Posted on 02/27/2007 8:58:32 AM PST by pissant
Every 4 years, to garner the nomination for their party, GOPers swerve right, and Dems swerve left, to placate their respective bases, who tend more conservative/liberal than the population at large. Makes sense, since it is usually true believers most involved in the grassroots political process. This has repeated itself for many, many election cycles.
Those that blur the lines between republican and democrat, are treated with suspicion by their bases. It could be a single issue, for example Joe Lieberman on the war, or a host of issues, such as Arnold in California. Their resultant election to office, driven largely by independents and those in the opposite party showing admiration for one of the "enemy" siding with them might be good for moderation in government, but it leaves the party in that particular state in shambles (witness california). While that is not necessarily a national tragedy if the CT dems or the CA GOP is dysfunctional, when it comes to the presidency, it would be, and both parties recognize it. It is not unprecedented in this country that one of the major parties crumbles and disappears. The GOP was on its death bed by 1976 following Nixon's resignation, our shameful abandonment of Vietnam, and the moderate Ford taking office. The few conservatives in the party were no match for the majority dems in combination with the blue blood GOPers that had long ago given up on fighting the creeping socialism, had resigned themselves to co-existence with an aggressive USSR, and were generally anchorless and powerless. But something different was brewing in CA and his name was Reagan. Not only did he espouse the Goldwater platitudes of "government is the problem", he did something else alien to the moribund GOP. He courted those who saw the radical 1960s and 1970s changes in society as alarming and anti-american and anti-God. Not only did Reagan stand tall against the liberal social tide, he ridiculed it, sometimes with humor, sometimes in scathing terms. So much so that millions of Democrats saw this man, a republican, who embodied the good of American tradition and respect for the beliefs of our forefathers, both democrat and republican, and they switched parties. Think Bill Bennett, New Gingrich, etc. The social conservatives of the bible belt quickly realized that it was the republicans that stood for God, Country, family, not the party of their lineage. The GOP elites fought back and fought back hard, using many of the same terms to describe Reagan as the dems and the MSM would in 1980. Ford won the nomination by a whisker. But the table had been set. The rest is history.
The grand coalition that Reagan created, that led to a strictly conservative platform, that led to the collpase of the USSR, that led to a new generation of fiscal AND socially conservative leaders, is now teetering. GHWB was no Reagan, yet won on his coatails, only to lose "that vision thing". Yet the coalition held steady, and he would have been reelected had the stalking horse named Perot not waltzed in. 1994 saw a strong resurgence of the coalition due to Clinton's over reach, but it has been dwindling ever since. It has been dwindling not because of the party moving closer to Reaganism, but becasue it has moved farther away from it.
Bold ideas are in short supply. In 2004, Bush set out to fix SS forever and give citizens a stake in managing THEIR money, and the GOP leadership pulled the Rug out from under him. But they did support Bush's No Child Left Behind and prescription drug plan, and did not even bother to fight for the free market parts of those bills that Bush had wanted. Bush has consistently defied the UN and world opinion, much to the betterment of American sovereignty and national interest, yet it is mostly Bush and Cheney standing alone defending their policies while the GOP leadership let the dems and the media shape the debate.
There is no Newt Gingrich in the leadership of the congress. We had Frist and Hastert, nice guys and all, but feckless and afraid of what the Washington Post said about them. When it became fashionable to bash Rumsfeld, GOPers were making a b-line to the microphone to join the chorus. When the NY Times kept leaking secret stories to the press, the GOP let the dems control the debate. When conservatives challenged milquetoast moderates in the party, the RNC almost always sided with the moderates.
So here we are now. The choice is stark. Does the GOP become the party of moderation, or do they insist on a return to Reaganism, with the unabashed, bold conservative ideas and a willingness to ridicule the party of treason. The leading candidate right now supported a communist, Mario Cuomo, for governor of his state because he had the right ideas. The leading candidate was endorsed by the NY liberal party 3 times, because he represented much of their platform. On the flip side there is a candidate that not only espouses Reaganism, but has lived and voted it. And for bold ideas, he vows to get the border fence built in 6 months, return the power of education to the states, confront China's growing militancy, boost our armed forces - including space based weaponry, and do everything in his power to see that Roe v. Wade becomes a footnote in history.
