[quote]Damici wrote:
Somewhat on the general subject of where the Republican party and “conservative movement” went wrong, here is the always amusing P.J. O’Rourke:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15791&R=13CD722B2E
[/quote]
good read, but eh article is dated 11/17/2008??
(yes I know it is for that edition, but still it looks funny)
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Christine wrote:
GWB thinks that god wanted him to be President. I have no problem with someone praying to any god, but I do have a problem with crediting your actions and decisions based on what you think that god wants you to do. How can someone ever take responsibility for themselves if they think that god is making all of their decisions? And how can they ever admit to their mistakes if god told them what to do?
Do you have a quote from Bush saying that, or is that your paraphrase? Carter said much the same thing about his run for the Oval Office 32 years ago. It happens just about every 4 years, and every two years if we are bring Senate-HOR elections into the equation.
Much like Damici - you are allowing your fear to attach things to Bush that he has never said, or done - and creating a religious zealot where one just does not exist.
I really believe that something is seriously wrong if a person uses a little black book define their morals.
Really? So where would one find a Christine approved set of morals?
[/quote]
Bush’s fundamentalist views are well known.
I would hope that any leader have a strong internal moral compass that he or she relies on. These are things that are developed at a very young age, and if someone is lacking, no religion is going to make them be a moral person. They may, however, be able to act within the bounds of what is acceptable to society. I have no problem with any religion being used to help guide a person’s decision, so long as that person recognizes his or her free will and takes the responsibility for those decisions, good or bad.
[quote]Damici wrote:
BINGO: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303347.html?referrer=emailarticle
[/quote]
Christine Todd Whitman is the voice of conservatism, now?
Abandon the right, and you will have to move even further left than the party is now to make up the losses. Then you are nothing more than McCain lite.
Here’s a hint: Whitman is about as conservative as McCain. And he did swimmingly as the Republican leader.
Seriously - how many times does the same mistake need to be made before the non-conservative conservatives stop expecting a result other than abysmal failure?
And you think Palin is stupid. (Not you-you, middle of the road, worthless “moderates”-you.
Oh, I don’t CARE about your little labels, like arguing over who’s “conservative.” I’m not fighting for the title of “most conservative.”
I’m fighting for what I feel is RIGHT (as in, correct, not right-wing).
Christine Todd Whitman represents the “big-tent” wing of the Republican party. I would say she is noticeably more moderate than McCain. (She’s pro-choice, for one thing.)
And whether you LIKE her or not, you can’t refute what she SAID in that article. The numbers she quoted don’t lie.
She just proved you wrong.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
BINGO: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303347.html?referrer=emailarticle
Christine Todd Whitman is the voice of conservatism, now?
Abandon the right, and you will have to move even further left than the party is now to make up the losses. Then you are nothing more than McCain lite.
Here’s a hint: Whitman is about as conservative as McCain. And he did swimmingly as the Republican leader.
Seriously - how many times does the same mistake need to be made before the non-conservative conservatives stop expecting a result other than abysmal failure?
And you think Palin is stupid. (Not you-you, middle of the road, worthless “moderates”-you. [/quote]
[quote]Damici wrote:
Oh, I don’t CARE about your little labels, like arguing over who’s “conservative.” I’m not fighting for the title of “most conservative.”[/quote]
That becomes more obvious with each successive post from you.
This entire debate started as a discussion on rebuilding the conservative movement. Now you are abandoning the discussion? Why?
[quote]Christine Todd Whitman represents the “big-tent” wing of the Republican party. I would say she is noticeably more moderate than McCain. (She’s pro-choice, for one thing.)
And whether you LIKE her or not, you can’t refute what she SAID in that article. The numbers she quoted don’t lie.[/quote]
The “Big Tent” wing has never won a fucking thing. It is only when conservatives run as unabashed, proud conservatives that things actually change and elections are won. So Whitman was governor of New Jersey - that is hardly the face of conservatism.
