it could have historical implications.
For example, castrating Obama politically is remarkable in itself. But will be enough to satisfy everybody? Here, perhaps. But across the country?
Will the GOP Tea Party faction call for Impeachment and removal of Barack Obama? If so that's too bad. It will backfire in 2016 if they do.
-
The progressive wing of the Republican party has NEVER tried to get along with the conservatives and aren't about to now. The sooner everyone understands that the better off everyone is going to be!
As someone here said the other day Conservative ALWAYS wind up fighting a two front war! They must fight the progressives in their own party while simultaneously fighting the Democrats!
Oh, I agree completely, Bigun.
I just spent so much time on FR reading incessant attacks on "RINO's" (i.e. EVERYONE in the Republican Party), that I know there's some fault on the conservative end too.
We really DO need to stop attacking each other. Leftists somehow understand that they need to hang together when it comes to the big elections. There are just too many on the right who don't seem to get it.
-
The progressive wing of the Republican party has NEVER tried to get along with the conservatives and aren't about to now. The sooner everyone understands that the better off everyone is going to be!
As someone here said the other day Conservative ALWAYS wind up fighting a two front war! They must fight the progressives in their own party while simultaneously fighting the Democrats!
And the conservative wing hasn't tried to get along with anyone else, either. The moderates also end up fighting a two-front war, simultaneously fending off the depredations of the conservatives and their allies while fighting the democrats.
That's the problem - both sides of the same party spend more time antagonizing each other than they do fighting the enemy.
-
And the conservative wing hasn't tried to get along with anyone else, either. The moderates also end up fighting a two-front war, simultaneously fending off the depredations of the conservatives and their allies while fighting the democrats.
That's the problem - both sides of the same party spend more time antagonizing each other than they do fighting the enemy.
I don't think that is true at all! Conservatives ALWAYS wind up getting behind the party nominee in the end but the same definitely isn't true of the other side and we've seen that many times just in the last couple of election cycles! As recently as yesterday in fact!
-
to me it appears the other way around. The segmentation is driven by so-called "true conservatives" who to all appearances seem to believe that they are the wheat to the chaff that is everyone else, to be gotten rid of in order to have a "pure" party.
I haven't read too many conservatives writing that Christie or Jeb Bush should not run.
-
I don't think that is true at all! Conservatives ALWAYS wind up getting behind the party nominee in the end but the same definitely isn't true of the other side and we've seen that many times just in the last couple of election cycles! As recently as yesterday in fact!
Baloney. There were any number of sit-outs because of things as trivial as Romney's being a mormon. Don't believe me? Go read some of the tripe that got plastered up at FR about that.
-
I haven't read too many conservatives writing that Christie or Jeb Bush should not run.
You've not been reading much here then, have you? I'm just waiting for the holier-than-thou threats to sit out the election if Christie runs.
-
Baloney. There were any number of sit-outs because of things as trivial as Romney's being a mormon. Don't believe me? Go read some of the tripe that got plastered up at FR about that.
I read it! That's why I'm here and not there! There are exceptions to everything but in general I stand by every word of what I said!
-
You've not been reading much here then, have you? I'm just waiting for the holier-than-thou threats to sit out the election if Christie runs.
I guess I haven't been paying attention. My own opinion is that I'd prefer choices in the primaries. I ended up voting for Ron Paul last time because by the time PA came along it was down to Paul or Romney.
As to my main point, I think the GOP should focus on the things that define us as Americans as opposed to hyphenated Americans.
-
Other articles from this author (who also contributes to The Weekly Standard)
Why can’t conservative candidates win Republican presidential primaries?
Somewhat conservative' voters are the real driving force in the GOP
Michael Novak and Charles Krauthammer: Two liberals who blessed the conservative movement with their conversion
Tea Party conservatives should seek out more of Reagan's '80-percent friends'
Tea Party needs to grow up, quickly, before it's too late for Republicans
The crisis arrives - Conservatives4Palin
Noemie Emery absolutely savages Ted Cruz [Obama and Ted Cruz, political twins separated at birth]
oh and she refers to Palin as "hurricane Sarah"
-
Other articles from this author (who also contributes to The Weekly Standard)
Why can’t conservative candidates win Republican presidential primaries?
