When did the conservative right go wrong?

[Lurker]

I have a hard time believing a person used to belong to one party, then (fill in the bblank) ran for office so now I'm voting for(fill in the blank).

"I voted for Ronnie Reagan. I knew Ronnie Reagan. Ronnie Reagan was a friend of mine. Senator McCain (or more accurately, Carribou Barbie), you're no Ronnie Reagan...."

 

It strikes me as truly ironic that Republican ideals about individual rights have been co-opted by folks who want to enforce their morals/beliefs on others. That's a dead-end path about which there'll be a lot of post-election analysis and party soul searching.

 

As to jumping ship, I did so long before the Moose Hunter hit the scene. Dubya and his backers made sure of that....

[Steely Dan]

In the 60's mainly due to the Viet Nam war. Actually the party of JFK was more like the Republican party of today. The Dems have been invaded by the ultra libs, and the Dems of yesteryear have more or less turned in to the Repubs of today. JKF was more conservative leaming than Pres Bush.

 

You're kidding right! Today's Dems are the moderates. There is no such thing as a moderate in the Republican party anymore. Define a moderate Republican for me.

 

 

Conservatives and Republicans are not necessarily from the same family tree. As a former Republican, my take is the party started to lose its way when the Karl Rove's of the world crafted a winning strategy that legitimized/brought into the tent the social conservatives (who were always out there, but had been largely ignored by the more traditional fiscal conservative/social moderate wing of the party).

 

 

 

Sort of like kudzu or zebra mussels, in a way...

 

I agree. Republicans used to be social right but not social ultra right. They were a party claiming to be for fiscal responsibility but never actually were after Ford.

 

 

We can start with the constitution. The Gettysburg address would make some nice kindling.

 

C'mon, you really are clueless aren't you. What do you call these things. (A partial list)

 

* the violation of the 1st Amendment: passage of laws providing federal tax revenues to be provided to faith based organizations;

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances;

 

* the violation of Article 1, Section 9:

. . . The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. ; . . .

 

* The many flagrant violations of oath of office per Article 6;

 

Bush has failed to live up to his oath of office in contradiction to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution for the united States of America (original intent); NOT: "of the United States" - limited jurisdiction (legal entity).

 

The flagrant violation of the 4th Amendment (search and seizure without a warrant)

 

* Sixth Amendment

 

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

The violation of U.S. law and international treaty (Geneva Convention): torture water-boarding (which is stated that it is illegal in the Army Field Manual)

 

 

 

So you totally jumped ship and went the other way? That's like being married for twenty years and deciding to come out of the closet because all of a sudden, your gay?

 

If I had a nickel for every time I heard a liberal say they "used" to be republicans!

 

They aren't liberals. They are moderates who were left behind by the Republicans. Your analogy should be reversed. It's like being married and then your wife comes out and says she's gay.

[Peter]

I think this is a worthy discussion without all the name calling. I am a conservative with libertarian instincts who doesn't think that we've seen anything remotely resembling conservative policy from the Republicans for the last eight years. I think that while the Republicans had Congress they became (more) corrupt and squandered an opportunity to keep GW in check. They, like the Democrats, protect those who are found to be corrupt and weaken their standing with the American People.

 

That is also why I am concerned about the Dem's dominating the Executive and Legislative branch. I think their ideas are horrible and just plain wrong and am concerned about how much damage they can do in two years. And, yes, they are just as corrupt as the Republicans.

 

To be frank, I think the Iraq War, while I clearly could see the rationale for going there, was mishandled badly by Rummy, Rove and Wolfboy. GW took their advice and therefore he is responsible. But as I've opined in other threads, we broke it, we bought it and must finish with honor and dignity intact. This has turned out to be a mistake of colossal proportion that didn't have to be this bad. The irony here is that I'm sure McCain wouldn't have mishandled things as bad as GW and was vocal about his f-ups.

 

At the end of the day, I think Republicans have shot themselves in the foot. I am a fan of Jim Webb, the Democrat Senator from Virginia. I think he gets it. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but overall like his approach and integrity.

 

Sometimes we get at we ask for. I'm afraid that's exactly what's going to happen if the Messiah gets elected...

 

I totally agree with about 98% of what you say. I disagree regarding the decision to go to war though. It was one of the worst if not the worst decisions that an administration has ever made for so many reasons - not the least of which was that we decided to focus our resources on someone that had nothing to do with 9/11 rather than those responsible and in the process lost thousands of wonderful and brave Americans, a trillion dollars, and the goodwill of the world.

 

As someone who became a Republican because of Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman, I am very concerned about the Republican Party. W is not a conservative, he allowed himself to be controlled by the neoconservatives, and, in the process, destroyed the party and did real damage to this Country.