When the Republicans actually pick up seats running as a bunch of gutless fucking moderates, then she will have proved something in that bullshit op-ed piece. Until then - she is just another anti-conservative moderate that should most probably be sitting on the other side of the aisle.
Conservatism wins every election it is honestly employed. Fear of religion is weak. Thinking the religious right is forcing anything down anyone’s throat is a laughably untenable position.
You get all defensive when I accuse you of wanting people with certain beliefs to sit down and shut up, yet you cite a link that just proves my point.
The Republican Party will die a painful death if it tries to move its foundation to the left. One needs only look back to last Tuesday for more than enough proof - or 2006, if that is not in the too distant past.
Rainjack, do you not READ? EVER?? First READ the title of this thread. It was started as a discussion about Mitt Romney as a potential Republican candidate for president in 2012 and became a related discussion (among those who weren’t thrilled with the idea of Romney) of where the Republican party might go, whether with Romney or anyone else.
This is NOT the “Who Rules the ‘Conservative Movement?’” thread. If you want to have that thread, go start it. This is about the Republican party, “conservative” or not, where it fucked up and how it might right itself.
Secondly, READ some more. READ the link I just posted, the articled co-authored by Whitman. DON’T just assail her character or “worthiness” because you don’t like her, try responding to her POINTS. The numbers don’t lie, and they are much more relevant than what happened 30 years ago, which you’d like to keep harping on. READ.
I’ll make some of it easier for you:
"While a host of issues were at play in this election, the primary reason John McCain lost was the substantial erosion of support from self-identified moderates compared with four years ago.
In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry held just a nine-percentage-point margin among moderate voters over President Bush. This year, the spread between Barack Obama and McCain was 21 points among this group. The net difference between the two elections is a deficit of nearly 6.4 million moderate votes for the Republicans in 2008."
AND:
"In seven of the nine states that switched this year from Republican to Democratic, Obama’s vote total exceeded the total won by President Bush four years ago.
So even if McCain had equaled the president’s numbers from 2004 (and he did not), he still would have lost in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia (81 total electoral votes) – and lost the election. McCain didn’t lose those states because he failed to hold the base. He lost them because Obama broadened his base."
AND, most importantly to refuting YOUR point:
"Nor did the Republican ticket lose because “values voters” stayed home. On the contrary, according to exit polls, such voters made up a larger proportion of the electorate this year than in 2004 – 26 percent, up from 23 percent.
Extrapolating from those data, McCain actually won more votes from self-identified white evangelical/born-again voters than Bush did four years ago – 1.8 million more. But that was not enough to offset the loss of so many moderates."
McCain RAN, in 2008 (regardless of what he might’ve said or done historically) on a platform of lower taxes (though he couldn’t explain that for shit – his bad), strong national defense, being pro-life, being against gay marriage, and being a “conservative.”
Whether he IS at heart or not is beside the point. In the 2008 election he came off as VERY conservative. He even went out of his way to nominate a completely unqualified, ultra-conservative evangelical ninny as his VP candidate JUST to make SURE the cultural conservatives were on board.
And guess what? They WERE!! 1.8 million MORE of them than even W. got last time around!
Yet they got stomped. Funny, that.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
Oh, I don’t CARE about your little labels, like arguing over who’s “conservative.” I’m not fighting for the title of “most conservative.”
That becomes more obvious with each successive post from you.
I’m fighting for what I feel is RIGHT (as in, correct, not right-wing).
This entire debate started as a discussion on rebuilding the conservative movement. Now you are abandoning the discussion? Why?
Christine Todd Whitman represents the “big-tent” wing of the Republican party. I would say she is noticeably more moderate than McCain. (She’s pro-choice, for one thing.)
And whether you LIKE her or not, you can’t refute what she SAID in that article. The numbers she quoted don’t lie.
The “Big Tent” wing has never won a fucking thing. It is only when conservatives run as unabashed, proud conservatives that things actually change and elections are won. So Whitman was governor of New Jersey - that is hardly the face of conservatism.