Somewhat conservative' voters are the real driving force in the GOP
Michael Novak and Charles Krauthammer: Two liberals who blessed the conservative movement with their conversion
Tea Party conservatives should seek out more of Reagan's '80-percent friends'
Tea Party needs to grow up, quickly, before it's too late for Republicans
The crisis arrives - Conservatives4Palin
Noemie Emery absolutely savages Ted Cruz [Obama and Ted Cruz, political twins separated at birth]
oh and she refers to Palin as "hurricane Sarah"
She reminds me of the "GOP" writer at the Post, Jennifer Rubin. lol
-
I guess I haven't been paying attention. My own opinion is that I'd prefer choices in the primaries. I ended up voting for Ron Paul last time because by the time PA came along it was down to Paul or Romney.
As to my main point, I think the GOP should focus on the things that define us as Americans as opposed to hyphenated Americans.
On your main point I agree completely. And I really, really wish that everyone in the GOP would stop shooting at each other and start shooting at the real enemy.
-
I read it! That's why I'm here and not there! There are exceptions to everything but in general I stand by every word of what I said!
I'm curious, from one conservative to another......... how do you explain the low conservative voter turnout in 2012 (aside from the IRS, of course), if you don't think that conservatives 'sat it out' because Romney wasn't pure enough. (Obviously, he wasn't the best choice, but the alternative was a Marxist!).
Even on this forum there have been posts saying a member would never vote for Christie. And there are those who, on threads about how wretched this administration and the Dems are, almost always manage to take pot shots at Republicans. First.
I think that Obama won in 2008 because of conservatives who wouldn't vote for McCain. My view was, no matter how bad McCain was, he was a better alternative than a Communist thug. I argued with so many people who said their 'conscience' would not allow them to vote for McCain or Romney.
Yet their "conscience" apparently DID allow them to help Obama win.
As I said earlier......I don't think the problem is one-sided. And even though I'm a conservative Republican, I don't think the blame of missing the big picture is all on the side of the progressive Republicans.
And I fully agree with Oceander, that we need to stop shooting each other, and start shooting at the enemy.
JMHO
-
I'm going to jump in the fray (taking a risk, I know), and say that it cuts both ways.
The Republican party has, at least for the past 50 years, had a conservative wing and a moderate wing.
In the past, the two ends of the spectrum were able to unite for a common goal. Now, we need to be united more than EVER before, because the left is tearing America apart.
BOTH sides need to swallow their pride and get the "big picture."
If we don't, we won't survive as a nation.
It's that simple.
Republican has Conservative and Liberal, not moderate. Liberal = Rockefeller, Nixon, Dole, McCain, basically the "Establishment" types. Somehow, Reagan snuck through but was limited by the Bush vice-presidency. I don't believe Reagan wanted Bush anymore than the Establishment wanted Reagan.
The Liberal types aren't actually Republican. They are Democrats in sheep's clothing. They are always the lesser of the two evils.
I would say the actual types of Republicans are the SoCons, again, not actually Republicans and the Liberty Republicans, the only true Republicans.
-
I'm curious, from one conservative to another......... how do you explain the low conservative voter turnout in 2012 (aside from the IRS, of course), if you don't think that conservatives 'sat it out' because Romney wasn't pure enough. (Obviously, he wasn't the best choice, but the alternative was a Marxist!).
Even on this forum there have been posts saying a member would never vote for Christie. And there are those who, on threads about how wretched this administration and the Dems are, almost always manage to take pot shots at Republicans. First.
I think that Obama won in 2008 because of conservatives who wouldn't vote for McCain. My view was, no matter how bad McCain was, he was a better alternative than a Communist thug. I argued with so many people who said their 'conscience' would not allow them to vote for McCain or Romney.
