Serious question. The John McCain success is giving fiscal and social conservatives fits. I heard a conservative talk show host saying last night "at least george bush pretends to be conservative" seriously, even though I think mccain has a good shot at winning, what will happen to the party in general. how is it going to define itself going further? it can no longer claim its a fiscal or social conservative organization. Is this an important time in the party's history, or is this a blip on the radar? is the problem that the candidates don't subscribe to the values anymore, or do they not have the base that subscribes to the values?
All politicians basically suck. The Republicans will wait around for the Democrats to get into office and mess up, then they'll sweep in and take over again in a few years and mess up themselves. I would like to see BOTH parties be a little more moderate, and it seems like with these sweeping cycles, its just a swing from both ends of the spectrum with short periods of moderation in between.
what values are you referring to? Mccain is right on the war, my number one issue, he's right on earmarks, another important one. i think he's right on immigration, not terribly important to me, but his position is the same as W's, and most reasonable folks in the party. the animus against mccain is predicated almost entirely on two issues, immigration and mccain-feingold, which most conservatives view as an unacceptable abridgment of the first amendment. as noted above, immigration isn't that important to me- secure the border, and don't harsh on the folks already here. it ought to be easy. in the second instance, the law has clearly had unintended consequences, and led directly to the rise of MoveOn, SwiftVets, and other PACs. at the time, it seemed that something needed to be done to give a voice to regular people, and take campaign financing out of the hands of big donors. M-F just gave power to special interest groups instead. it seems to me the internet has fixed the underlying problem, and the law should be repealed. conservatives will b**** and moan for a few weeks, but will very soon line up behind the nominee. the stakes are too high. i really don't care who coulter and Buchanan vote for.
A R[EVOL]UTION is taking place. Everywhere, "Taft-Goldwater" Republicans, inspired by Ron Paul, are signing up as precinct chairmen, running for state, local, and even Congressional races. Everytime a neocon loses, a conservative is ready to take his/her place. When McCain gets trounced in the general (if he gets the nomination, I'm not ceding that yet), conservatives hopefully will see the folly of choosing a candidate based on perceived electability. I know that all sounds propaganda-ish, but when I'm at Republican meetings, campaigning, and canvassing, I hear a lot of people agreeing with me, many of them very excitedly. There are a few die-hard hawks left, but they are getting marginalized quickly. Example: 38 "Ron Paul Republicans" running for Congress
McCain has some other issues with conservatives on the social side. His opposition to a gay marriage amendment and support of stem-cell research are huge problems, even if he's otherwise fairly reliable on social conservative issues. The fact that he won't "fight" for those issues pisses him off with a small but vocal minority of the party. (ie, James Dobson and followers)
here's some thoughts. interesting about the abortion bit, which might mollify some on the right if it were more widely known. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/2304 [rquoter]Why They Hate McCain JOHN PODHORETZ - 02.05.2008 - 18:02 The snowballing anger among conservative opinion leaders toward John McCain — an anger that is not mirrored among Republican rank-and-file, whose approval-disapproval rating for McCain is 72-19, according to the Pew Poll, fifteen points higher than Mitt Romney’s in both categories — suggests they are confusing ideological convictions with political tactics, and infusing a disagreement on how to approach problems with a moral edge it does not deserve. Whatever John McCain is, he is not a liberal. But he disappoints conservatives because, astonishingly enough, he lacks the Right’s partisan combativeness — which seems surprising, given his background as a warrior and his stiff-necked heroism in staring down his North Vietnamese torturer-jailers. He may be a military man through and through, but he is not a team player, to put it mildly. In partisan terms, he often seems determined not to march in lockstep simply because others expect it of him. That’s why, among other things, he has been so wildly incompetent at using his own perfect pro-life record iin the House and Senate to his own benefit in seeking support from Republicans who share his anti-abortion views. Such a thing would require him to fall in line, and McCain does not fall in line. These are not words of praise, merely of description. The truth is that this flinty individualism has a profoundly self-destructive aspect to it. He has made his own pathway to the top of his party extremely difficult because he does not wish to play the game the way it needs to be played. He offends people he need not offend, and acts in ways that are considered disrespectful by people who only need him to show them a little kavod. If he becomes the nominee of the GOP, he will be required to mend fences he need not have broken down in the first place. But his opponents are engaging in a terrible mistake as well. McCain likes to make common cause with politicians across the aisle from him. They can’t stand this. They prefer someone who fights Democrats to someone who makes deals with Democrats. Fair enough. But this is a difference of degree, not of essence. McCain is a deal-maker. Perhaps, having engaged with a real enemy who broke his arms and tortured him and sought to destroy him body and mind and soul, he doesn’t see an enemy when he sees a Democrat but rather just another American whose ideas on many things differ from his but with whom he might share some common ground. McCain would, there is no question, be a lousy leader of an ideological movement. But the Republican party is not an ideological movement. It is a political vehicle for the American right-of-center. Those who confuse the Republican party with the conservative movement are indulging in a fantasy — that there is purity in politics and that there is something immoral about ideological impurity.[/rquoter]
The highlighted phrases sum up John McCain for me. When he ran against Bush in 2000, he was ignorantly tarred as being a liberal because he refuse to kiss anybody's ring. IMO, his independent streak is his biggest character flaw for being president. He is a proud maverick. Mavericks can be very good senators because they can grandstand on specific issues and wield great influence. But the presidency requires consensus-building and ego stroking, which is against his nature.