 

I have not made a final decision about what I am going to do on November 4th, but I am very concerned about the fact that McCain has surrounded himself with neoconservative foreign policy advisors rather than people like Brent Scowcroft.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

actually its more like finding out that the spouse of 20 years has been cheating on ya for the last few and ya finally wake up and smell the roses.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

We can start with the constitution. The Gettysburg address would make some nice kindling.

 

So you have a problem with liberals because we don't follow the tenets of a speech written in 1863 on a train on a napkin in about 1 hour?

[Boomer860]

So you have a problem with liberals because we don't follow the tenets of a speech written in 1863 on a train on a napkin in about 1 hour?

So you are saying you dont agree with Lincoln.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

So you are saying you dont agree with Lincoln.

 

Well it was a beautiful speech but my point is, what is westside arguing here? He's criticizing liberals for not abiding by the gettysburg address? What is that even supposed to mean?

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

But I should add that I feel Lincoln was a relatively sh*tty president

[Dan]

But I should add that I feel Lincoln was a relatively sh*tty president

Please expand more on this tidbit.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Please expand more on this tidbit.

 

Actually, I was just trying to goad somebody into accusing me of being anti-American because I was bored. I don't really think that. In fact, after reading Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin, I doubt that I respect any man more in the course of American history. On top of being a brilliant politician and orator, it seems to me that he truly wanted was best for the country, something that can rarely be said about today's politicians. He led American successfully through it's darkest hour, preserved the unity of the nation, all the while battling his own depression among other personal demons.

 

You hear that "who would you most want to meet, dead or alive?" and I always answer with Lincoln.

[Dan]

Actually, I was just trying to goad somebody into accusing me of being anti-American because I was bored. I don't really think that. In fact, after reading Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin, I doubt that I respect any man more in the course of American history. On top of being a brilliant politician and orator, it seems to me that he truly wanted was best for the country, something that can rarely be said about today's politicians. He led American successfully through it's darkest hour, preserved the unity of the nation, all the while battling his own depression among other personal demons.

 

You hear that "who would you most want to meet, dead or alive?" and I always answer with Lincoln.

Thanks. I was about to lose a lot of respect for you. I completely agree with everything you said.

[Steely Dan]

Actually, I was just trying to goad somebody into accusing me of being anti-American because I was bored. I don't really think that. In fact, after reading Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin, I doubt that I respect any man more in the course of American history. On top of being a brilliant politician and orator, it seems to me that he truly wanted was best for the country, something that can rarely be said about today's politicians. He led American successfully through it's darkest hour, preserved the unity of the nation, all the while battling his own depression among other personal demons.

 

You hear that "who would you most want to meet, dead or alive?" and I always answer with Lincoln.

 

You think that's patriotic! I know a guy who OWNS a Lincoln!!!

[molson_golden2002]

In the 60's mainly due to the Viet Nam war. Actually the party of JFK was more like the Republican party of today. The Dems have been invaded by the ultra libs, and the Dems of yesteryear have more or less turned in to the Repubs of today. JKF was more conservative leaming than Pres Bush.

I guess that's the point then, even though it went right over your head. The electorate must be more liberal now.

[molson_golden2002]

Conservatives and Republicans are not necessarily from the same family tree. As a former Republican, my take is the party started to lose its way when the Karl Rove's of the world crafted a winning strategy that legitimized/brought into the tent the social conservatives (who were always out there, but had been largely ignored by the more traditional fiscal conservative/social moderate wing of the party).

 

Sort of like kudzu or zebra mussels, in a way...

How is that any different than Nixon running for "law and order"? Reagan ran on the anti-abortion crap and against liberal judges. I just think America changed and the Republicans were able to squeeze out two more election victories as a last gasp.

 

 

My theory is that this is a long term trend, with fewer voters coming of age that identify with God, guns and whatever. This election cycle accelerated this trend because--IMO--the great battle ground section of the country, the suburbs, were hit hard by the drop in home values. I know GOP wins in rural areas and Dems in city, so winning the suburbs wins elections. And it seems to me that the suburbs suffered the most. DCan the GOP win back suburban numbers enough to off set the new Democratic voters? I suppose they can, but the trend is against them.

[molson_golden2002]

Another thing I think happened is that the Dems have been able to communicate their message better because of things like the Daily Show, MSNBC, youtube and on the internet in general. The GOP had a decided advantage here earlier with talk radio and Fox news but that's just gone now.

[/dev/null]

How is that any different than Nixon running for "law and order"? Reagan ran on the anti-abortion crap and against liberal judges. I just think America changed and the Republicans were able to squeeze out two more election victories as a last gasp.

