Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2924 posts, RR: 12 Posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1183 times:
The unusual events playing out in New York's Congressional has seen Republican Conservatives strongly back an independent candidate and pressuring their own candidate to drop out of the race.
The general feeling that I get from what I have been reading for the last year is that it may be time for Conservatives to walk away from the Republican Party and start their own Conservative Party.
There is certainly a lot of force and power behind the Conservatives these days - probably enough to start the Conservative Party and bring a lot of Republicans over with them. Maybe even some conservative Democrats would move over.
That leaves the moderates and left of moderates in the Republican Party but they won't feel like outcasts without all the conservatives around. Log Cabin Republicans would probably be the happiest.
I believe that a Conservative Party could have a fast start The popular ones (from Sarah to Rush) could do a good job a spearheading the rapid development (and fundraising) and there could be a strong start in the 2010 elections. Lots of Republican Conservatives would move over and the ones in office would provide additional credibility,
Quote: Everyone agrees that the grass-roots insurrection against the Republican Party's official candidate means something significant, but exactly what it means depends on who's asked.
RedState's Erick Erickson -- a Hoffman supporter who said after Scozzafava's exit that the "GOP establishment dies on our hill" -- bluntly drew the parallel: "We must now do to Crist what we did to Scozzafava," he wrote Saturday.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7696 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1130 times:
Agree, being conservitive does not mean being a republican. I have been saying all along the repubs currently in office are just as bad as the dems in office. We need to get rid of all of them. I will be going to vote today as in TX we are having some TX Constitution Amendments on the ballot (no candidates on the ballot in my district). But it is going to be interesting to watch the NY 28th Congressional and the VA and NJ Governor's races.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1119 times:
I would not mind a new party based of classical liberalism - i.e. fiscal conservatism, and a lesser emphasis on social conservatism. The problem with today's Republican Party is that many of them are progressives - no difference with Democrats on economic issues. That was the case in NY-23.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1101 times:
Once again we are allowing others to define what what a Conservative or a Republican is.
A Conservative is a Republican and a Republican is a Conservative. The problem is, that we have allowed too many non-Conservatives run on the Republican ticket. NY-23's 'Republican' candidate was a perfect example. Hell, she's endorsing Owens the Democrat. If she were a Republican, she would endorse thec
Now, I'm not saying that every Republican has to fully toe the Conservative line, but they need to be in boat on the major, hot-button issues.
What has happened to the Republican Party, is that we've allowed outsiders to define who we are. They define the Moderate and the Conservative. In their (and let's not mince words, they are the Liberals) language a Moderate Republican is one that compromises their core beliefs with the Liberals. Except, that compromise is capitulation.
I don't know...do we need a new party? Do we need to replace the Republican Party? Or do we need to return the Party's candidates to the Party's core values?
Airstud From United States, joined Nov 2000, 480 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1090 times:
I would love for conservatives to have another voting option besides the Republican Party - and at the same time, I bet liberals wouldn't mind having a credible alternative to the Democratic Party. I believe in free markets and states' rights and personal responsibility and law and order and justice. I may often vote Republican, but I don't consider myself to be a Republican, because I don't believe in Bible-thumping or school prayer or Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter (or Dubya or Cheney for that matter). I believe in a woman's right to choose and in strong environmental protection and a strong edumacation system. I don't vote Democrat because on the whole I find them to be bunch of idealistic hand-holding folk-song-singing criminal-coddling pantywaists.
Probably there are those in the Dem party, with brains (talkin 'bout Al Gore types, Dianne Feinstein types), who would like not to be associated with the Howard Deans and Cynthia McKinneys in their ranks, just like 'Publicans who aren't allied with Cheney, Joe Wilson, etc. Though the Democrats probably aren't as uncomfortable about their party's liabilities because they can count on the media not to play them up.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1090 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 6): I don't know...do we need a new party? Do we need to replace the Republican Party? Or do we need to return the Party's candidates to the Party's core values?
I don't think a third party is viable in the long term - our system is designed for two main parties. The real Republicans would flock over to a new party, and either the Republican Party gets the message and re-establishes its principles and re-absorbs the new party, or it dies out.
