KAM1138

Yes.

You are mixing Republicans and Conservatives together I think, but yes, going to the extremes does not generally appeal to the "moderate" voters. These "moderate" voters are also likely most easily swayed by liars claiming to be something they aren't. Is that what you are really advocating? That Politicians pretend to be what voters want instead of being honest about what they are for, and letting the voters decide. As a political strategy, you'd be right on, but its a destructive thing for a free country.


No, I think you are wrong. There was something more than what you are stating going on, because the Extreme edges tend to have more influence in a Primary, and that would indicate that McCain wouldn't have been nominated. Obviously he was, so there was more going on--other reasons why McCain ended up on top. You aren't distinguishing between the Primary electorate with the general electorate.

You are wrong--the "hard right" candidate HAS been elected President in the past. Ronald Reagan was a vocal Conservative--biggest election wins in recent history. George W Bush chose to run as a Conservative, and his opposition tried to state that in a negative way...he won two times.

When was the last time a Democrat won running as a liberal? Perhaps Carter. Democrats win by hiding who they are and what they support and as far as Presidents go--history tells us they change how they govern (as Clinton did) or they lose (like Jimmy Carter did, and Obama may--I think that is likely if he continues on this course).

I think you are wrong, and probably due to your basic assumptions--that something has changed in the American Electorate, which I'm guessing is based on the Presidential election of 2008. I'm betting that was much more of a deviation, borne out of a very unpopular President, the weight of two wars and a rare economic collapse that couldn't have benefited the Democrats more if they had planned it. There hasn't been a major shift in the American electorate that I can see any evidence of.

What happened was that short-term conditions lined up heavily against Republicans, and Democrats fully capitalized on this. They are doing their best to try and entrench these gains of course, using any means necessary, and it may work (or may backfire), but we won't know that yet. If you take Virginia and NJ as indications, that is probably a bad sign for democrats, but it is likely more of a sign of blame anyone in power--the same thing that benefited Demcrats in 2006 and 2008, but isn't likely to benefit them in 2010. Of course who knows--they successfully blamed everything on President Bush, despite Democrats controlling Congress all during the economic collapse, and President Obama continues to cry about his "inherited mess" whenever anyone dares question him, so I wouldn't put anything past them. I think it is more likely that the voting public will wise up to that, and likely already has.

KAM

KAM1138

Oh, sure. Kindly explain that to me then will you? I'll look forward to your response.

As defined by you and those who follow this.

Again, you must be joking, because you REALLY think that adopting the views of your opponent is serious advice? The whole premise is flawed or intentionally designed as to favor your side.

Conservatism isn't restrictive--its inherently broad. Look at what I outlined yesterday--the views you call "narrow." They are anything but. They are broadly respectful of the right of others. There is a major difference between Conservatism and liberalism. Or perhaps I should say between liberty and statism, because that's really what's in play in terms of government.

People that value liberty don't see government as a weapon to wield against others in order to make them do what we choose for ourselves. Those that value liberty want government to PREVENT others from using force (of one form or another) from harming us, and robbing us of what is ours.

Statists are the exact opposite--they believe government is a weapon to be wielded in order to forward what they believe is best for others. They believe in forcing their views on others, taking what others have to use as they see fit, and if it tramples personal liberty--well, that's acceptable because they see the State as most important above personal liberty.

Now are the lines Republican/Conservative/Libertarian vs Democrat/Liberal/Statist perfectly defined. Of course not. There are some liberals who aren't statists and value personal liberty, and there are some republicans who prefer statism. Some Republicans are liberals, and some Democrats who are conservatives, but they are somewhat rare.

KAM

Bujin

No, I'm advocating not taking an extreme stance on social issues and calling it "core values". Individual politicians can, of course, take whatever stance they want, but the party should pick one core value (for example, fiscal conservatism) and build a coalition on that...if they want to win.


I voted twice for Reagan...I do not believe he'd be a viable candidate today.

I agree...we tend to be a centrist (usually center/right, but currently perhaps a bit center/left) country. That's exactly my point. The country dislikes extremes. I'm not arguing whether it's good, bad, or indifferent...merely making the point that a larger tent wins elections more than an exclusive one. You can argue the opposite if you'd like, but the country's demographic is changing, as well as its tolerance on issues such as gay rights.

We can simply disagree, but I think we'll find that if the schism in the Republican Party leads to a hard right turn, they'll get a very passionate 40% of votes, and not win. If they embrace fiscal conservatism, and jettison the evangelical issues, they'll keep the hard-righters, and pick up the right-leaning independents....it's simple math.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre

konsole

I'm very much a fiscal conservative, perhaps more accurately a capitalist. I live in a metropolitan area and I do not have acceptance issues, such as Mike Hyuckabee. I could never vote for a guy like that; I'll chuck my vote down the 3rd party candidate black hole before a vote for a authoritarian, liberty quashing nutjob. If there is a big tent to be formed in the Republican party, I believe the teabaggers are going to have to leave their Pro-Life and other nonsensical-divisive-crap fliers at home.

KAM1138

Well, I'd like nothing more than to see that put to the test...obviously not Reagan himself, the Undead aren't likely to win elections.

Again--you believe you define "extreme" for others. I'd bet that what you call extreme, others would call important.

I will restate again (as I mentioned some posts back) that I agree that focusing on Fiscal Conservatism will be a winning strategy for 2010, because the spending we've had and which has been accelerated to wild levels is simply not economically viable. This might be a simpler message and one that people can relate to. Simple messages are much easier than complex ones, even if they are next to meaningless (hope and change for example).