She just proved you wrong.
When the Republicans actually pick up seats running as a bunch of gutless fucking moderates, then she will have proved something in that bullshit op-ed piece. Until then - she is just another anti-conservative moderate that should most probably be sitting on the other side of the aisle.
Conservatism wins every election it is honestly employed. Fear of religion is weak. Thinking the religious right is forcing anything down anyone’s throat is a laughably untenable position.
You get all defensive when I accuse you of wanting people with certain beliefs to sit down and shut up, yet you cite a link that just proves my point.
The Republican Party will die a painful death if it tries to move its foundation to the left. One needs only look back to last Tuesday for more than enough proof - or 2006, if that is not in the too distant past. [/quote]
[quote]Damici wrote:
Rainjack, do you not READ? EVER?? First READ the title of this thread.
It was started as a discussion about Mitt Romney as a potential Republican candidate for president in 2012 and became a related discussion (among those who weren’t thrilled with the idea of Romney) of where the Republican party might go, whether with Romney or anyone else.[/quote]
Yes I do read. Unfortunately, you evidently do not. At least not what you write.
Below is our first exchange, begun by you as a reply to one of my posts:
[i]In addition to lower spending, lower taxes and less government, I would add less preachiness, less bible-thumping, less divisiveness and less bigotry.
In other words, smaller government in ALL respects. That includes keeping their noses the fuck out of people’s private lives and religions (or lack thereof, as the case may be).
We’ve seen what happens when you elect a know-nothing incompetent simply because he tows the “pro-Jesus” line and he “seems like a guy you’d wanna’ have a beer with,” ignoring all other areas of relevance to the job of being president: Said incompetent goes on to ruin the world.
Never again.
rainjack wrote:
The right needs to move back to the principles that created the revolt in 1994: unabashed conservatism. Lower spending, lower taxes, less government. They sold out the ones who put them in office, and the country will be paying for the defection for a long time. [/i]
Now - tell me where to find the word “Republican” or “Romney” in that post
Neither is it the “Please Ignore the Religious Right Because They Scare Me” thread.
If you want to preach at me, try taking your own advice first.
[quote]Secondly, READ some more. READ the link I just posted, the articled co-authored by Whitman. DON’T just assail her character or “worthiness” because you don’t like her, try responding to her POINTS.
The numbers don’t lie, and they are much more relevant than what happened 30 years ago, which you’d like to keep harping on. READ.[/quote]
I am evidently doing a better job at reading than you are. Whitman wants to blame the religious right for McCain’s loss She is wrong. The truth is, she is a moderate. Moderates are not the answer - which is pretty much what I have been saying for the last 11 pages.
McCain didn’t lose because of the right. McCain lost because there was little difference in his rhetoric and Obama’s and people were ready for a change. Who wants moderate republicans representing them in the first place? I mean besides people who think that moving to the left and still calling yourself a Republican is okay?
I’d like to continue this little pissing match, but I live in Texas, and my son’s football team is in the playoffs. Politics is fun, but Texas High School Football is a religion - and the Playoffs is our pilgrimage to the Mountain Top. I’ll be back tomorrow.
You just did it – AGAIN. You DID NOT RESPOND to the substance of that article. The reason? You CAN’T!! You’re WRONG!! The numbers are right THERE!!
Jeezus, dude just man up and admit it already.
And your quote of the beginning of the discussion between you and me does not in ANY WAY illustrate the idea that this was – ever – somehow a conversation on the Definition of Conservatism, or who or who is not a “true conservative.” NOWHERE.
READ what you and I posted! As I said, the title of the thread is “Romney 2012?” and the discussion grew from there into discussing the future (or lack thereof) of the REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Oh, and I couldn’t care less what label you apply to yourself, or to me, or to the party. I’m not interested in fitting into someone else’s idea of a label. Apparently you are.