Here is an interesting scenario. A recent study showed that only about 20% of the population consider themselves liberal, and the rest are more or less evenly split between conservative and moderate - around 40% each. What if the Republicans continue their move to the left, and pick up all the Democrats who voted for Obama and are now in "Oh, Shit" mode, and the new party comes up to replace it. In that case it would be the Democratic party that ceases to be a player.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4587 posts, RR: 22 Reply 10, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1072 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 6): Now, I'm not saying that every Republican has to fully toe the Conservative line, but they need to be in boat on the major, hot-button issues.
Such as? The primary reason I'm not a Republican is that I hold mostly libertarian values, especially with regard to a substantially limited foreign policy and government's primary responsibility being securing the rights of all citizens. The free market, gun control and immigration platforms of the insignificant Libertarian Party are pretty consistent with the assumed Republican platform. Unfortunately, the Family Research Council wing of the Republican party would be perfectly happy to abridge freedom in the name of pleasing the almighty, and the incarnation of the party in the last administration was all too happy to continue expensive and unproven foreign policy far beyond the scope of what's needed for our defense. If those two things changed I likely wouldn't have to be in the netherworld of other parties anymore.
"Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions in place of good sense." - Jane Jacobs
CasInterest From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1189 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1047 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter): believe that a Conservative Party could have a fast start The popular ones (from Sarah to Rush) could do a good job a spearheading the rapid development (and fundraising) and there could be a strong start in the 2010 elections. Lots of Republican Conservatives would move over and the ones in office would provide additional credibility,
Problem is that the Conservatives are two split groups. Fiscal and Social. There is overlap as some believe in both, but there are a lot of people that don't want the Government legistating from the far Right's views on Family.
DL021 From United States, joined May 2004, 11078 posts, RR: 97 Reply 12, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1043 times:
Well, it's going to be interesting watching those who call themselves Republicans and Conservatives pull themselves out of contention for any offices by splitting instead of finding common cause and moving forward. The more sure fire way to bring about the sort of economy and laws that are feared most by such people is to keep letting Democrats win elections.
GQfluffy From United States, joined Apr 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1039 times:
I'm registered independent, but if push came to shove, if I had to call myself one or the other, I'd lean Republican. Why? Because of the Fiscal Conservative aspects of it. Generally (except for W), the GOP pushes for a smaller Federal Government, very pro-2nd amendment, less government intervention in our lives, doesn't benefit the lazy, etc etc. Now, when it comes to things like Gay Marriage, abortion, what universal healthcare SHOULD be (not what the current bill has packed in it), I lean more to the left.
A combination of both, but frankly, more fiscally conservative. The social conservatives (one could call them bible thumpers I suppose) have taken control of the party, and have led to the GOP downfall.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3): Agree, being conservitive does not mean being a republican. I have been saying all along the repubs currently in office are just as bad as the dems in office. We need to get rid of all of them
Amen Brother! Let us throw them all out. Now that is change we can believe in and benefit from. How could we not?
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1006 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 9): Are you the arbiter of what a conservative is?
I know what I think is a Conservative. But, how about this? Let's not let the media define Conservatism or Liberalism, for that matter. Let the practioners or followers define it by their words and actions.
Quoting D L X (Reply 9): Well, that's clearly not true, as it does not square with your following sentence:
Actually, it does. It doesn't sqaure you demand a black/white political world. When someone says ALL 'x' must believe 'y' and ALL 'a' must believe 'b', well that's when you get schisms in a party.
The major issues, in my world, are fiscal restraint, limited government, sanctity of life, foreign policy designed to advance our own needs and a couple of other bits and pieces.
Quoting DL021 (Reply 12): Well, it's going to be interesting watching those who call themselves Republicans and Conservatives pull themselves out of contention for any offices by splitting instead of finding common cause and moving forward. The more sure fire way to bring about the sort of economy and laws that are feared most by such people is to keep letting Democrats win elections.
Correct, we, Republicans/Conservatives, need to hold together. 2010 will be interesting to say the least.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8): I don't think a third party is viable in the long term - our system is designed for two main parties.