Yet their "conscience" apparently DID allow them to help Obama win.
As I said earlier......I don't think the problem is one-sided. And even though I'm a conservative Republican, I don't think the blame of missing the big picture is all on the side of the progressive Republicans.
And I fully agree with Oceander, that we need to stop shooting each other, and start shooting at the enemy.
JMHO
Having looked at the data regarding this quite closely I can tell you that many people who had voted in 2008 did not vote at all in 2012. (Obama received less votes in 2012 than 2008 and Romney received even less votes than McCain had 2008) Why that was no one can definitively say with certainty because those people who choose to stay home are not generally revealing their whys. I do have my own opinions about it and have no problem with sharing them with you here.
I think the drop off was largely in the South and the result of Southern Baptists staying home for religious reasons. IMHO it has nothing to do with anything else. There are those out there who will impose religious tests on candidates regardless of anything the Constitution might say about it and there is little we can do about that.
-
I'm curious, from one conservative to another......... how do you explain the low conservative voter turnout in 2012 (aside from the IRS, of course), if you don't think that conservatives 'sat it out' because Romney wasn't pure enough. (Obviously, he wasn't the best choice, but the alternative was a Marxist!).
Even on this forum there have been posts saying a member would never vote for Christie. And there are those who, on threads about how wretched this administration and the Dems are, almost always manage to take pot shots at Republicans. First.
I think that Obama won in 2008 because of conservatives who wouldn't vote for McCain. My view was, no matter how bad McCain was, he was a better alternative than a Communist thug. I argued with so many people who said their 'conscience' would not allow them to vote for McCain or Romney.
Yet their "conscience" apparently DID allow them to help Obama win.
As I said earlier......I don't think the problem is one-sided. And even though I'm a conservative Republican, I don't think the blame of missing the big picture is all on the side of the progressive Republicans.
And I fully agree with Oceander, that we need to stop shooting each other, and start shooting at the enemy.
JMHO
I'd like to throw some of my thoughts on this out there.
There's no doubt that there was a contingent of conservatives (like a very vocal group on TOS) that didn't vote because Romney was a Mormon, but I don't think we're talking huge numbers there.
I also think that there were several pretty blatant occurences of voter fraud, especially in the urban precincts. Don't discount this.
But here's another reason, voter disenchantment. I hated John McCain but I voted for him anyway, although for a time I wrestled with it. I didn't think Romney could win, but I voted for him anyway. We conservatives are always being told that we have to pander to the moderates to win elections. Not only do my guts tell me this isn't true - but the proof is in the inability of the GOP to win presidential elections. A lot of people are just sick and tired of being lied to, being insulted and being taken for granted BY BOTH PARTIES.
Like it or not, this is a real movement that's afoot! The Tea Party came about because of this disillusionment. We want to get the size and scope of government in control - OUR control, not the other way around. Government has forgotten it's place.
Blaming the voter for deciding not to participate in a futile exercise is like blaming the rape victim for rape. Establishment cheerleaders are always quick to blame the voter - but rarely turn that blame on themselves. If people aren't voting for a party - maybe, just maybe - it's the party's fault! When the GOP has been in power, they have abused it just like the Democrats.
-
I'd like to throw some of my thoughts on this out there.
There's no doubt that there was a contingent of conservatives (like a very vocal group on TOS) that didn't vote because Romney was a Mormon, but I don't think we're talking huge numbers there.
I also think that there were several pretty blatant occurences of voter fraud, especially in the urban precincts. Don't discount this.
But here's another reason, voter disenchantment. I hated John McCain but I voted for him anyway, although for a time I wrestled with it. I didn't think Romney could win, but I voted for him anyway. We conservatives are always being told that we have to pander to the moderates to win elections. Not only do my guts tell me this isn't true - but the proof is in the inability of the GOP to win presidential elections. A lot of people are just sick and tired of being lied to, being insulted and being taken for granted BY BOTH PARTIES.