I have posted FACTS in this thread. Those voting NUMBERS form the Whitman article ILLUSTRATE that you are WRONG.
You won’t respond to that because you CAN’T. FACTS ARE FACTS.
So you continue to repeat your mantra, over and over, completely devoid of any facts to back it up, that “The Republicans can only win when they run to the hard right! The Republicans can only win when they run to the hard right!”
Repeating it DOESN’T make it true, RJ. They just RAN to the hard right in 2008. On EVERY issue: Fiscal policy, abortion, gay marriage, defense/foreign policy . . . EVERYTHING.
And they got STOMPED.
This is NOT the Reagan revolution. It’s 2008. And as P.J. O’Rourke explained, unfortunately whatever progress was made then has just been set back (by the party’s own doing) probably several decades.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
Rainjack, do you not READ? EVER?? First READ the title of this thread. It was started as a discussion about Mitt Romney as a potential Republican candidate for president in 2012 and became a related discussion (among those who weren’t thrilled with the idea of Romney) of where the Republican party might go, whether with Romney or anyone else.
Yes I do read. Unfortunately, you evidently do not. At least not what you write.
Below is our first exchange, begun by you as a reply to one of my posts:
[i]In addition to lower spending, lower taxes and less government, I would add less preachiness, less bible-thumping, less divisiveness and less bigotry. In other words, smaller government in ALL respects.
That includes keeping their noses the fuck out of people’s private lives and religions (or lack thereof, as the case may be).
We’ve seen what happens when you elect a know-nothing incompetent simply because he tows the “pro-Jesus” line and he “seems like a guy you’d wanna’ have a beer with,” ignoring all other areas of relevance to the job of being president: Said incompetent goes on to ruin the world.
Never again.
rainjack wrote:
The right needs to move back to the principles that created the revolt in 1994: unabashed conservatism. Lower spending, lower taxes, less government. They sold out the ones who put them in office, and the country will be paying for the defection for a long time. [/i]
Now - tell me where to find the word “Republican” or “Romney” in that post
This is NOT the “Who Rules the ‘Conservative Movement?’” thread. If you want to have that thread, go start it. This is about the Republican party, “conservative” or not, where it fucked up and how it might right itself.
Neither is it the “Please Ignore the Religious Right Because They Scare Me” thread.
If you want to preach at me, try taking your own advice first.
Secondly, READ some more. READ the link I just posted, the articled co-authored by Whitman. DON’T just assail her character or “worthiness” because you don’t like her, try responding to her POINTS. The numbers don’t lie, and they are much more relevant than what happened 30 years ago, which you’d like to keep harping on. READ.
I am evidently doing a better job at reading than you are. Whitman wants to blame the religious right for McCain’s loss She is wrong. The truth is, she is a moderate. Moderates are not the answer - which is pretty much what I have been saying for the last 11 pages.
McCain didn’t lose because of the right. McCain lost because there was little difference in his rhetoric and Obama’s and people were ready for a change. Who wants moderate republicans representing them in the first place? I mean besides people who think that moving to the left and still calling yourself a Republican is okay?
I’d like to continue this little pissing match, but I live in Texas, and my son’s football team is in the playoffs. Politics is fun, but Texas High School Football is a religion - and the Playoffs is our pilgrimage to the Mountain Top. I’ll be back tomorrow.
[/quote]
You just did it – AGAIN. You DID NOT RESPOND to the substance of that article. The reason? You CAN’T!! You’re WRONG!! The numbers are right THERE!!
Jeezus, dude just man up and admit it already.
And your quote of the beginning of the discussion between you and me does not in ANY WAY illustrate the idea that this was – ever – somehow a conversation on the Definition of Conservatism, or who or who is not a “true conservative.” NOWHERE.
READ what you and I posted! As I said, the title of the thread is “Romney 2012?” and the discussion grew from there into discussing the future (or lack thereof) of the REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Oh, and I couldn’t care less what label you apply to yourself, or to me, or to the party. I’m not interested in fitting into someone else’s idea of a label. Apparently you are.
