Obama and dem congress cause resurgance of Republican core values.

I strongly disagree.

I think a fiscal conservative that is focused on a sound economy has the absolute best change in 2012.

A social conservative will be rallied against by too many organizations. Remember the responses to the rumors that Palin was for banning books or that she wanted abstinence to be the only thing taught in schools?

The extremists in each party will vote party lines. The election goes to whomever can gain the favor of the centrists. And I believe most of the nation sits closer to the middle than to either edge.

I was not proposing that we run a social conservative in '12. However, we will always depend on social conservatives for electoral success, which is why I'd object to "getting rid of them." Most Americans lean to the right on social issues. I'd probably fall into that category myself, although I am able to separate what I personally hold to be true vs. what public policy ought to be.
 
I strongly disagree.

I think a fiscal conservative that is focused on a sound economy has the absolute best change in 2012.

A social conservative will be rallied against by too many organizations. Remember the responses to the rumors that Palin was for banning books or that she wanted abstinence to be the only thing taught in schools?

The extremists in each party will vote party lines. The election goes to whomever can gain the favor of the centrists. And I believe most of the nation sits closer to the middle than to either edge.

I think you're correct, in general. Only problem is, is that Bush turned that conventional wisdom on it's ear. He ran from the far right and won (well at least he did in 2004.).
However, I don' think that will work in 2012.
 
I was not proposing that we run a social conservative in '12. However, we will always depend on social conservatives for electoral success, which is why I'd object to "getting rid of them." Most Americans lean to the right on social issues. I'd probably fall into that category myself, although I am able to separate what I personally hold to be true vs. what public policy ought to be.

I'd disagree with that. In fact I'd say it's the opposite. I'd say most Americans lean to the left or libertarian point of view on social issues. It's on economic issues that most Americans lean to the right.
 
I think the social issues are distractions from the real issues that our elected officials should be addressing.
 
I strongly disagree.

I think a fiscal conservative that is focused on a sound economy has the absolute best change in 2012.

A social conservative will be rallied against by too many organizations. Remember the responses to the rumors that Palin was for banning books or that she wanted abstinence to be the only thing taught in schools?

The extremists in each party will vote party lines. The election goes to whomever can gain the favor of the centrists. And I believe most of the nation sits closer to the middle than to either edge.
Wrong-o. McCain tried to do just that an lost. Reagan was a conservative and won by a landslide.
 
Wrong-o. McCain tried to do just that an lost. Reagan was a conservative and won by a landslide.

Reagan won because he was preaching against the commie menace and for fiscal responsibility. His economic message was what got him elected.

When he said "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." he was not favoring social conservatism. He was a fiscal conservative first and foremost.
Social conservatism was a distant third for him.

Here is a little education on Reagan for you. (so many seem so quick to proclaim what Reagan believed or wanted.)

From http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1111

"Ronald Reagan never lost sight of the big picture, and he did not swoop down like a policy wonk on any particular issue. The conservative greatness of Ronald Reagan has less to do with his specific policy record than with his optimistic economic message and his foreign policy legacy. He defeated communism by steadfast determination which earns him a large chapter in the annals of history.

There is an alarming tendency these days for people desiring a “conservative” label to ascribe beliefs to Ronald Reagan which he did not share or promote. Radio entertainer Sean Hannity has a ridiculous segment on his program called “What would Reagan Do?” In it, he ascribes all of Hannity’s own beliefs to Ronald Reagan, thus defining conservatism in his own image.

The funny thing is nobody has heard Sean Hannity talking about the size and scope of the federal government, which was THE core conservative message of Ronald Reagan. Hannity applauded deficit spending, made excuses for the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ and pretends now that Reagan would oppose an amnesty bill. (Reagan supported and signed an amnesty bill.)

Hannity isn’t the only one. WE ALL want Ronald Reagan back but we forget why. We project our version of conservatism on the current crop of candidates and come away disappointed. “None of them are Reagan” we think, as we recite a laundry list of issues that this or that candidate is at odds with today’s talk radio conservatives. We think we know what Reagan would do.

The thing is we don’t have to guess about Ronald Reagan. We have his record as both governor of California and President of the United States. We know what Reagan would do today because we know what he did then.

In truth, Reagan governed from the middle like all presidents try to do. And in doing so, his record would in many ways alarm talk radio conservatives today.

He was a “green” governor of California, still earning platitudes from the environmentalists in the state. As president, his pen stroked giant swaths of land into the national park system, something that fellow conservative Barry Goldwater also championed. So what would Reagan do on tree hugging environmental issues? Not a priority to him, but his record is a mixed bag at best.