Like it or not, this is a real movement that's afoot! The Tea Party came about because of this disillusionment. We want to get the size and scope of government in control - OUR control, not the other way around. Government has forgotten it's place.
Blaming the voter for deciding not to participate in a futile exercise is like blaming the rape victim for rape. Establishment cheerleaders are always quick to blame the voter - but rarely turn that blame on themselves. If people aren't voting for a party - maybe, just maybe - it's the party's fault! When the GOP has been in power, they have abused it just like the Democrats.
Well said Alice! Well said indeed!
I am one of those who played nice with the establishment for years but will no more!
-
I'd like to throw some of my thoughts on this out there.
There's no doubt that there was a contingent of conservatives (like a very vocal group on TOS) that didn't vote because Romney was a Mormon, but I don't think we're talking huge numbers there.
I also think that there were several pretty blatant occurences of voter fraud, especially in the urban precincts. Don't discount this.
But here's another reason, voter disenchantment. I hated John McCain but I voted for him anyway, although for a time I wrestled with it. I didn't think Romney could win, but I voted for him anyway. We conservatives are always being told that we have to pander to the moderates to win elections. Not only do my guts tell me this isn't true - but the proof is in the inability of the GOP to win presidential elections. A lot of people are just sick and tired of being lied to, being insulted and being taken for granted BY BOTH PARTIES.
Like it or not, this is a real movement that's afoot! The Tea Party came about because of this disillusionment. We want to get the size and scope of government in control - OUR control, not the other way around. Government has forgotten it's place.
Blaming the voter for deciding not to participate in a futile exercise is like blaming the rape victim for rape. Establishment cheerleaders are always quick to blame the voter - but rarely turn that blame on themselves. If people aren't voting for a party - maybe, just maybe - it's the party's fault! When the GOP has been in power, they have abused it just like the Democrats.
and conservatives are out there demanding that they be pandered to as a quid pro quo for their votes.
-
Well said Alice! Well said indeed!
I am one of those who played nice with the establishment for years but will no more!
We're not alone Bigun. The powers that be - on both sides of the aisle - are huddled together and actively using their considerable influence to put us down. We see their minions everywhere. It's not just the Democrat sheeple that get their daily talking points - the GOPe is getting pretty good at it too.
-
and conservatives are out there demanding that they be pandered to as a quid pro quo for their votes.
The very essence of a vote is for a quid pro quo! Why vote for someone if there isn't something there for you? Why do you think the Democrats are so effective at this? Because they promise something in return! The Republican party only promises to give us a government that is marginally better than those "other guys".
Okay, so a lot of people hate conservatives for demanding that they - in their considerable numbers - be heard. That's the way the game is played, and the Republican party has come to take conservative votes for granted - always with the promise that the big fight is "coming". It never does.
-
and conservatives are out there demanding that they be pandered to as a quid pro quo for their votes.
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Frederick Douglass August 4, 1857
-
Having looked at the data regarding this quite closely I can tell you that many people who had voted in 2008 did not vote at all in 2012. (Obama received less votes in 2012 than 2008 and Romney received even less votes than McCain had 2008) Why that was no one can definitively say with certainty because those people who choose to stay home are not generally revealing their whys. I do have my own opinions about it and have no problem with sharing them with you here.
I think the drop off was largely in the South and the result of Southern Baptists staying home for religious reasons. IMHO it has nothing to do with anything else. There are those out there who will impose religious tests on candidates regardless of anything the Constitution might say about it and there is little we can do about that.
Definitely a possibility, Bigun. There was a lot of unthinking bigotry (in my view) tossed around about Romney. The left, of course, glommed on to it and advertised it, and perhaps it got even worse because of their love of dividing us.
Unfortunately, sometimes we (not you and me, but conservatives in general) help them succeed by not grasping how dangerous today's Democrat party is to the very survival of America.
That's why I am praying already for the 2016 election. If America is to survive, we need a real leader to rise up and run for President.
