Posted on 01/11/2005 1:40:46 PM PST by RWR8189
Back in 2002, two die-hard social conservatives fought for Minnesota's Republican gubernatorial nomination. Brian Sullivan was a successful entrepreneur backed by the Freedom Club, a group of "pro-growth" millionaires lifted straight from Central Casting. With his zeal for tax cuts and his privileged background, Sullivan was a Bush Republican down to his wingtips.
His opponent was Tim Pawlenty, a state representative born on the wrong side of the tracks. Pawlenty embraced the state's populist tradition, insisting that Republicans "need to be the party of Sam's Club, not just the country club." And it was Pawlenty who ended up winning the GOP nod and the statehouse by wide margins.
What Pawlenty realized — and what President Bush apparently fails to grasp — is that the Republican Party has changed. The rich still vote for Republicans in large numbers, but they're not the party's heart and soul. To win elections, the GOP increasingly relies on socially conservative voters of modest means.
Which is why Bush's second-term agenda is so spectacularly wrongheaded. Social Security privatization (a good idea whose time hasn't come) and tax cuts for the rich (cast as "tax reform," of course) are on the front burner, and an amnesty for illegal immigrants (which would put even more pressure on native-born workers without college degrees) isn't far behind. The Freedom Club GOP is riding high — and the Sam's Club crowd is left in the dust.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
This is a steaming pile of horse excrement. I am socially conservative of quite modest means and worked very hard for President Bush's re-election. I even gave from my "modest means"...and I don't need Reihan Salam's supposed wisdom to tell me this President doesn't care about my issues.
Instead, the time these pundits use denigrating the POTUS might be better used talking about how Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chaffee and John McCain are hurting themselves and their party by acting like contrary little children. But then, that would make sense, wouldn't it?
Like a family here in Merrimack who saw thousands of dollars in tax savings on their $40,000 income, enough to put a new roof on their modest home, thanks to the Bush tax cuts.
No clue.
We were once known as Reagan Democrats.
I think the great divide is with OLDER social conservatives in rural states and us younger college graduates who work in office parks in suburbia and exurbia on the economic issues.
I am still wondering when "W" became a conservative. His take on social program spending and his position on illegal immigrants doesn't seem to be very conservative.
His statement that illegal immigrants only take jobs that Americans won't do is misguided and wrong.
I call BS on this unless someone can prove to me that the voting preferences of certain income groups have really changed.
While I disagree with amnesty, I don't recall the President making that statement. Do you have a source?
The Republican party is not the party of the rich. It is the party of people who want to keep what they have already earned and get more.
When I worked in banking, I always found it funny how so many of my senior colleagues were Republican, but married liberal wives.
Amen to #33.
Well, he's certainly more conservative than any Republican President since Reagan, and of course, by comparison to his electoral opponent, the difference is astronomical.
It's pretty hilarious hearing the crybaby losers claim that the winners have "failed to grasp" anything. Republicans need advice from the L.A. Times like I need a hole in the head.
Agreed, but I'm not going to support everything that he does because he was the best we could do at the time. As a matter of fact, when did conservatives begin to dance to the tune that the politicians pipe?
Remember, something that conservatives have endorsed for decades is a smaller federal government. The President hasn't given any indication of moving toward a smaller less intrusive government. In fact he has been running full speed to increase the size of government.
OF course not: they only benefit those who PAY taxes.
Which of course means that nearly have the country is unaffected by them.
Sounds about right. I'm also pretty sure that 2004 exit polling shows that income is a great predictor of who votes for whom. Nearly half of workers in America no longer pay federal taxes... ridiculous! We'd have a much smaller and much more conservative government if income tax day were moved to October, plus everyone had to pay a minimum on their income taxes. If not taxes--then community service.
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.