Republican Dream Team

Dixie said:
I liked Romney until he ambushed Palin. Romney's camp was responsible for the "leaks" about her preparing for interviews, the claim she didn't know Africa was a continent, the RNC provided wardrobe, etc. All this came from Romney, who was miffed for not being McCain's pick. He sealed his fate with me on that, and I will never cast a vote for Romeny, if he is the nominee, I stay at home.

I think Palin, or whoever the candidate is, will have to do as Reagan did, and make the profound connection for conservative voters, of both social and economic conservatism, how they relate to each other, how both aspects of conservatism are fundamental and important to the overall ideology. We can't divorce social conservatism any more than we can divorce economic conservatism, and still have a viable platform.
Click to expand...

Reagan ran mostly on economic conservativism + killing/imprisoning brown people. There wasn't much anti-gay crusading in that.

He really only delivered on the second of those two, as well.
 
The Bare Knuckled Pundit said:
Personally I like Goldwater/Nixon, but the NWO techies won't let me thaw them out yet.

Then again, this isn't Goldwater and Nixon's Republican Party.
Click to expand...
It is a party that would boo Eisenhower out of a modern day convention. If you are not dyed in the wool tongue talking bathed in the blood evangelical christian who hates queers, athiests and abortion doctors you cain't be a ree-PUB-lickin
 
The Bare Knuckled Pundit said:
Personally I like Goldwater/Nixon, but the NWO techies won't let me thaw them out yet.

Then again, this isn't Goldwater and Nixon's Republican Party.
Click to expand...
It is a party that would boo Eisenhower out of a modern day convention. If you are not dyed in the wool tongue talking bathed in the blood evangelical christian who hates queers, athiests and abortion doctors you cain't be a ree-PUB-lickin
 
I have said this before and I will say it again, first party to the TRUE middle wins. If the Repubs could get rid of their relgious crusaders then independents in the general election would elect their candidate overwhelmingly just as they would vote for the dems if they would eject their wealth haters. America is a center right country, and will vote center right almost every chance they get. While I think that Palin energized the conservative base she did NOTHING for McCain in the general election. By nothing, I mean she did not bring over centrist independents in the numbers she needed to. She may have even chased those voters away. Nobody seriously votes for a person that says they can see Russia from Alaska as proof of some sort of foreign policy experience. I she is the nominee, she will get pummeled. She is a semi pretty MILF who gave right wing men a chubby long enough that they never really thought about if she was qualified.
 
Socrtease said:
I have said this before and I will say it again, first party to the TRUE middle wins. If the Repubs could get rid of their relgious crusaders then independents in the general election would elect their candidate overwhelmingly ....
Click to expand...

Except of course that most Americans, including the center, are religious.
 
Socrtease said:
I have said this before and I will say it again, first party to the TRUE middle wins. If the Repubs could get rid of their relgious crusaders then independents in the general election would elect their candidate overwhelmingly just as they would vote for the dems if they would eject their wealth haters. America is a center right country, and will vote center right almost every chance they get. While I think that Palin energized the conservative base she did NOTHING for McCain in the general election. By nothing, I mean she did not bring over centrist independents in the numbers she needed to. She may have even chased those voters away. Nobody seriously votes for a person that says they can see Russia from Alaska as proof of some sort of foreign policy experience. I she is the nominee, she will get pummeled. She is a semi pretty MILF who gave right wing men a chubby long enough that they never really thought about if she was qualified.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot. The last election, Republicans did exactly what you are saying! They nominated the most moderate of ALL possible choices, John McCain! He refused to even be seen in public with anyone of a religious background, just because he didn't want to be viewed as "aligned" with them. He walked on egg-shells through the whole campaign, trying to avoid taking a pro-religious-right stand on anything, with the exception of abortion. It almost caused physical anguish, you could see it in his face, when he was forced to say something supportive of the religious right, or social conservatism in general. He is EXACTLY the kind of candidate you are claiming should be nominated again... and I guess you DO hope we will be that utterly stupid again!
 
Dixie said:
You are an idiot. The last election, Republicans did exactly what you are saying! They nominated the most moderate of ALL possible choices, John McCain! He refused to even be seen in public with anyone of a religious background, just because he didn't want to be viewed as "aligned" with them. He walked on egg-shells through the whole campaign, trying to avoid taking a pro-religious-right stand on anything, with the exception of abortion. It almost caused physical anguish, you could see it in his face, when he was forced to say something supportive of the religious right, or social conservatism in general. He is EXACTLY the kind of candidate you are claiming should be nominated again... and I guess you DO hope we will be that utterly stupid again!
Click to expand...
Ya know it's rather an indication of how right Socer is and how utterly scary you are when you consider McCain a moderate. In a relative sense you are correct. Compared to you, he is a moderate and compared to you I'm a fucking communist.