A 3rd party can only weaken one of the major parties. Look at Nader and his gang; Gore may well have been president if it wasn't for them...maybe, I haven't looked at the numbers. For damn sure Perot wiped out any chance for Bush.
We are set-up for 2 parties. Can other parties win? Sure, at the local and state level and occasionally at the federal level, but the Presidency or enough to form a voting block. NOt gonna happen.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4587 posts, RR: 22 Reply 16, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 991 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 15): limited government, sanctity of life, foreign policy designed to advance our own needs and a couple of other bits and pieces.
See that's just not the platform that would truly define "conservative" for me. Limited government becomes oxymoronic when we start widdling down individual liberty - sanctity of life is an idea with largely faith-based roots, and in a country of many beliefs regarding faith, that just doesn't fly on the national level - and when we start expanding foreign policy to "advance" our interests rather than just defend them.
"Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions in place of good sense." - Jane Jacobs
Seb146 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 6520 posts, RR: 24 Reply 17, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 987 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5): I would not mind a new party based of classical liberalism - i.e. fiscal conservatism, and a lesser emphasis on social conservatism.
There already is a party based on classic liberalism. It is called the Liberaterian Party. My dad was a card carrying member.
The problem with "conservatives" forming their own party is it will probably be made up of those who currently lock out the moderates in the Republican party. Those like Rush and Palin who think anyone who does not tow their official line are "liberal" or "socialist" or "evil" or something similar. They have already torn apart the Republican party and will just make a new party and keep up the attacks sprading their half-truths and trying to all lead us down a very bad path.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 972 times:
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 17): The problem with "conservatives" forming their own party is it will probably be made up of those who currently lock out the moderates in the Republican party.
What you call "Moderates" others would call "Democrats". Why do we want them? Look at what Scuzzifawa (whatever her name is) did in NY-23.
The whole point of a political party is that it consists of people with similar political and economic views. And if you believe in progressivism, you CANNOT believe in limited government, personal liberty, responsibility, personal exceptionalism, and a distrust of power, all the things that lie at the heart of the conservative movement. Oil and water, the two do not mix. That's why I would prefer not seeing people like Scuzzi, McCain, and Graham (all progressives) lumped in with the rest of us. It's simply dishonest, and it's the reason why the GOP is aimless now, as you have the progressive branch in charge, which has led us to failure over the past decade, and the conservative wing trying to get control back.
[Edited 2009-11-03 09:24:45]
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
N1120A From United States, joined Dec 2003, 23671 posts, RR: 89 Reply 19, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 962 times:
The people calling themselves "conservatives" currently are absolutely not conservative. They should call themselves the "Christian Elite" or something of the sort.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
DXing From United States, joined Nov 2008, 2523 posts, RR: 13 Reply 20, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 945 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3): I will be going to vote today as in TX we are having some TX Constitution Amendments on the ballot (no candidates on the ballot in my district).
Slow poke, I voted last week.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5): I would not mind a new party based of classical liberalism - i.e. fiscal conservatism, and a lesser emphasis on social conservatism. The problem with today's Republican Party is that many of them are progressives - no difference with Democrats on economic issues. That was the case in NY-23.
Unfortunately what that race shows is the absolute need for primaries. Scozzafava was picked by party leaders, not the party. I doubt that even moderate Republicans would have selected her as the candidate if given the choice.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8): What if the Republicans continue their move to the left, and pick up all the Democrats who voted for Obama and are now in "Oh, Shit" mode, and the new party comes up to replace it. In that case it would be the Democratic party that ceases to be a player.
As the democrats will find out today, the pendulum swings both ways. If they continue their leftist agenda their reign will be very short since that scares the hell out of the general public.
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 6): Hell, she's endorsing Owens the Democrat.
Correct, which tells you that she is a true RINO.
Quoting CasInterest (Reply 11): Problem is that the Conservatives are two split groups. Fiscal and Social. There is overlap as some believe in both, but there are a lot of people that don't want the Government legistating from the far Right's views on Family.
Therin lies the difference between the conservatives in the GOP and the liberals in the democratic party. The democratic party will suck up to just about anybody to get a vote.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2924 posts, RR: 12 Reply 21, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 899 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 6): A Conservative is a Republican and a Republican is a Conservative. The problem is, that we have allowed too many non-Conservatives run on the Republican ticket.
