Posted on 02/26/2007 10:49:56 PM PST by Jim Robinson
It is too early to make definitive statements about 2008, but the evidence points to a change in the tone, if not the substance, of the Republican message.
Although moderation is in the eye of the beholder and difficult to define, the GOP message and messenger are much more likely than in the recent past to be less beholden to, or a member of, the party's strongly conservative wing.
There are two reasons why:
* The background and views of the two leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
* The lesson that may lie in the success of GOP governors with high approval ratings. Florida's Charlie Crist, California's Arnold Schwarzenegger and Connecticut's Jody Rell are thriving with a vision that features a larger role for government.
Since the nomination of Ronald Reagan in 1980, moderates have fared poorly in Republican presidential primaries. The GOP has stood for lower taxes, toughness on defense and opposition to abortion, gay rights and gun control.
But while McCain and Giuliani spout that line on taxes and terrorism, their views on lifestyles issues are less in sync with recent Republican tradition.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You sit and play the cards you are dealt. We're not holding a full house this round -- meaning there's no Reagan or Lincoln or whatever we can all agree on and rally around.
If moderate Rudy is our best (and possibly only) chance to keep the Clintons out of our lives, so be it. Everyone should stop being so apocalyptic about it. The exaggeration and hysteria here about Rudy is ridiculous.
Show me a conservative who will win electorally, and I'll support him. There's nothing now. Wake me when Duncan Hunter gets even 5% nationally.
Rudy's far from my dream candidate, but this round of poker is about defeating Hillary Clinton, nothing else. Let's not destroy our front-runner, please?
That makes Bill in Chappaqua smile.
We need a strong campaign in the "Fly-over States." We need to stand up against the East and West Coast pukes and remind them what being a Conservative is all about.
(Those Conservatives stuck on the East and West coasts are asked to help, too!)
I refuse to surrender to them. :)
moderation means big money. When you get 30k/plate (a fact that Rudy supporters are proud of), you don't want to take any real stands.
I knew that you could.
Neither George W Bush nor his father, the two most recent GOP Presidents, were ever part of the conservative movement or lead the conservative wing of the GOP. George W Bush is famously known as a "compassionate conservative", that is a "moderate", not a conservative. W Bush explicity campaigned on and pushed some big government "compassionate conservative" solutions, such as education reform, MediCare prescription coverage and 'faith-based' government funded social programs.
He never to my knowledge ever campaigned or proposed cut backs or elimination of government programs. He campaigned for tax cuts that would explicitly increase economic growth and thereby actually increase the taxes paid to the government. This is not conservatism.
Unfortunately, given the choice between McCain and Bush, Bush wins everytime. Who else ran in 2000? Forbes? He ran to push some policies and ideas, but he couldn't win a primary.
This is wishful thinking of the liberals.
In 2006 DINO trumped RINO in all elections.
Moderate republican is just code for liberal.
Just so you know, I have quit donating the the Republcan Party and have actively worked against the spineless rino faction. Change must come from within the Party... and that means we have to be proactive every day.
Why not put some energy into defeating democrats? Are you putting all your energy and money into defeating republicans??? Do you have any idea what will happen if the democrats seize permanent power???
This country just does NOT need two political parties to the 'left-of-center'. The GOP has been drifting leftward for years now--and Rudy is the perfect man to ACCELERATE THAT MOVEMENT EVEN MORE TO THE LEFT.
If you want to divide and SPLIT THE PARTY WIDE-OPEN,,,Rudy is JUST THE MAN FOR THE JOB!
I knew that you could.
Sadly, it's the truth this time around. We'll live.
On one hand, Jim, the right still holds most of the cards. Witness Romney's "born again" flip flops, McCain's sudden embrace of the Bush tax cuts and his brand spanking new disdain for Roe v. Wade, and Giuliani's breathtaking tapdancing to obscure his past (making Fred Astaire look slow footed).
OTOH, there are WAY too many on the right, including at this conservative website, that actually believe the nonsense. Romney became pro life in 2004 after researching stem cell issues, after a lifetime of being ardently pro-choice? McCain reaching out to evangelicals and other Christians, after a career mocking them? Giuliani, the worst of the bunch, now "understands the 2nd Amendment" after doing his damndest to put gun manufacturers out of business?
And yet, we have a tried and true Reaganite running. One who is more seasoned on the military and the WOT than all the others, one who force fed the politicians legislation requiring a border fence, one who understands the dangers of a rising China, one who has consistently and vocally been an advocate for traditional values, one who spearheaded the opposition against Clinton's gays in the military campaign, one who voted against McCain Feingold, one who believes strongly in the 10th amendment, and one who stood shoulder to shoulder with Reagan in the fight against communism and stands behind GWB 100% against the islamo-nazis.
Yet the "conservative media", aside from this site and some blogs, are as busy tapdancing as the big 3 candidates. We have to change that dynamic, and soon.
I'd rather the Democrats did big government than the Republicans, at least they are true believers in it.
Clearly, we Reagan Democrat, social conservative types need to look for a new political home after 2008, no matter who wins the election.
Clearly, we Reagan Democrat, social conservative types need to look for a new political home after 2008, no matter who wins the election.
Why not hone the conservative message to appeal to a wide range of voters, rather than alienating a wide range of voters???
"Why not hone the conservative message to appeal to a wide range of voters, rather than alienating a wide range of voters???"
Let the Republican Party continue on that path. We would not be Conservatives if we changed our message would we.
This is wishful thinking by RINOs and their supporters. If "moderation" means support of unrestricted abortion, same sex "marriage" or gun grabbing, then it ain't happening. However, one aspect worries me - it is the increasing propensity of socially and morally conservative Republicans to emulate "tax and spend" policies when it come to fiscal matters.
Tomorrow night, my Republican City Committee will be meeting to discuss the party platform. The Senate Minority Leader, Sen. Richard Tisei (R)- Wakefield has already stated that the MASSGOP will not be addressing Social Issues, as he says they are divisive. So, I suggest the new symbol of MASSGOP be a dime, to symbolize the dimes difference between the parties. Watch for some Democrat challengers to his seat run on
"traditional family values". In fact his last challenger Catherine Clarke alluded to his not sharing our values. Hint.
FACT #1: Running as a bland, business-as-usual Republican will be a dead loser. In 2006, the American people repudiated the GOP, because the idea of Republicans' trying to manage the liberal welfare state they inherited from the Democrats was a dead loser. I am not sure many Republican consultants have come to understand this. Certainly the elite news media want Republicans to run as non-ideological "centrists" who will then have no persuasive appeal to the vast majority of Americans that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 and '84 and the Contract with America House Republicans in 1994.
All three comments would be ridiculed if spoken today as "neocon agenda items" and the ACLU would sue the speakers for mixing church and state! :*(
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.