I have posted FACTS in this thread. Those voting NUMBERS form the Whitman article ILLUSTRATE that you are WRONG.
You won’t respond to that because you CAN’T. FACTS ARE FACTS.
So you continue to repeat your mantra, over and over, completely devoid of any facts to back it up, that “The Republicans can only win when they run to the hard right! The Republicans can only win when they run to the hard right!”
Repeating it DOESN’T make it true, RJ. They just RAN to the hard right in 2008. On EVERY issue: Fiscal policy, abortion, gay marriage, defense/foreign policy . . . EVERYTHING.
And they got STOMPED.
This is NOT the Reagan revolution. It’s 2008. And as P.J. O’Rourke explained, unfortunately whatever progress was made then has just been set back (by the party’s own doing) probably several decades.
Turnout in last week’s election increased from four years ago but fell far short of some forecasts largely because many Republican voters either stayed home or left blank the presidential section of their ballots.
Here’s at least a good part of the reason why (from that article): “McDonald concurred, saying, ‘It became more evident to voters at the end that Barack Obama was going to win. That probably tamped down the turnout and disproportionately affected the Republicans.’”
I am one of those Republicans who voted for NEITHER McCain nor Obama. Why?? Because when John McCain nominated Sarah Palin to be VP, meaning she could very well have to step in in a heartbeat and be PRESIDENT of the United States, he COMPLETELY disqualified himself from being taken seriously as a sane, rational and capable candidate for President.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Turnout in last week’s election increased from four years ago but fell far short of some forecasts largely because many Republican voters either stayed home or left blank the presidential section of their ballots.
[quote]Damici wrote:
You just did it – AGAIN. You DID NOT RESPOND to the substance of that article. The reason? You CAN’T!! You’re WRONG!! The numbers are right THERE!!
Jeezus, dude just man up and admit it already.[/quote]
Why is it so freaking hard for you to understand that I disagree with you and Todd-Whitman? The first paragraph of the op-ed piece says more than the entirety of the article.
The Republican party was once referred to as the conservative party. This isn’t pre-school, dude. Try connecting a few dots on your own.
But you have yet to mention Romney other than to say that he was the subject of this thread. I really don’t know what it is you are trying to say here.
I am what I am. I am not so fucking full of myself as to think my political positions are beyond description. You, evidently are such a trailblazer that you fail to see the wagon ruts to failure that you are following.
Here’s the thing about poll numbers - they can be manipulated to say whatever the author wants them to say. One need only to look at your link to abortions to see that much.
You won’t respond to that because you CAN’T. FACTS ARE FACTS.
[quote]So you continue to repeat your mantra, over and over, completely devoid of any facts to back it up, that “The Republicans can only win when they run to the hard right! The Republicans can only win when they run to the hard right!”
Repeating it DOESN’T make it true, RJ. They just RAN to the hard right in 2008. On EVERY issue: Fiscal policy, abortion, gay marriage, defense/foreign policy . . . EVERYTHING.[/quote]
No one ran to the hard right in 2008. Are you fucking crazy? There has not been a run to the right since the 2002 mid-term elections - when the right GAINED seats. When the republicans ran in the middle or, more accurately, to the left - they lost seats in the house and senate.
That’s what happens when republicans start listening to dipshits like Todd-Whitman.
I don’t disagree. But he is wrong on why. Running to the left, or voting like a pussy and then trying to run like you are conservative, loses elections, and 2008 - 2006 is a living, breathing example of that.
Todd-Whitman may be your hero, but she is a cancer to the party. I would not be shocked if she, along with many more of the gutless moderates changed parties.
In my opinion (which is all Todd-Whitman offered up as well - opinion) there is no point in running to the left of true conservatism.
I know - I know, you think I am ignoring “facts”. I’m not. I see your “facts” and interpret them differently. Imagine that.
The further the party moves to the left, the more voters they will alienate, and take the party down with it. Religious zealots and all.