Does that mean that moderates shouldn't be allowed in the Republican party? What about Log Cabin Republicans? Or have you already pushed them out.
Your attitude is exactly why I believe that Conservatives need their own party. I'm not putting you down with that comment - I'm trying to look at the current split in the Republican Party. The hard right swing of so many members over the past years presents this time as an excellent one to reshape the political landscape with clearly defined parties for conservatives and moderates.
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 17): The problem with "conservatives" forming their own party is it will probably be made up of those who currently lock out the moderates in the Republican party. Those like Rush and Palin who think anyone who does not tow their official line are "liberal" or "socialist" or "evil" or something similar. They have already torn apart the Republican party and will just make a new party and keep up the attacks sprading their half-truths and trying to all lead us down a very bad path.
Agreed. That is the primary reason for Conservatives to take on a Party of their own, leaving moderated and Democrats to do what they want.
With popular leaders like Palin and Rush this is one time in our history when Conservatives can really move forward.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): Look at what Scuzzifawa (whatever her name is) did in NY-23.
Maybe she did what she believes her constituents wanted her to do over the years. We'll see when that election result is known. Gonna be very interesting.
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7822 posts, RR: 55 Reply 22, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 890 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 15): Let the practioners or followers define it by their words and actions.
I just don't think that's possible. I'm thinking specifically about another current thread where some posters were suggesting that they were Christian, while others were not. For better or for worse, many Americans now treat political ideology on nearly the same plane as religion. Even as a Christian, it is "above my pay grade" to decide who is and who isn't a Christian - that is a decision people must make for themselves. The same for political parties.
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 15): It doesn't sqaure you demand a black/white political world. When someone says ALL 'x' must believe 'y' and ALL 'a' must believe 'b', well that's when you get schisms in a party.
Well, I was just responding to your sentence, "A Conservative is a Republican and a Republican is a Conservative," which sounded a lot like a black and white political world, and a lot like "all x is y and all y is x."
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 15): The major issues, in my world, are fiscal restraint, limited government, sanctity of life, foreign policy designed to advance our own needs and a couple of other bits and pieces.
1) you just said "in your world" AND
2) your definition (which is not even consistent) differs from many conservatives, let alone republicans.
Quoting DXing (Reply 20): Correct, which tells you that she is a true RINO.
Or, she is pissed that other members of her party abandoned her. I don't care who you are -- if I were the party's nominee and members of my party endorsed some other jerk, you really think I'm going to endorse that jerk when I drop out? Get real.
Starbuk7 From United States, joined Apr 2008, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 890 times:
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 13): less government intervention in our lives, doesn't benefit the lazy, etc etc. Now, when it comes to things like Gay Marriage, abortion, what universal healthcare SHOULD be (not what the current bill has packed in it), I lean more to the left.
If you want less Government intervention then why would you want them involved in our health care. This is something most Americans have been handling on their own for years and should continue to do so.
I myself would lean more towards the conservative side, getting back to personal responsibility, less government, and working to support yourself, not the government supporting anyone.
GQfluffy From United States, joined Apr 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 865 times:
Quoting Starbuk7 (Reply 23):
If you want less Government intervention then why would you want them involved in our health care. This is something most Americans have been handling on their own for years and should continue to do so.
Maybe...maybe not. The fact that premiums are skyrocketing, especially when it comes to prescriptions...is a signal that has been ignored for the past 5 years that something needs to be done. My insurance costs this next year is double what it was 3 years ago for the exact same coverage. See a problem? I do. Costs everywhere have gone up, meaning someone is making ALOT more money than they need. Yes I want less government intervention. I also want a smart government that knows when to step in and when to stay out. This is one of those areas that needs governing.
Seb146 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 6520 posts, RR: 24 Reply 25, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 836 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): it's the reason why the GOP is aimless now, as you have the progressive branch in charge, which has led us to failure over the past decade, and the conservative wing trying to get control back.
