This is the Ted Nugent:
Posted on 11/04/2008 10:20:52 PM PST by paudio
I know this view is not popular here, but we need to have an honest discussion after what happened last night. There has been many calls to throw 'RINOs' out of the party. Yesterday's results, however, show that we cannot do that. Like it or not, conservatism is a word with many meanings: social, economic, libertarian, 'patriotic' conservatism, etc. Recently, it's obvious that whatever coalition that Reagan put together has fallen apart. Dubya, ran as a conservative,managed to bring all factions together, but as a president, he gave privilege to one or two factions, and left the others cold.
Sarah Palin may be the darling of social conservatives, but not necessarily of the other conservatives. When we said 'she rallies the base', it seems now that we only meant 'she rallies the social conservatives'. It should be clear now that there are just not enough social conservative voters to win a national election. With her on McCain ticket, we cannot argue that 'the base' stayed home tonight.
The way I see it, in order to rebuild the party, we need to start from one of two assumptions: (1) there exists a conservative idea that encompass all factions of 'conservatism', or (2) Such idea doesn't exist, but we only had good communicator that managed to bring different people together. I used to think it was number one, but recently I started to doubt about it. It seems to me that the second one is much more important. Reagan, Newt, and candidate Bush (not the president) did a good job in their time.
So, in my opinion, in order to be able to compete with the Dims again, we need to find a person that can unite the whole factions back. Perhaps, we also need an issue to do so.
The other problem we have now is the tarnished brand of conservatism and Republican party that was caused by Dubya's inability or unwillingness to counter the media's narratives. At this moment, more than ever, we need to win the independents and moderates. Hoping them to vote for conservative candidates while throwing the 'moderates' in the party is really a misplaced hope.
I suppose I am more optimistic about the party. While no political party can be all things to all people, it can’t be so narrow as to appeal to only those of one belief. After all, the objective is to win a majority of the votes and you don’t accomplish that by excluding anyone who doesn’t agree with you on every issue. You need to be narrow enough to maintain a degree of cohesiveness and broad enough to appeal to a majority of the voting public.
The big flippin’ tent is what screwed the party up in the first place! Get back to conservative values, small government, and low taxes. Those attributes are universal.
I’m aware of it, you are too. We, however, cannot make assumption that all social conservatives or fiscal conservatives to share that. But your point about “what’s so horrible about working to help the team” is actually the reason why I wrote the vanity. The cooperation will not take place if the recent tendency to call each other RINOs and threaten to throw the other out of the party continues.
You might think this is crazy, but I would kinda like a guy like Ted Nugent.
As a Goldwaterite I thank you. What we did after 1964 was to get involved in internal Republican politics, month after month, year after year. After 16 years, on the third attempt we nominated our leader over that entire period, Ronald Reagan. That is what conservatives did then, and what we need to do now, especially since the former liberal Republicans are virtually nonexistent, and the RINOs are weaker than they have been during this entire period.
You're right, I think that's crazy.
I thought so, but I liked his book God, Guns, and Rock N Roll. And he takes a stand against abortion too.
Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong guy. Wasn't he ted Baxter on the Mary Tyler Moore show?
OK. LOL!
This is the Ted Nugent:
I try to look at the bright side of life.
The base has been giving a little and giving a little and giving a little. In terms of domestic policy, Bush is a socialist. McCain offered the same, or worse. Half the Republican senators are RINOs. They lost in 2006, not because they were Republicans but because they lost their path from the principals of small, less intrusive, less expensive government.
They spent like drunken democrats for 6 years and voters got tired of that. They embraced an enlarged government and voters got tired of that. They tried to force amnesty on the people and the voters got tired of that.
The solution to a wrong turn is NOT to continue turning in the same direction.
I agree with you. But what are they? As I mentioned in my original post, there are many ideas floating about 'conservatism'. They maybe conflicting with each others.
I didn’t think the Republican party excluded anyone. It’s been made very clear the Democratic party has. If you don’t believe their way; you are not one of them period.
I tried that once. I was blind for three days!
The thing is, I don't think people (read: voters) actually are coherent, even those who claim to be 'conservative'. Newt's Contract with America, for instance, didn't have anything on social issues. Was it not conservative?
LOL
Nam Vet
Respectfully, to what end? To take control of machinery that will eventually subjugate us once again to the will of those we oppose? It makes no sense. It needs to go.
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.