Right, but it is not NOW. There is a spectrum of political views with conservative on one end and liberal on the other, and even within what most what call the “conservative” side of the spectrum there are many different levels. If you want to petition to rename the party the “Conservative Party” and you want to move to the absolute end of the spectrum on the very right, just because it makes you feel like the ultimate “tough guy” to be as “conservative” as you can (as you define it, anyway) – since you describe everyone who doesn’t agree with your politics as a “pussy” (very, very impressive of you), be my guest. You go ahead and start that effort to rename the party. The rest of us will concern ourselves with relevant issues.
[quote]READ what you and I posted! As I said, the title of the thread is “Romney 2012?” and the discussion grew from there into discussing the future (or lack thereof) of the REPUBLICAN PARTY.
But you have yet to mention Romney other than to say that he was the subject of this thread. I really don’t know what it is you are trying to say here.[/quote]
If you don’t think I mentioned Romney at all in this thread you haven’t been paying attention. I’ll say it again: READ. Words mean things. You’ll learn something.
Oh, so someone who’s not concerned with fitting into other people’s description of either “conservative” or “liberal” is “full of themselves??” You’re a real piece of work, aren’t you? Can’t have an intelligent discussion without it devolving into you hurling insults.
No, people who focus on worrying about bigger things, like trying to get policy issues right, regardless of labels, and have governing done effectively have much bigger things on their minds than trying to fit into your self-defined little pigeonholes just for the sake of appeasing boisterous, name-callers.
Ahhhh! I SEE!! When presented with numerical evidence of something that disproves YOUR theory your reaction – since you KNOW you can’t argue the facts (because they ARE in fact just that) is to cry “Those aren’t REAL facts! They is MADE UP and TWISTED facts designed to suit YOUR argument!”
Why don’t you just try disputing the NUMBERS, RJ. I QUOTED them for you in the previous post to TRY and get you to comment on them, but you WON’T because you CAN’T. Your only response is a knee-jerk one, saying, “Well I don’t believe THOSE facts!” Brilliant. So there really, really IS no point in discussing things with you. Your mind is just officially closed. Ok.
You like repeating your claims without providing evidence, and when I provide evidence to the contrary you just ignore it and repeat your mantra. In this case it’s your idea that “No one ran to the right in 2008.”
Let’s see. McCain ran: Pro-life, pro-fiscal conservatism, anti-gay-marriage, hawkish on foreign policy, pro-oil-drilling, and he nominated a mindless, hard-right Bible-thumping ninny, who brought the rednecks out in droves, as his VP.
You’re right – he ran as a fucking leftist. (???)
[quote]And they got STOMPED.
That’s what happens when republicans start listening to dipshits like Todd-Whitman.[/quote]
Only . . . the McCain/Palin campaign WASN’T listening to Christine Todd-Whitman or the like!! HellOOO!! THAT’S WHY SHE FELT COMPELLED TO RIGHT THE ARTICLE, EINSTEIN!!!
She may not be my “hero” but she made a whole lot of sense in that article. One which you still refuse to face. You want to just keep pushing that cart down into that same ditch, even after just getting blown out. Have it your way.
[quote]In my opinion (which is all Todd-Whitman offered up as well - opinion) there is no point in running to the left of true conservatism.
I know - I know, you think I am ignoring “facts”. I’m not. I see your “facts” and interpret them differently. Imagine that.
The further the party moves to the left, the more voters they will alienate, and take the party down with it. Religious zealots and all.[/quote]
The more they’ll alienate?? Like all the voters they alienate now with the radical wing of the party? Trust me, you’d have nothing to worry about (and much to be thankful for) if the party took a big-tent approach for a change. Hell, you’re the one who said you could “take or leave” the Religious Right personally, so why keep defending them to the detriment of yourself and your party?? If it’s fiscal conservatism, small government and strong national defense you want, FOCUS on that, without all the bullshit that they bring along with it.