As president, he presided over a large increase in the federal government. He did not steal our local power as much as George Bush, but he steered far away from the conservative ideal.

He did not talk much about social issues, making them a distant 3rd priority never acted upon during his administration. In fact, given three chances on the Supreme Court he appointed only one conservative. If Sanda Day O’Conner had not been put on the bench by Ronald Reagan, the immorality of affirmative action practices would have been forever banned three years ago.

He cut taxes. That was good, but he associated them with corresponding budget reductions, something he challenged congress to enact. Those phantom budget reductions never happened on his watch.

What Ronald Reagan DID was give people confidence in America again. He defeated communism, assuring the ascension of America as the only superpower in the world. He forcefully talked up small government, free-market conservative economic values, but he did not deliver on them. And he whispered about social issues we care about, but his policy inaction and bench appointments confirm that social conservatism was not his cup of tea.

So what would Ronald Reagan do today?

I hope he would remind us of his optimistic resonating conservative message, a message we have clearly forgotten. And I think he would tell the various factions in the Republican party to shut up about the tiny nuances of our wonkish pet policies.

He would surely remind everyone of his 11th commandment: “thou shalt not speak evil of fellow Republicans.” That was another part of Reagan’s legacy that today’s conservatives forget.

You see, Ronald Reagan understood that conservative ideology transcends the particulars. He realized that conservatism is a broad appeal when appealed broadly. "
 
Reagan won because he was preaching against the commie menace and for fiscal responsibility. His economic message was what got him elected.

When he said "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." he was not favoring social conservatism. He was a fiscal conservative first and foremost.
Social conservatism was a distant third for him.

Reagan had his drawbacks too. He was a delegator and at times, his administration got away from him. He certainly got a pass with the Iran Contra affair. Though Reagan certainly deserves credit for his stance on communism he get's more than he deserves. From Truman down to Bush Sr communism collapsed due a consistant policy of containment. So a shared credit goes to all these Presidents but the grand Strategy that succeeded was developed and first implemented by the Truman administration to which history gives the lion share of the credit. Not Reagan, though Reagan certainly played an important role in defeating communism. I think Reagan's role in defeating communism has been mythologized by the talking heads on conservative talk radio.

As I've grown older I have realize just how wrong Reagan was in his approach to governance. His philosophy that "Government is not the solution to our problems, Government is the problem" was wrong and untenable. As Bush has proven, how can you expect effective governance from those with this philosophy? You can't. Reagan's philosophy has done much harm to this nation and the Republican party in this respect. Reagan's fiscal policy of supply side economics and the beginning of the far rights irrational love affair with regressive tax cuts which is now their solution to all problems has become a laughable joke and given us a mountain of debt while creating a bitter economic divide. In this respect, with his grand mountain of debt and legacy of inept governance as brought to it's logical conclusion by George W. Bush, Reagans legacy doesn't resonate or shine with me.

Having said that I think Reagan on the whole was a good President and that was then and back then the alternative was a social welfare state Democrat. There's no doubt if I could turn back the clock, I'd vote for Reagan again. Only this time with a greater and healthier does of skepticism for his failings.
 
Reagan had his drawbacks too. He was a delegator and at times, his administration got away from him. He certainly got a pass with the Iran Contra affair. Though Reagan certainly deserves credit for his stance on communism he get's more than he deserves. From Truman down to Bush Sr communism collapsed due a consistant policy of containment. So a shared credit goes to all these Presidents but the grand Strategy that succeeded was developed and first implemented by the Truman administration to which history gives the lion share of the credit. Not Reagan, though Reagan certainly played an important role in defeating communism. I think Reagan's role in defeating communism has been mythologized by the talking heads on conservative talk radio.

As I've grown older I have realize just how wrong Reagan was in his approach to governance. His philosophy that "Government is not the solution to our problems, Government is the problem" was wrong and untenable. As Bush has proven, how can you expect effective governance from those with this philosophy? You can't. Reagan's philosophy has done much harm to this nation and the Republican party in this respect. Reagan's fiscal policy of supply side economics and the beginning of the far rights irrational love affair with regressive tax cuts which is now their solution to all problems has become a laughable joke and given us a mountain of debt while creating a bitter economic divide. In this respect, with his grand mountain of debt and legacy of inept governance as brought to it's logical conclusion by George W. Bush, Reagans legacy doesn't resonate or shine with me.