-
We're not alone Bigun. The powers that be - on both sides of the aisle - are huddled together and actively using their considerable influence to put us down. We see their minions everywhere. It's not just the Democrat sheeple that get their daily talking points - the GOPe is getting pretty good at it too.
One person's "talking points" are another person's statements of principle and demonstration of a united front to the opposition.
Conservatives need to start getting realistic about some things:
(1) they need to realize that they are never going to get everything they want; nobody ever does, as Reagan was quite well aware;
(2) as a corrollary to that they need to realize that the two choices they have are (a) getting some, but not all, of what they want, or (b) getting nothing;
(3) they need to realize that finding common ground with as many people as possible is how you win elections, and that in order to do that you need to reach an accomodation with those others that leaves everyone as dissatisfied as possible;
(4) because of that they need to learn the art of the strategic compromise; that is, they need to prioritize what they want and figure out what the price of compromise is for each item on that list, just as Reagan did; and, finally,
(5) if you think Mitch McConnell and the so-called "GOPe" are a bitch, then you've clearly forgotten, or never learned the lessons of, 2008 to 2010, when the democrats dominated Congress.
-
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Frederick Douglass August 4, 1857
And those who spit into the wind cannot complain when it hits them in the face.
If one wishes to be a martyr, then by all means that person is entitled to stand solely on the narrow confines of her or his own dogma and refuse to budge one inch therefrom. I don't wish to be a martyr and as much as I would prefer not to, I will do what I have to in order to keep the would-be martyrs on this side of the political dividing line from dragging me down with them.
-
Republican has Conservative and Liberal, not moderate. Liberal = Rockefeller, Nixon, Dole, McCain, basically the "Establishment" types. Somehow, Reagan snuck through but was limited by the Bush vice-presidency. I don't believe Reagan wanted Bush anymore than the Establishment wanted Reagan.
The Liberal types aren't actually Republican. They are Democrats in sheep's clothing. They are always the lesser of the two evils.
I would say the actual types of Republicans are the SoCons, again, not actually Republicans and the Liberty Republicans, the only true Republicans.
Well, as much as I understand what you're saying, the 'liberal types' ARE Republicans. The Republicans have always been a split party, and most of the time, the moderate/liberal part has held sway. (When was the last conservative before Reagan? Coolidge, right? And wasn't he the only one?)
The Republican party, like it or not, is not a conservative party. Never has been. It's just the closest party to the conservative values we have. (And I'm including the Libertarian party in that, which is, IMO, more liberal than even the GOPe are).
For me the bottom line is that we MUST defeat the Democrats. We are dealing with a Democrat party that the Communist party celebrates. We have GOT to reconcile our differences, or the country won't make it.
And as discouraged as I am, I still love America, and want this once great nation to survive.
-
One person's "talking points" are another person's statements of principle and demonstration of a united front to the opposition.
Conservatives need to start getting realistic about some things:
(1) they need to realize that they are never going to get everything they want; nobody ever does, as Reagan was quite well aware;
(2) as a corrollary to that they need to realize that the two choices they have are (a) getting some, but not all, of what they want, or (b) getting nothing;
(3) they need to realize that finding common ground with as many people as possible is how you win elections, and that in order to do that you need to reach an accomodation with those others that leaves everyone as dissatisfied as possible;
(4) because of that they need to learn the art of the strategic compromise; that is, they need to prioritize what they want and figure out what the price of compromise is for each item on that list, just as Reagan did; and, finally,
(5) if you think Mitch McConnell and the so-called "GOPe" are a bitch, then you've clearly forgotten, or never learned the lessons of, 2008 to 2010, when the democrats dominated Congress.
I don't see Democrats "compromise" very often on their principles. Sure, there's a lot you can and should compromise - but your core principles? That of smaller government that doesn't spend beyond it's means? That of a government that obeys the laws already on the books instead of making new ones that won't be obeyed either? That of a government that doesn't infringe our rights which are endowed by our creator? That of protecting our Constitution? That of rewarding good behaviour such as working, saving and producing?