 

 

My theory is that this is a long term trend, with fewer voters coming of age that identify with God, guns and whatever. This election cycle accelerated this trend because--IMO--the great battle ground section of the country, the suburbs, were hit hard by the drop in home values. I know GOP wins in rural areas and Dems in city, so winning the suburbs wins elections. And it seems to me that the suburbs suffered the most. DCan the GOP win back suburban numbers enough to off set the new Democratic voters? I suppose they can, but the trend is against them.

 

So will America be better off now that the evil Republican party has been vanquished and one party rule sets in?

[molson_golden2002]

So will America be better off now that the evil Republican party has been vanquished and one party rule sets in?

I guess we will see. Of course, the Democrats will grow more corrupt and arrogent as time moves on, so they will have to push hard on some major items quickly, like alternative energy and such.

 

And don't count on "one party rule" for too long. I suppose the GOP could just fall back on its rural, ignorant voters and rely on them, but that doesn't make all that much sense.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The question should be how the Republicans lost their moderate base. Their coalition fell in disfavor when Bush and the Republican Congress decided that deficits don't matter and we could spend ourselves into oblivion, without paying for it. Reagan was successful at it because the country needed some stimulus and the Dems were still living out their new deal dreams and then Clinton, Delay and Gingrich ushered in a balance budget giving us a brief reprieve. But once they lost power, the big spenders on the Right took over and the Dems only went along when they could get a piece of the pie.

 

The deficit and balance budget hawks on the right and the Blue Dogs and New Dems on the Left lost influence and Bush's new socialism took over. The problem is that both sides have their spenders and they have run amok the last couple of years. The question becomes is McCain a balanced budget guy... His record is spotty, but he has shown at times he wants to go that way. Obama doesn't have much of a record, but the Clinton-Daschle folks behind him are part of his inner circle there may be some hope if he wins. The problem will be if Obama or McCain can tone down their partisan rhetoric and tactics enough to put together fiscally responsible coalition. Otherwise it is everyone for themselves and their states and responsibility breaks down.

[erynthered]

The question should be how the Republicans lost their moderate base. Their coalition fell in disfavor when Bush and the Republican Congress decided that deficits don't matter and we could spend ourselves into oblivion, without paying for it. Reagan was successful at it because the country needed some stimulus and the Dems were still living out their new deal dreams and then Clinton, Delay and Gingrich ushered in a balance budget giving us a brief reprieve. But once they lost power, the big spenders on the Right took over and the Dems only went along when they could get a piece of the pie.

 

The deficit and balance budget hawks on the right and the Blue Dogs and New Dems on the Left lost influence and Bush's new socialism took over. The problem is that both sides have their spenders and they have run amok the last couple of years. The question becomes is McCain a balanced budget guy... His record is spotty, but he has shown at times he wants to go that way. Obama doesn't have much of a record, but the Clinton-Daschle folks behind him are part of his inner circle there may be some hope if he wins. The problem will be if Obama or McCain can tone down their partisan rhetoric and tactics enough to put together fiscally responsible coalition. Otherwise it is everyone for themselves and their states and responsibility breaks down.

 

Thats a pretty good post. I'm still not voting for either one, but its still a good post.

[bills_fan]

The question should be how the Republicans lost their moderate base. Their coalition fell in disfavor when Bush and the Republican Congress decided that deficits don't matter and we could spend ourselves into oblivion, without paying for it. Reagan was successful at it because the country needed some stimulus and the Dems were still living out their new deal dreams and then Clinton, Delay and Gingrich ushered in a balance budget giving us a brief reprieve. But once they lost power, the big spenders on the Right took over and the Dems only went along when they could get a piece of the pie.

 

The deficit and balance budget hawks on the right and the Blue Dogs and New Dems on the Left lost influence and Bush's new socialism took over. The problem is that both sides have their spenders and they have run amok the last couple of years. The question becomes is McCain a balanced budget guy... His record is spotty, but he has shown at times he wants to go that way. Obama doesn't have much of a record, but the Clinton-Daschle folks behind him are part of his inner circle there may be some hope if he wins. The problem will be if Obama or McCain can tone down their partisan rhetoric and tactics enough to put together fiscally responsible coalition. Otherwise it is everyone for themselves and their states and responsibility breaks down.

 

 

I agree with this completely. The GOP was always a tenuous coalition of neo-cons, social conservatives and libertarian fiscal conservatives. This coalition has broken down. The neo-cons ran the show, the social conservatives lost the fight they really wanted to win (US Supreme Court) and the libertarian fiscal conservatives have been abused due to spending and the erosion of personal liberties.

 

What could bring it back? Not sure if it will ever come back, it was always an unholy alliance. Personally, I'd love to see a 3rd party made up of the libertarian fiscal conservatives and center-right Dems. Leave everyone else in the dust. Not sure that will happen though.