I think the GOP is aimless now more because of in-fighting. More because there are moderates that want to listen to opinion within their own party and "conservatives" that just want to ram legislation through and label those that want to talk as "evil" and "socialist" and "liberal" and "Democrats." Much like the Democratic party, they need a theme. For a while, it was Christianity. You remember? "Our God is better than your God" statement and that reached out to a lot of voters. Now, however, they talk fiscal conservatism but spend like there is not tomorrow. Talk religion and family but hire prostitutes and go on drug binges and hide out in public rest rooms. Talk about the good of Main Street while selling out to China, Japan and Saudi Arabia.
BOTH parties need core themes, but, since this thread is about "conservatives" I am just sticking with that.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): What you call "Moderates" others would call "Democrats".
And, then, go on to call "socialist" and "marxist" and "communist" and "evil."
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): Look at what Scuzzifawa (whatever her name is) did in NY-23.
This is my point: The GOP candidate was more concerned with issues in that district, as is the Democrat. However, the "conservative" candidate is more conserned with issues at a national level. He has forgotten, it seems, he is not going to Congress to represent the United States at large, but to represent the 23rd District of New York. I think that is why the GOP candidate put her support behind the Democrat.
I'm bringing me back
26 N1120A: Again, the "Conservatives" are anything but. Not to mention that true conservative Republicans, like Scozzafava, are much closer in ideology to the m
27 EA772LR: Completely agree. Having been repeatedly disappointed with Republican candidates, and reading the basic tenets of the Libertarian Party, I identify m
28 D L X: The guy that wrote the Declaration of Independence was opposed strongly to Federalism. So you can't say it's the way our Founding Fathers would have
29 OzarkD9S: I would rather see a Moderate Party to keep the left and right in check. I don't see how this nation can function if the political pendulum swings bac
30 N1120A: Already have that. Called the Democratic Party.
31 Fr8Mech: I don't know, I consider myself Conservative and don't regularly attend Church, nor push my faith, or lack of it on others. And is putting her vindic
32 N1120A: I wasn't evaluating how conservative you may or may not be. I was commenting on how these people who call themselves "conservatives" are nothing of t
33 JpetekYXMD80: You represent one side of schism of the right at the moment, and I feel its important for people like you to 'take the party back' to classical Repub
35 N1120A: People need to stop revering Reagan. He wasn't a conservative either. He bloated budgets, pushed voodoo economics (I borrowed that from his own VP),
36 Jpetekyxmd80: You're right that he isn't the perfect example, but much more so than GWB, thats for sure. I also find conservatives who idolize Reagan often don't h
37 N1120A: Rachel Maddow is significantly more conservative than GWB, but that doesn't say much. George H.W. Bush, except for his "lets listen in" spook past, i
39 Ken777: George Washington would have looked in amazement at the world today - and I believe he would have had a difficult time deciding the proper balance in
40 Dreadnought: Hoffman was a lifelong Republican until this race. Scuzzi was a Democrat on all the major issues as I can recall. Did she have any conservative posit
41 WarRI1: No, no, we cannot have that, that might mean, that the woman has "principles" We must bend to the party, screw right and wrong, or being concerned fo
42 D L X: How mature. Why is it that grown men in the Republican party resort to vilification and name-calling to attack those they do not like?
43 GQfluffy: Why is it you are narrowing this to just the Republicans? Look in the mirror. Everyone in this country is guilty of it.
44 Dreadnought: Forgive me for shortening her name. But that vote shows the importance that Republicans ensure that they nominate... Republicans. Scozzafava intentio
45 Fr8Mech: I have no problem with someone voting their conscience, but she should have chosen a party that more closely represented her views. That is the Democ
46 Dreadnought: I've just been reading the Daily Kos - they are gloating like crazy about NY-23. They seem to be missing the point that most voters wanted either a R