It's the compromising of our principles by the GOPe that have brought us to today. They enabled the election of Barack Obama, their compromises enabled the progressives to run roughshod over our society and system of checks and balances. What is it going to take to make the rest of you as mad as some of us already are?
-
I don't see Democrats "compromise" very often on their principles. Sure, there's a lot you can and should compromise - but your core principles? That of smaller government that doesn't spend beyond it's means? That of a government that obeys the laws already on the books instead of making new ones that won't be obeyed either? That of a government that doesn't infringe our rights which are endowed by our creator? That of protecting our Constitution? That of rewarding good behaviour such as working, saving and producing?
It's the compromising of our principles by the GOPe that have brought us to today. They enabled the election of Barack Obama, their compromises enabled the progressives to run roughshod over our society and system of checks and balances. What is it going to take to make the rest of you as mad as some of us already are?
I don't think it's that the 'rest of us' aren't as mad as you are, alice. I'm furious and frustrated.
But I don't equate the what are being called Republican Progressives with Democrat Progressives and Marxists. When I look at the problems being caused by the left, I don't first blame the "GOPe" and then move on. YES. The Republican party has failed to stop the left from taking over. YES. They have been complicit in growing government to its leviathan size.
But they are not the equivalent to the left, which hates our military, wants to kill babies after birth, wants a completely dependent under-class to control, has absolutely NO moral compass, lies, cheats, steals, shreds the Constitution beyond recognition with dictatorial powers.
No.
There are plenty of Republicans who need to be booted, but by the same token there are an increasing number that are doing the RIGHT thing.
IMO, that is the direction we need to go to survive. Elect more principled Republicans. Get rid of the dead wood.
But we have to do this TOGETHER.
-
I don't see Democrats "compromise" very often on their principles. Sure, there's a lot you can and should compromise - but your core principles? That of smaller government that doesn't spend beyond it's means? That of a government that obeys the laws already on the books instead of making new ones that won't be obeyed either? That of a government that doesn't infringe our rights which are endowed by our creator? That of protecting our Constitution? That of rewarding good behaviour such as working, saving and producing?
It's the compromising of our principles by the GOPe that have brought us to today. They enabled the election of Barack Obama, their compromises enabled the progressives to run roughshod over our society and system of checks and balances. What is it going to take to make the rest of you as mad as some of us already are?
We each have a say in just 3 contests; two Senators and one House rep. Our fellow residents will determine what kind of Republican they wish to nominate to run in those 3 contests.
In virtually all cases, those Republicans which our fellow residents select, will be well to the right of their democrat opponents.
There is a finite limit to the time, money and energy available for politics. Spending too much of it by Republicans more eager to replace Republicans, instead of replacing democrats is to my mind, not wise at all.
-
I don't think it's that the 'rest of us' aren't as mad as you are, alice. I'm furious and frustrated.
But I don't equate the what are being called Republican Progressives with Democrat Progressives and Marxists. When I look at the problems being caused by the left, I don't first blame the "GOPe" and then move on. YES. The Republican party has failed to stop the left from taking over. YES. They have been complicit in growing government to its leviathan size.
But they are not the equivalent to the left, which hates our military, wants to kill babies after birth, wants a completely dependent under-class to control, has absolutely NO moral compass, lies, cheats, steals, shreds the Constitution beyond recognition with dictatorial powers.
No.
There are plenty of Republicans who need to be booted, but by the same token there are an increasing number that are doing the RIGHT thing.
IMO, that is the direction we need to go to survive. Elect more principled Republicans. Get rid of the dead wood.
But we have to do this TOGETHER.
No, they are not "the equivalent to the left". They have become "the lesser of two evils".
"There are plenty of Republicans who need to be booted, but by the same token there are an increasing number that are doing the RIGHT thing."
Completely agree, let's encourage those that are doing the right thing. Let's not call them names and mock them - or support those that do.