You may even actually have a point. The mushy middle road that Obama seems to be treading isn't bearing much fruit (or so it seems on the surface. Time will tell) but to be fair, he did inherit the disastrous policies of a reactionary populist.

But what the hell. Go ahead, delude yourself that your extreme reactionary 19th century views are mainstream. Convince yourself that your perochial perception is the center of the known universe. Cause ultimately its those of use in the center, center right and center left, who want nothing to do with your narrow mindedness, whom benefit from your delusions of grandeur.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Ya know it's rather an indication of how right Socer is and how utterly scary you are when you consider McCain a moderate. In a relative sense you are correct. Compared to you, he is a moderate and compared to you I'm a fucking communist.

You may even actually have a point. The mushy middle road that Obama seems to be treading isn't bearing much fruit (or so it seems on the surface. Time will tell) but to be fair, he did inherit the disastrous policies of a reactionary populist.

But what the hell. Go ahead, delude yourself that your extreme reactionary 19th century views are mainstream. Convince yourself that your perochial perception is the center of the known universe. Cause ultimately its those of use in the center, center right and center left, who want nothing to do with your narrow mindedness, whom benefit from your delusions of grandeur.
Click to expand...

You are not "center" anything, except maybe "center retarded" or something. If you leaned any further left, the change would be falling out of your pockets. John McCain was the most moderate of ALL possible candidates on the GOP side. Shall we run down the list of examples for McCain's "moderation?" McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, Gang of 14, Global Warming, The Maverick... shall we continue? I think, to argue McCain was not a moderate, is evidence you are certainly retarded, possibly severely retarded and borderline brain-dead like Terri Schiavo... better watch out, Mott, some Democrat will lobby to have your feeding tube pulled! Then where will you be?
 
Dixie said:
You are not "center" anything, except maybe "center retarded" or something. If you leaned any further left, the change would be falling out of your pockets.
Click to expand...

I swear to God you are so damn funny at times I just about choked on my Diet Coke!


:good4u:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Cawacko, you can't advance libertarianism based on others records. It has to stand on it's own merits and I've studied it enough to know that it can't even crawl. Libertarianism is built upon fairy dust and wishful thinking and collossal niavete. As a governing and political philosophy it's as impractical as it is ineffective. I stand behind my statement. How can you expect competent governance from those who believe that government is essentially a bad thing? Libertarians never seem to want to bridge that credibility gap. That is why they cannot build a winning political coalition and that makes them a waste of time. The contradiction that Libertariansim poses with reality is so glaring I don't see how anyone can miss them.
Click to expand...

I think Cawacko mostly addressed your point, but you know I have to chime in.

First...did you actually say one post before this that the libertarian wing of the Republican Party needs to be kicked to the curb? And what exactly, Mott, are you planning on replacing it with that's going to make the party any more to your liking?

Plenty of folks are working on the credibility issue you mention and I think it's one that is becoming easier and easier all the time. Three or four years ago the word libertarian was unknown by most and by some represented an obscure third party. Today, the word has gained respectable media-share with words like conservative and liberal and folks are starting to get that it represents a general set of ideas about government.

A set of ideas that while frightening to some, most people actually agree with in basic terms and for a variety of reasons.

And in the era of Obama, every Republican in Congress got religion and now thinks he's some kind of libertarian. As you may have observed over time and as I tell everyone I get a chance to talk to about this, libertarian and non-libertarian, my goal is not to peddle a rigid ideology or ISM. I don't know of any other libertarians in this community, having read their thoughts for several years now, that feels any differently.

I also can't think of too many successful leaders in the United States that won on the basis of ideology instead of ideas.

So, I don't care about "libertarianism". I care about the institutions that preserve liberty and the people's value that they place on their freedom. The tradition of liberty in this country is one we've kept up fairly well under Republicans and Democrats when we've followed the Constitution.
 
Socrtease said:
I have said this before and I will say it again, first party to the TRUE middle wins. If the Repubs could get rid of their relgious crusaders then independents in the general election would elect their candidate overwhelmingly just as they would vote for the dems if they would eject their wealth haters. America is a center right country, and will vote center right almost every chance they get. While I think that Palin energized the conservative base she did NOTHING for McCain in the general election. By nothing, I mean she did not bring over centrist independents in the numbers she needed to. She may have even chased those voters away. Nobody seriously votes for a person that says they can see Russia from Alaska as proof of some sort of foreign policy experience. I she is the nominee, she will get pummeled. She is a semi pretty MILF who gave right wing men a chubby long enough that they never really thought about if she was qualified.
Click to expand...

I don't hate wealth. I just see better things to spend it on than a fifth home, like cancer research and food.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
I think Cawacko mostly addressed your point, but you know I have to chime in.

First...did you actually say one post before this that the libertarian wing of the Republican Party needs to be kicked to the curb? And what exactly, Mott, are you planning on replacing it with that's going to make the party any more to your liking?