47 GQfluffy: I dare you to go say that in the Maine Gay Marriage thread.
48 Fr8Mech: Why? If some people's view are too narrow to accept the fact that gays exist and should be allowed to marry, then they should vote that way. Too me,
49 Dreadnought: And before certain people complain about Republicans drumming out "moderates" and sucking up to the extreme wing of the party, I have two words for t
50 Aaron747: How does giving government control over an individual's life decisions constitute more limited government? Again just way too inconsistent if one cla
51 D L X: Hah! You mean the party that submarined her candidacy? Yeah, she owed allegiance to those yahoos. You have to start being honest with yourself one of
52 Dreadnought: Let's clarify something. This country's voters are fiscally conservative - now more than ever and with good reason. But they are not socially conserv
53 CasInterest: It doesn't. and in that lies the Paradox of the Republican Party vs true conservatism. As long as the Social Conservatives are attempting to legislat
54 EA772LR: You're right. I forgot that he wanted nothing to do with political parties. I wish we would have listened to him... Not a bad thing at all. Our Congr
56 Fr8Mech: This is not an abortion debate, but to answer your question...you return the debate to the people, where it belongs. Allow the States to determine wh
57 D L X: No, the voters of Connecticut supported someone else during the primary. Lieberman ran and lost, fair and square. If that one thing you speak of is h
58 EA772LR: Come on D L X, you're a smart guy, you know what I was talking about. Character assassination is something done by men on both sides. I mean, the cha
59 D L X: I don't assassinate people's characters, and I don't condone it in others. I never signed on when liberals did it to W either. You could say I'm fair
60 Dreadnought: Who have I "Character assassinated" in this thread? How? After being vilified by Democrats and the DNC for the terrible crime of thinking for himself
61 Seb146: There is a HUGE difference between "thinking for himself" and walking in lock-step with the opposing party, which Leiberman did. But, when a Republic
62 EA772LR: Kinda like the way the DNC treated Joe Lieberman??? Yeah, something like that...
63 Dreadnought: Answer the damned question. When you disagree with EVERYTHING the party supports, are you really a member of that party or not? Plenty of Republicans
64 Yellowstone: The DNC did not "drum Lieberman out of the party." They quite correctly decided that they would respect the decision of the Democratic voters of Conn
65 Fr8Mech: From the same article: Pro-Abortion Pro-Gay Marriage Pro-Organized Labor Rumor also has it that she supported Stimulus, but I can't find it anywhere,
66 JpetekYXMD80: Well, first of all there are plenty of conservatives that are pro-choice and/or pro gay marriage. And Michelle Malkin called her a 'radical leftist'!
67 Yellowstone: She's been winning election to the New York Assembly as a Republican for the past 10 years. Clearly the Republicans of that district feel that she is
68 Fr8Mech: Maybe there wasn't anyone better. It's the reason I voted for McCain...there was no one better on the ballot in November. Hoffman is clearly more Rep
69 Ken777: She has been a Republican for a long time as I recall. She has won elections being the Republican she is. The only reason to change would have been t
70 EA772LR: Huh?? Where do you come up with this stuff? I hate to break it to you D L X, but Rush is merely 'a' voice in the Republican Party. He doesn't speak f
71 FURUREFA: I echo the statements of the others on this board. I am fiscally conservative, believe in small government, civil rights (including the 2nd amendment)
72 JpetekYXMD80: I'm not sure what you're looking at, but as party ID slips across the board as the trend has been for awhile, the Repubilcan identification is as wor
73 EA772LR: That means absolutely nothing. Don't you get it? The country is moving to the RIGHT meaning they definitely won't accept the left who has gone from l
74 JpetekYXMD80: All of those are ridiculous notions. And in ideological self-ID, conservatives typically hold an advantage over liberal, with a huge contingent in th
75 EA772LR: Well if the elections in New York/New Jersey/Virginia (Republicans won all but 1 race) are anything to go by for elections in 2010, then the Democrat
76 Yellowstone: Ignoring the fact that Obama isn't anywhere near a socialist, the data point you cite as evidence of a move to the right - the 40/40/20 split among s
77 JpetekYXMD80: You're trying to make a big point and trying to present a shocking change based on some phantom ideological ID numbers. Guess what? It's nothing very
78 D L X: Character assassination was EA's phrase, not mine, in response to your sophomoric name-calling. I fail to see how that somehow trumps the fact that t
79 JpetekYXMD80: Yup, most people parroting socialism have no clue what real socialism is. It's like the boy who cried wolf.