That my friend, is a powerful, positive agenda. Reaganesque, Thatcheresque, but certainly not Giuliani-ish.
Cheers
I couldn't disagree more.
You mean people like Santorum, Allen, and Talent, right? Allen was supposed to be our savior, and now that he's gone, people are pushing these third-rate candidates who stand no chance.
Why are Republicans losing lately? It isn't about being right on 100% of the issues all of the time. It is being right on the most important issues of the time. If you are right on a small issue like stem-cell research, while letting someone wrong preach poison about how we need to cuddle Islamic supremacists -- ahem -- give peace a chance, you're going to lose.
I want to go back to the old days where we upset safe candidates like Max Cleland by painting them as Hussein and bin Laden enablers. Focusing on your moral purity doesn't always translate into policy.
Gimme Hunter or Tancredo any day, Rudy is far too liberal and he isn't pro 2nd Amendment. If Rudy gets in, I'll go Third party, I'm tired of not voting my conscience. If Hillary or Obama gets in, well, I'll just leave things to God at this point and pray that this is the shock we need. However, that is too far right now in the future, we will have to see where this game takes us.
He only appears weak because you and your ilke continue to ignore Hunter at your own peril.
Do you or do you not support Duncan Hunter's Reaganesque politics? If you do, then why are you not actively getting his name out there so that he IS a strong cadidate? You dont ignore the best candidate for the nomination simply because he doesnt have name power 2 yrs out of the election. Geez.
"And who's Adonai? That queer eye guy?"
Adonai is one of the names of God. Feel better now?
Ouch. lol
ooops--sorry Big Sky Daddy!
Odds are not in his favor...but that hasnt stopped me or many, many others from backing him. Why dont you wait and see what happens. We have time to see if he stretches his legs and can get the ball rolling.
The differences are glaring.
No more Liberal Republicans.
There's more to winning the presidency than just having the best platform. I have the same beliefs as Duncan (and just about every other FReeper) but I wouldn't recommend you voting for me for President... I'd be a disaster, believe me.
The burden is on Duncan to prove he's the man for the job, not us. He'll get his chance on campaign trail and in the debates.
It's not protectionism to not want to outsource elements of national security or to protect ourselves from a growing trade deficit with China. And Duncan Hunter would annihilate Hillary Clinton in a debate, and probably Rudy as well. I doubt splitting the party to nominate Rudy will win the election. And how are Rudy supporters justifying his kind words for Margaret Sanger?
I can't agree with that, and the biggest single reason why is the issue of judges. Rudy may or may not appoint Scalia- and Alito-types as promised, but at least he's not promising to appoint hard left judges like Tribe, Stevens, Brennan, et al. Those judges can sit for 30 or 40 years. It's too big of a price to pay, IMO, for purity.
Otherwise, I might be inclined to agree.
All of this is, of course, just "what if" right now. I am hoping a charismatic conservative can carry the nomination and see no reason for so many folks to act as though it is Feb. 2008 instead of 2007.
Gee, everyone sounds so defeated already. If we want Hunter, he should win.
Holy crow, it is over a YEAR AND A HALF to the next election!
You'll pull my primary vote from me out of my cold, dead hands. Like some other things Rudy would like to take from me.
"Duncanistas"
LOL, another derogatory group name, to go along side McCainiacs and Rudy-tooters.
____________
I think Rudy McRomney gets it all in one place :)
"I'll just leave things to God at this point and pray that this is the shock we need."
The shock we need may end up in the deaths of your own family or yourself. It is not wise to be presumptuous.
You're quite the jokester! I can just envision the hilarity and hijinx involved with pulling that on Muslims, regarding Allah. What sort of reaction do you get? I bet it's a real blast.
Instead of Duncanistas, I prefer Duncan Donuts.
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.