Plenty of folks are working on the credibility issue you mention and I think it's one that is becoming easier and easier all the time. Three or four years ago the word libertarian was unknown by most and by some represented an obscure third party. Today, the word has gained respectable media-share with words like conservative and liberal and folks are starting to get that it represents a general set of ideas about government.

A set of ideas that while frightening to some, most people actually agree with in basic terms and for a variety of reasons.

And in the era of Obama, every Republican in Congress got religion and now thinks he's some kind of libertarian. As you may have observed over time and as I tell everyone I get a chance to talk to about this, libertarian and non-libertarian, my goal is not to peddle a rigid ideology or ISM. I don't know of any other libertarians in this community, having read their thoughts for several years now, that feels any differently.

I also can't think of too many successful leaders in the United States that won on the basis of ideology instead of ideas.

So, I don't care about "libertarianism". I care about the institutions that preserve liberty and the people's value that they place on their freedom. The tradition of liberty in this country is one we've kept up fairly well under Republicans and Democrats when we've followed the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I mean that's just it Adam. What ideas? What ideas do libertarians have that are sound principles for governance? Their "Big Government" bogey man is laughable. He are a huge nation with a large population that demands (emphasis added) a vast variety of services from our government. We have big government for these reason and because we want a government that will provide us with services that the private sector cannot affectively provide us.

No one wants a bloated and invasive Government with unlimited powers but we do want all those services that we can demand from them (and oddly enough don't want to pay for them). The discussion we really need to have is, how many of those services can we really afford and what will we have to live with out. Every one is for limiting the powers of government to protect our freedoms but for christ sakes, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I've yet to see a workable solution to balancing our need for services vs what we can afford, vs limiting government powers coming from Libertarians.

If the communist manifesto is "From those according to their ability to those according to their need." then Reagan summed up the Libertarian philosophy succinctly. "Government is not the solution to the problem, Government is the problem.". How can one expect competent governance from those who question it's legitimacy? As I've said before Libertarianism isn't an ideology for limited government, it's an ideology for inept government and that is why it has served the Republican party so poorly.

Good Government counts. Bad politics and poor government destroys more lives than wars do and until Libertarians grasp that reality, they are a waste of time.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
"Government is not the solution to the problem, Government is the problem.". How can one expect competent governance from those who question it's legitimacy?
Click to expand...

I've never interpreted that statement to question the legitimacy of government itself, but simply the effectiveness of government as it existed to resolve the problems it claims to address. What's more, misapplied government has made many of our most serious problems worse.

Reagan's statement does not say government cannot be a force for good. It says that government hasn't been a force for good, which was very true at the time and the reason he was elected.

I would venture to say that politically serious libertarians are very interested in good government. But the role of government is an important debate that we will never let go. Think of how open-ended you make the mandate of our government to so many aspects of our lives when you say "we need a big government".

We need as much government as we need, perhaps. Some people enjoy some programs, and even significantly benefit from some others. Some benefit too much, and some not enough.

Sometimes we don't need more government, we just want it for temporary conveniences and a perception of certainty. Sometimes politicians are not courageous in explaining why what we want and what we need are not the same things. But ultimately we have a constitutional system that needs to be respected, matters of decency that should be observed about what is okay and what's not when it comes to using the people's money, and practical limitations about what we can afford as a country.

For too long, we've started the discussion from the point of deciding we need more government, only later taking the time to evaluate the cost in liberty and property. All government institutions require a trade-off.

Limited government is a prudent approach to government if it is not ideologically rigid. It understands the need for government, but also the dangers of too much. This is much more preferable than the rigidity of the left, which does as the war hawks do and accuses their opponents of wanting the country to lose if they do not fully agree with their proposals.

Except instead of attacking their patriotism, it is their personal virtue or whether they care for the needy.

Regarding the health care issue, we could have passed an insurance reform bill much sooner than a public option. Everyone agrees with reform of health insurance regulation. Some places there needs to be some more and some places there needs to be less.

Now, different believers in limited government care about different things. My concern has always been using the most humane means we can to expand wealth in many hands instead of concentrating it.

I think the free market does that very well in many ways, but if there are government handouts, I'd rather they go to people who need it than people who don't. And the latter is the majority of what happens in Washington under the guise of solving important public problems.

The choice we've been dealt is not between limited government that is incompetent and a little bit more government and taxation that is better able to address our basic needs. Rather, the choice is limited government or unlimited government.

We can either have limited government and debate the finer points of policy and decide where our tax dollars go based on what we can afford and what improves our country; Or we can have unlimited government, where we are told it is wrong to put our foot down when new proposals come along, even if ultimately we will undermine the very effectiveness of government and quality of life we intended.

That's not to say folks for unlimited government know or think that they are. They are simply leaving the door open for more government with their failure to adopt any kind of limitation on their power (i.e. the Constitution) and the power of those who come after them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top