80 Dreadnought: I shortened somebody's name. It was not meant to be insulting. Don't be such a whiner. Correction - the Democrats voted him out. The general electora
81 N1120A: The first two of those, being pro-choice and pro-equal marriage, are very conservative positions. Pro-labor is relative. Does it mean she respects th
82 D L X: It didn't look that way to me. Time will show if you're good on your word. Dude, this is EXACTLY what I said, as early as Reply 57. Wrong again. I lo
83 Dreadnought: You accused republicans of wanting to drum out anyone who did not agree with everything Rush says in reply 57. And here is Obama on the subject: http
84 D L X: Tom Davis. Now, I answered your question even though you completely mischaracterized the point. N1120A said he wants to see a true CONSERVATIVE run.
85 Fr8Mech: Actually, no. I picked the positions that were presented in the Wikipedia entry referenced in a previous post. Her 'vote for me' website is gone, so
86 Dreadnought: Never heard of him. Had to look him up. You don't mean you cast a vote for him when he twice ran unopposed, do you? I would agree that I want some tr
87 Ken777: Well, FDR did get Social Security going, but LBJ did his share with the Great Society. Of course, Truman was pretty much a radical, integrating the m
88 JpetekYXMD80: Umm... isn't equality a good thing? damn equality radicals?
89 Falcon84: A conservatives-only party would not get very far. A truly national party has to have pull and clout beyond their constituencies, and if there is a tr
90 Cws818: No, she endorsed the Democratic candidate when she suspended her campaign. So, the voters of the 23rd District "intentionally handed the Democrats th
91 Falcon84: Exactly. Had Scozzafava endores the Conservative, would you be that upset about it, Charles? The voters decide. Case close.
92 N1120A: Not rationalizing anything. The conservative position would be to leave people alone.
93 Dreadnought: She should have either endorsed the Conservative Party, which have always been allied to the Republicans (they might rethink that), or just kept quie
94 Yellowstone: Why? Owens was a conservative Democrat who had a better grasp of local issues than Hoffman. It's quite reasonable to think that Scozzafava felt that
95 D L X: If the conservative party (which basically only exists in NY to harrass the Republican party) were ALLIED with the Republican party, it wouldn't be a
96 Ken777: Unfortunately the fiscal conservatives need the social conservatives for their vote. Political purity doesn't win elections.
97 Seb146: Rush was not happy that the GOP picked McCain to run for president. Rush was ga-ga over Palin and is to this day. I think the biggest reason Rush did
98 Fr8Mech: That would be more Libertarian than Conservative. I have a strong Libertarian streak, but I also understand that we need some structure. That structu
99 Fr8Mech: I disagree. I've listened to Rush off and on for years. The reason that Rush did not want to see McCain nominated was: Why would you want someone to
100 Dreadnought: Rush doesn't like McCain because McCain is pro-cap-and-tax and is generally quite progressive (i.e. likes big government). It has nothing to do with
101 Aaron747: I think it has been clear for some time that Obama is not capable of delivering on most of things he claims to be for. This should come as no surpris
102 FuturePilot16: Conservatives are confused. They call people who are gay or choose to live a lifestyle not of family values as degenerates. They preach family values
103 N1120A: "Libertarians" didn't exist till 1971 when it became obvious that those calling themselves "conservative" were becoming far less so. "Progressive" do
104 Ken777: Bingo! Rush is a master of BS that "The Faithful" will listen to, build his ratings and increase his income. No matter that a lot of what he says is
105 Dreadnought: No, although I'm sure you'd like to think so. Progressivism is based on the idea that government, rather than being a necessary evil that we need to
106 Dreadnought: LOL, I don't think any Republican or their supporters talked like this Tuesday night! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
107 N1120A: No, just in their homes when they can't get their carrier to cover something. The whole idea of government stems from the human nature to form commun
108 Dreadnought: The need is not - but establishing a government means giving up certain freedoms (i.e. you must agree to obey laws). To a certain extent, this is per
109 Ken777: Actually certain, lower income groups are dying at a higher rate than meddle class & up whites. Breast cancer for women of color is a good example. C
110 Seb146: Well, actually, no, they are not. Here's why: Democrats are the party currently in power of the White House and House of Representatives. There are *
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2924 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4587 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
