Posted on 12/02/2014 1:36:11 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Two years ago, Bobby Jindal was pushing a state law to adapt national curriculum standards to local schools; today, not only is the Louisiana governor suing the federal government to stop Common Core — or “ObamaCore,” as many Republicans have taken to calling it — but most prospective Republican presidential candidates, except Jeb Bush, have reversed themselves.
Likewise, two years ago, almost all GOP leaders were unified against gay marriage, supportive of most surveillance tactics designed to prevent terrorism attacks, opposed to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and unwilling to accept any aspects of the Affordable Care Act.
But changing times, shifting coalitions and actions by President Barack Obama have conspired to reopen debate among GOP leaders on these and many other seemingly settled issues.
Now, as many of the men seeking to be the next Republican standard-bearer prepare to announce their candidacies, they find themselves reconsidering issues that once inspired such agreement that candidates competed over how strongly to impose the party’s beliefs, not what those beliefs should be.
The Common Core is one issue that once inspired broad agreement; now most prospective candidates are following Texas Gov. Rick Perry in moving in the other direction. Meanwhile, Ohio Gov. John Kasich is a big supporter of the Medicaid expansion that was part of the Affordable Care Act; but Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker argues it will simply make more people dependent on government. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is trying to roll back surveillance programs; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie warns that doing so could weaken national security.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Some areas of dispute:
Common Core, Immigration, Medicaid Expansion, NSA Surveillance, Gay Marriage.
I guess one has to put a chart comparing their stance side by side to see which ones you agree with the most.
And that is just the beginning of the list..........
[2016 Republicans disagree on NSA surveillance, gay marriage and Common Core]
It won’t take long for Conservatives to cull the herd.
a political martini — will it be shaken or stirred?
That’s the fun part of being conservatives (or Christians for that matter).
We can shred each other over the last 5% of disagreement.
Always the reports on the GOP divide. Never a word of the discord in the Democratic Party. Well, we’ll see in a little over a year the Democratic Party civil war between the Obamas and Clintons Part II.
What about the division between
1) those who want to "make government better" (like shifting the chairs on the Titanic), and
2) those who want to decrease by at least 80% the size of the $4,000,000,000,000 federal government (would = $800 billion) which only partially offsets the 1000% increase over the last 40 years. (Since 1970, the size of the federal government has increased 1000% ($350 billion to $4 trillion)).
One thing(amnesty) determines the fate of our country.
Dems do have a remarkable ability to coalesce over 80% agreement once they get to a final candidate. Mostly because they have have agreement on the principles important to them: bigger govt, pro-abortion, race-baiting, etc.
That’s why Baraq got most of the Clinton primary voters in Nov 2008, even though it was a heavily contested primary/caucus cycle. And if Warren for example defeats Hillary, I’d expect a similar response in ‘16.
never had one that showed the things that the Rinos do.
The Rinos have a full house and three Ace high and they play like losers? Boggles the mind!
The gist of this articles seems to be that the jockeying potential pres candidates are changing their stances, but I don’t see any sign that the Republican base is changing their stance on any of these issues. Just RINOs putting their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, as usual.
“Dems do have a remarkable ability to coalesce over 80% agreement once they get to a final candidate. Mostly because they have have agreement on the principles important to them: bigger govt, pro-abortion, race-baiting, etc.”
This is because the ideologues on the left successfully took over their party long ago, while ideologues on the right are still trying to figure out how to seize control.
Until the ideologues have the power, you can’t enforce orthodoxy, you can’t enshrine certain principles as uncompromisable, all you can do is try to shift your platform to suit the tastes of the voters, which is all the RINOs have been doing, mostly unsuccessfully, for a long time.
Good post!
The Globalist GOP are for Open Borders, Collecting Everyone’s Data, The Perpetual Stat Of Never Ending Wars, so called “free Trade” (really rigged trade where we pay tariffs and China does not), Climate Change Believes, Gay Marriage, Common Core(aka Dumb Them Down Further Core), etc....
The Conservatives GOP are for secure the Border, maintain the Bill of Rights, war when we are attacked, end the rigged trade agreements, don't believe carbon dioxide is a poison since it's good for tress and plants, believe marriage is between a man and a woman, don't believe in every answer is right common core, etc....
Yup.
The liberals I know also think a bit strategically about how things will shake-out in the long term. If they get a candidate that they agree with on most things, they’re willing to vote for that candidate to get closer to their goals - here’s the important part: especially if that candidate hints/suggests that he will nominate judges that’ll do a portion of the dirtywork from the bench for decades after he’s gone.
So even if the Democrat is followed by a Republican, those judges are still there, moving the ball forward towards their goals.
GOP backers of Common Core are like “moderate” Dims who supported Obamacare - the think they are supporting a “good concept” but are ignorant of what is actually in Common Core.
GOP conservatives (me included sometimes) allowed trust in the man in office during the GWBush administrations to have priority over the Constitutional priorities against abuse of power and concerns of excessive “security” over Liberty. The truly imperial presidency has been a good corrective lesson against that trust. It does not matter whose hands you put excessive power into, the error is the same no matter what.
Contending GOP positions on “gay marriage” should meet in the middle - majority support for (a) “it’s an issue for the states, not activist judges, (b) civil unions if adopted by voters, (c) federal law that grants partners in legal civil unions the same standing as far as federal law goes, with no implication by that on any state’s laws.
One side will say it smacks of “separate but equal”, and oppose it on the grounds that it wrongly “discriminates”. I would argue that the two conditions are not merely separate but different, different in just about any natural way of looking at them, and a “separate” social institution is what they are and legitimately warrant a separate law.
One side will say it smacks of “separate but equal”, and oppose them on the grounds that they should not be equal. But I would argue that by leaving the matter up to the states and their voters I am not presupposing to what degree they - marriage vs civil unions - must be equal, other than in general an identification of like joint interests, predominately financially, that “gay” couples want to secure similarly to married couples. Beyond that would and should be varied as determined by each individual state.
And, with a GOP majority that sticks to the position that it is in the states where this issue must rest, then securing the interest in that position should become a GOP agenda in all the states.
I think Conservatives erred in working so much against civil unions/partnerships and for DOMA (which essentially nullified any possible mutual respect for civil unions under federal law). The result was the battle switched to redefining marriage altogether - wrong on all counts. Now we have court cases with resulting legal argument language to support “gay” marriage that is ready made for supporting polygamy and worse.
Sounds like its just a list of things that differentiates real conservatives from progressives.
Conservatives need to have their own debates, choose a candidate after say 10 debates, moderated by conservatives like Levin, Ingraham, etc. and then hold a conservative convention to choose a candidate.
Last couple of times a divided conservative field made it easy for one Rino to win with only 30% of the vote in primary after primary contests.
This time we should debate early, and decide early who to support, then our superior numbers backing ONE CONSERVATIVE will mean we will finally get a candidate satisfactory to conservatives who are at least 60% of the GOP base.
No more letting the Rove, Bush, Romney and Christie wing get to choose a mush mouth candidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.