"IMO, that is the direction we need to go to survive. Elect more principled Republicans. Get rid of the dead wood."
I could not agree more. Some of that dead wood may have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of their comfy lifetime careers. It won't be easy.
-
I don't see Democrats "compromise" very often on their principles. Sure, there's a lot you can and should compromise - but your core principles? That of smaller government that doesn't spend beyond it's means? That of a government that obeys the laws already on the books instead of making new ones that won't be obeyed either? That of a government that doesn't infringe our rights which are endowed by our creator? That of protecting our Constitution? That of rewarding good behaviour such as working, saving and producing?
It's the compromising of our principles by the GOPe that have brought us to today. They enabled the election of Barack Obama, their compromises enabled the progressives to run roughshod over our society and system of checks and balances. What is it going to take to make the rest of you as mad as some of us already are?
You haven't? Democrats wanted a single-payor government-only health care system, but didn't get it; they had to compromise on that to get what they got, even if that compromise was simply within their own party.
And that, my friend, should be lesson #1 to all republicans/conservatives right now - work out a healthy compromise within your own ranks, or you'll get nothing from the other side.
And, quite frankly, republicans have lost because they've done an utterly miserable job at explaining in plain English to the uncommitted, Ms. and Mr. Sixpack, why what they want to do will be good for America. Mostly what I hear from republicans, especially conservatives, is they hate this, they don't like that, and they're going to get rid of it all when they get into power. I almost never hear them propose workable alternatives to replace what they wish to extirpate. And quite frankly, some of the republican positions require a good explanation because some of them - like cutting entitlements - are counterintuitive. How do you explain to someone who's unemployed that it'll be good for them if we get rid of unemployment compensation? How do you tell someone who depends on subsidized housing that it'll be good for them if we get rid of social welfare entitlements, including subsidized housing?
When someone like that listens to most of what comes from the republicans, he or she is not being unreasonable if he/she comes away with the impression - mistaken as it might be - that the republicans will simply uproot what they depend on immediately and will put nothing in its place. For someone who depends on subsidized housing, that raises the fear - a fear that the democrats are only too happy to stoke - that if a republican majority is elected, they and their possessions will be dumped on the curb the day after. That's an extremely scary proposition to someone who has grown dependent on subsidized housing. And, quite frankly, who can blame them? If the choices presented are (a) stay in the house you have, or (b) get chucked to the curb, which would you pick? Anyone who says they'd choose (b) is simply lying.
And please don't bring out this little example or that little example, as "proof" that conservatives have really made an effort to put forth alternatives, as refutation of my argument. What I'm talking about is a return to the Reaganesque ability to paint a positive future for people and to convince them that you care about them, that you can make it possible for them to reach that future, and that you won't leave the poorest of them behind.
But that's not what I hear mostly coming from conservatives and republicans. I hear demonization of the poor as slackers, loafers, idlers who mooch off the system, and categorical demands for them to be dropped like hot potatoes from government entitlements. And that just feeds right into the false myths put out by the democrats because all they have to do is point to what's coming from the republicans themselves and say "look, see, they really are going to put you out on the street if you vote for them."
-
Well, as much as I understand what you're saying, the 'liberal types' ARE Republicans. The Republicans have always been a split party, and most of the time, the moderate/liberal part has held sway. (When was the last conservative before Reagan? Coolidge, right? And wasn't he the only one?)
The Republican party, like it or not, is not a conservative party. Never has been. It's just the closest party to the conservative values we have. (And I'm including the Libertarian party in that, which is, IMO, more liberal than even the GOPe are).
For me the bottom line is that we MUST defeat the Democrats. We are dealing with a Democrat party that the Communist party celebrates. We have GOT to reconcile our differences, or the country won't make it.
And as discouraged as I am, I still love America, and want this once great nation to survive.
Until recently I've viewed the Republicans as consisting of three parts, finances/business sense in the Northeast, soul in the South and spirit in the West. I don't view it that way anymore.