I'd agree that at least in Presidential elections the country as a whole doesn't respond well to extremes--because we have this significant block of "moderates" who fancy themselves above partisanship, and they usually make the difference.

Undoubtedly various activists are succeeding in pushing their views. Most average people in my experience are relatively content with minding their own business, and sooner or later they will default to that--unless it is something they really care about.

You keep on talking about this "Schism" in the Republican party as if this is some new problem. Its been there for a long time. However, somehow the Democrats succeed in taking groups that disagree and balance keeping them all happy? Republicans can't do this with two major categories (economic and social)?

Oddly enough, years ago (following the 2004 elections) I argued that the Republicans had the chance to be the dominant center-right party, marginalizing the leftist democrats and rightist evangelicals.

I guess what I find so humorous is that this same logic is not applied to Democrats. If fiscal Conservatism is such a winning formula, then why don't the Blue Dogs kick the leftists to the curb and join with all these Republicans? Why must conservatives always dump their supporters in order to "win."

In short--here's what you are suggesting. Alienate your strong supporters in hopes of gaining weak ones, who have a proven record of being wishy-washy. That is simple math...that isn't likely to favor you, EXCEPT when fiscal issues are paramount as I think will be the case next year.

I can agree on some level that the fiscal conservative message is a strong one, but it won't always carry the day.

KAM

KAM1138

Can you be more specific about what you're talking about when you talk about "liberty crushing."

Being pro-life is divisive? Is that what you are referring to?

KAM

Micael

That would make you a blue-dog democrat. Sounds that way, at least. They side with Republicans and Independants when it comes to fiscal issues, and with Democrats on social issues.

__________________
The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Micael

Again, I see the Democrats in much the same light, just the flip side of the coin. If you're a free market capitalist, small government - leave it to the states to decide, type; you'll probably not have alot of friends in the party.

It sounds like your issue revolves around the Republican's use of the term "core values", because the Dem's have their own list of social issues (some would say extreme and inflexible) they circle around.

__________________
The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

KAM1138

Yeah, it will be interesting to see how that all works out on Healthcare and Cap and Trade. Both issues that have major economic impacts.

KAM

KAM1138

Yes, which is why I find these suggestions to be hypocritical.

KAM

Bujin

These statement are exactly my point. If the Republicans could let go of their religiously inspired social agenda, these Blue Dogs wouldn't be Democrats, and the voters would have selected fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican. They'd have a wider tent of support.

Obviously not. Social moderates are very clearly labeled as RINO's, and not "real Republicans". They're told that there are no moderate Republicans...they're merely "liberals in disguise". When a Dede Scozzafava runs, she's labeled a liberal, and has to worry about challenges from the right - and the national Republican figures (such as Palin and Pawlenty) don't back the Republican. So the party can't seem to balance both categories....they require both, which turns off many voters.


I'll try typing slower: it's not about "core values", it's about the unnatural melding of fiscal and religious values, which turns off non-evangelical fiscal conservatives.

If you look at the health care debate, you can see that there is a wide divide among the democratic party....one side isn't throwing the other side out of the party (literally or figuratively). You have a range between the blue dogs to the very liberal. The Dems certainly have their set of issues that define their platform, but they allow a Nancy Pelosi, a Marion Barry and a Joe Lieberman to all be part of the party.

On the other side of the aisle, you have a very narrow band of "acceptable Republican values". If you don't fit the "tea party platform", you're branded a "liberal" or a "RINO". Purity over inclusiveness.

It's bizarre to me that you folks can't see that if your party can't even consider McCain or Powell "real Republicans", you'll have a hard time keeping a broad enough coalition to be electable on a national level. Even Lyndsey Graham can see that, and he's a Republican leader.

Either way, I'm done talking to the wall. If you think the Joe Wilson / Sarah Palin / Michelle Bachmans of the world could muster support on a national level, no amount of back and forth will change that.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre

Micael

I assume that "religiously inspired social agenda" is code for abortion and/or gay rights. Do you think that there are many social conservatives who are fiscally and politically liberal (e.g. more socialist programs, bigger government spending, wealth redistribution), who roll with the Republican party because of their principles?
I only heard about her being a "liberal" after she asked her supporters to all support a liberal democrat 3 days before the election, when she bowed out. If anything warrants the term RINO, I'd say that one does.

Mostly, RINO's are called such because of thier voting record.
Thanks for the insult, and you are the one that brought up "core values". And you still insist on dancing around and blurring the issues with talk like "unnatural melding" and "extreme views". I don't know why you're going off on me. I was agreeing with your point, while trying to point out that the same analysis could be made from where I stand about the left.
I don't know where you get this, but probably from an ideologue (Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, maybe?). There's some of this, but there's much more room and tolerance in the Republican party than you're describing.

And news flash: Limbaugh and/or Hannity are not the conscience or the spokemen of the Republican party.
I don't group the three together. The media does. And it's not "my" party.

And if McCain and Powell say that they are "real Republicans", then fine. Personally, I could care less. I support or disparage based on where each individual stands on each issue. I may support McCain on one issue, and vehemently disagree with him on another. I think that more and more American's are moving towards that stance, and that they are very very tired of the partisan bickering simply based on party allegiance.

And why do you have to refer to me as stupid, and a wall? I don't recall slighting you in any way.

__________________
The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.