Having said that I think Reagan on the whole was a good President and that was then and back then the alternative was a social welfare state Democrat. There's no doubt if I could turn back the clock, I'd vote for Reagan again. Only this time with a greater and healthier does of skepticism for his failings.

Careful, if say anything but great things about Reagan you will be accused of blasphemy.

Reagan did some great stuff. But there were some serious issues too. I simply posted what I did as a counter to SM's insistence that Reagan was a great social conservative.
 
Wrong-o. McCain tried to do just that an lost. Reagan was a conservative and won by a landslide.

LOL You are a reactionary to the core. I'll give you that. A word of advise though. If Republicans try using a strategy that worked in 1980 with out considering all that we have learned since, they will lose and lose badly. But go ahead, make our day! LOL
 
Careful, if say anything but great things about Reagan you will be accused of blasphemy.

Reagan did some great stuff. But there were some serious issues too. I simply posted what I did as a counter to SM's insistence that Reagan was a great social conservative.

Reagan was a good President and if you can study Reagan away from the ideological rights mytholigies about him, you like him even more. He was such a breath of fresh air from the 14 previous years of either failed Presidents (LBJ, Nixon) or weak Presidents (Ford, Carter). He did some good things and some not so good things but on the whole, for that time, he was a good President. Not a great one but certainly not a poor one.

It's interesting to see how things go in cycles. Back in 1981 the Democrats badly needed to reform themeslves. Now it is the Republicans that badly need reform.
 
I disagree about the Containment Plan being successfully handled by Reagan's predecessors. Most of them fucked it up. Truman and LBJ got us into useless quagmires, and JFK was incompetent in handling foreign affairs. Ike was the only one who really did a good job, and he still was unable to address Hungary. Nixon had his own plans curteosy of Kissinger, that worked quite well, but Reagan really got Containment to work for him.
 
I disagree about the Containment Plan being successfully handled by Reagan's predecessors. Most of them fucked it up. Truman and LBJ got us into useless quagmires, and JFK was incompetent in handling foreign affairs. Ike was the only one who really did a good job, and he still was unable to address Hungary. Nixon had his own plans curteosy of Kissinger, that worked quite well, but Reagan really got Containment to work for him.

You don't know what you're talking about sonny. Go tell the South Koreans that that war was a useless quagmire and then go look at the conditions on the other side of the DMV. It was Truman's administration that drew the original and independent conclusion about containment and implemented it in force with all the subsequent Presidents actively pursuing the "Truman Doctrine" as the correct course of action which it was. If all of Truman's predecessors were such a bunch of fuck ups then how comes it worked? Oh, maybe communism collapsed because Reagan called them names!
 
LOL You are a reactionary to the core. I'll give you that. A word of advise though. If Republicans try using a strategy that worked in 1980 with out considering all that we have learned since, they will lose and lose badly. But go ahead, make our day! LOL
Conservatism never goes out of style.
 
....
Social conservatism was a distant third for him.....
Not really. Its just that the Democrats have brought this gay marriage crap to the forefront. Most people want it to go away. Social Conservatives don't care what people do in private, as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on society as a whole. And that issue wins when brought to the voters, even in ultra-lib California.
 
Not really. Its just that the Democrats have brought this gay marriage crap to the forefront. Most people want it to go away. Social Conservatives don't care what people do in private, as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on society as a whole. And that issue wins when brought to the voters, even in ultra-lib California.

Thats funny, considering the examples that have already been posted in this thread.

Just for future reference, the gay marriage issue is not going to "go away". There have been gays throughout recorded history. The benefits bestowed on married couples by the US Gov't should be able to be bestowed on committed gay couples as well. And unless the benefits are taken away from all, gays will continue to campaign for them.

And if you look at the progress the gay political machine has made in the last 20 or 30 years, I see them marrying in the next 10 or less.
 
The simple fact is that the US is becoming more tolerant and open minded on social issues.

And the economy will be a major issue for years to come.

If the conservatives can press forward as fiscal conservatives, and leave the bible thumping and hatred behind, they have a much better chance of attracting more voters.
 
.....
And if you look at the progress the gay political machine has made in the last 20 or 30 years, I see them marrying in the next 10 or less.
Then the minority voting blocks will come home to the GOP and the Democrats will be known as the "gay-white party". :)
 
Then the minority voting blocks will come home to the GOP and the Democrats will be known as the "gay-white party". :)

Yeah, I am sure the voters will flock to the party that is as concerned with sexual orientation, sexual activities, Blue Laws, banning books, and teaching creationism as they are about personal liberty and fiscal responsibility.
 
Back
Top