I believe these groups are more at odds than at any time. Perhaps it's time for new alliances.
-
No, they are not "the equivalent to the left". They have become "the lesser of two evils".
"There are plenty of Republicans who need to be booted, but by the same token there are an increasing number that are doing the RIGHT thing."
Completely agree, let's encourage those that are doing the right thing. Let's not call them names and mock them - or support those that do.
"IMO, that is the direction we need to go to survive. Elect more principled Republicans. Get rid of the dead wood."
I could not agree more. Some of that dead wood may have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of their comfy lifetime careers. It won't be easy.
Dead wood McCain might just never leave his now cushy life..... **nononono*
I do believe we are in complete agreement here. I seriously believe that there are some encouraging candidates stepping forward who seem to be principled people strong enough to fight the right battles.
However, as we have all seen, many of those promising people get sucked down the DC toilet and their conservatism goes right down with them. As one who has always been to the right of the bulk of the party, I have never expected full agreement from our elected officials, but as you have previously stated, there are certain things that we have to stand for and not let go.
I am often reminded of the scene in Fiddler on the Roof where Tevye is debating with himself about his daughters, and says repeatedly..."on the other hand......" But he gets to the point where he shouts "NO! There IS no other hand!"
I believe we may well be at that point in America.
-
Until recently I've viewed the Republicans as consisting of three parts, finances/business sense in the Northeast, soul in the South and spirit in the West. I don't view it that way anymore.
I believe these groups are more at odds than at any time. Perhaps it's time for new alliances.
Do you have any thoughts on what those new alliances might be? (I definitely agree that we're fractured).
-
Do you have any thoughts on what those new alliances might be? (I definitely agree that we're fractured).
1. Peter King - NY - does he care about anything except NY and terror?
2. Steve King - IA - cares about deficit.
3. Rand Paul - "Liberty"
4. Darrell Issa - something
In other words, no idea. I do believe the west and the east will probably stick together for a while longer than the south. You can't have liberty without money. The liberty people are more concerned with their privacy.
There is opportunity for the Religious Right and the Religious Black though if approached correctly. The first people the Evangelicals put into office was Jimmy Carter.
-
1. Peter King - NY - does he care about anything except NY and terror?
2. Steve King - IA - cares about deficit.
3. Rand Paul - "Liberty"
4. Darrell Issa - something
In other words, no idea. I do believe the west and the east will probably stick together for a while longer than the south. You can't have liberty without money. The liberty people are more concerned with their privacy.
There is opportunity for the Religious Right and the Religious Black though if approached correctly. The first people the Evangelicals put into office was Jimmy Carter.
Hey now. I was a young Evangelical (as was my husband), and neither of us voted for Carter (nor was I acquainted with a single Christian who did). Just because the news presented him as born-again doesn't mean we fell for it and voted the wrong way. It was Richard Nixon who gave the '76 election to Jimmy Carter. NOT the Christian community.
I do, however, think that those of us who believe in traditional marriage and the sanctity of life have a natural coalition.
But we have to fight the libertarian AND the economic wing of the party that want us to sit down and shut up.
There's a huge group who identify with Tea Party principles, but I'm not sure we can survive the smears from both the left and the Beltway Good Ol' Boys who don't want to lose their power for the sake of principle.
-
Hey now. I was a young Evangelical (as was my husband), and neither of us voted for Carter (nor was I acquainted with a single Christian who did). Just because the news presented him as born-again doesn't mean we fell for it and voted the wrong way. It was Richard Nixon who gave the '76 election to Jimmy Carter. NOT the Christian community.
I do, however, think that those of us who believe in traditional marriage and the sanctity of life have a natural coalition.
But we have to fight the libertarian AND the economic wing of the party that want us to sit down and shut up.
There's a huge group who identify with Tea Party principles, but I'm not sure we can survive the smears from both the left and the Beltway Good Ol' Boys who don't want to lose their power for the sake of principle.
Will be back with further comment ---