I don't hate Mccain, I really wanted Rudy though. I just don't get how he voted against the Bush tax cuts. Doesn't he care about rich people? LOLOLOLOLOLLOLOL He is also kinda old.
sadly, i think Supermac34 is correct. nothing will change with a hillary victory. not much has changed from the '06 elections. i would love to see the R[EVOL]UTION that weslinder is speaking about, but the country sure doesn't seem to be headed that way. every time anyone talks about tamper proof id cards, and modifying our drivers licenses to hold biometric data, it sends chills down my spine. forget all the money our government is wasting, and the size it is growing to, it's our privacy and constitutional rights that are being lost with each election. it doesn't matter who gets elected, the world is handing itself to big brother.
The Republican Party is going to implode and crater, hopefully rebuilding with at least some influence by moderate Republicans and fiscal conservatives. In other words, the opposite of George W. Bush and his insane brand of political ideology. At least that's my hope. Having a more moderate GOP is a dream of mine. Impeach Bush.
You are right, but too late Americans could never lose their civil liberties without being duped. And when they are gone America is gone.
anyone know how the climate is in estonia? it's apparently the most libertarian country, followed by ireland. i'm not sure how accurate this list is though. it has the UK ranked higher than the US. they have a disturbing amount of surveillance and extremely tough gun laws. 1 Estonia 2 Ireland 3 Canada 4 Switzerland 5 Iceland 6 Bahamas 7 United Kingdom 8 United States hooray for the USA 9 Cyprus 10 New Zealand http://www.freewebs.com/globalliberty/rankings.htm
I think the McCain candidacy is the first step in the fiscal conservatives reasserting themselves over the social conservatives. It's helped in the huge number of contenders on the GOP side fracturing everything, but I do think that was the first part of this fight of moderates saying "no more" to the more extreme elements.
Republican death spiral in all of its glory ... Republicans Join to Block Stimulus Bill Feb 6, 10:42 PM (ET) By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and ANDREW TAYLOR WASHINGTON (AP) - The fate of $600-$1,200 rebate checks for more than 100 million Americans is in limbo after Senate Republicans blocked a bid by Democrats to add $44 billion in help for the elderly, disabled veterans, the unemployed and businesses to the House-passed economic aid package. GOP senators banded together Wednesday to thwart the $205 billion plan, leaving Democrats with a difficult choice either to quickly accept a House bill they have said is inadequate or risk being blamed for delaying a measure designed as a swift shot in the arm for the lagging economy. The tally was 58-41 to end debate on the Senate measure, just short of the 60 votes Democrats would have needed to scale procedural hurdles and move the bill to a final vote. In a suspenseful showdown vote that capped days of partisan infighting and procedural jockeying, eight Republicans - four of them up for re-election this year - joined Democrats to back the plan, bucking GOP leaders and President Bush, who objected to the costly add-ons. Democrats choreographed the vote for maximum political advantage, presenting their aid proposal as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition for Republicans and calling back their presidential candidates to make a show of party unity behind their stimulus plan. They calculated that Republicans would pay a steep price for opposing rebates for older Americans and disabled veterans, as well as heating aid for the poor, unemployment benefits and a much larger collection of business tax breaks than the House approved. Even after their effort fell short Wednesday, Democrats seemed determined to keep the pressure on Republicans to accept the measure, threatening to hold more votes on it in the coming days. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is "going to give Republicans a chance to reconsider their vote against efforts to strengthen the economy by helping those who need it most," his spokesman, Jim Manley, said Wednesday night. Republicans said they were ready to accept rebates for seniors and disabled veterans and accused Democrats of delaying the stimulus plan for political gain and loading it down with special-interest extras. "Our constituents will look at us as the folks that slowed it down (and) added a bunch of spending to it," said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, who called the measure "a Christmas tree package." The White House, which has carefully avoided issuing threats about the package despite Bush's opposition to the add-ons, urged the Senate to move fast to approve a stimulus plan. "To be effective, this economic growth package must be timely, so it is crucial that the Senate now move quickly to pass a bill that will deliver relief to our economy," press secretary Dana Perino said in a statement after the vote. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois flew to Washington for the vote. GOP front-runner John McCain of Arizona did not vote. Supporters actually had 59 votes in favor of the Democratic proposal, but Reid switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment, a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up for a revote. Republican leaders objected to add-ons such as a $14.5 billion unemployment extension for those whose benefits have run out, $1 billion in heating aid for the poor and tax breaks for renewable energy producers and coal companies. The measure builds upon a $161 billion House-passed bill providing $600-$1,200 checks to most taxpayers and tax breaks to businesses investing in new plants and equipment. The Senate version would provide checks of $500-$1,000 to a broader group that includes 20 million elderly people, 250,000 disabled veterans and taxpayers making up to $150,000 for singles - or $300,000 for couples. It would extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks for those whose benefits have run out, with 13 more weeks available in states with the highest jobless rates. The bill also includes $10 billion in tax-free mortgage revenue bonds to help homeowners refinance subprime loans. Reid denied Republicans an opportunity to offer changes to the measure, provoking the filibuster. The calculus was that enough Republicans would relent in the face of political pressure to support unemployment insurance and heating aid to join Democrats and force the measure through. GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he wants to amend the measure to add rebates for disabled veterans and their widows and the elderly, and language - also included in the Democrats' package - making clear that illegal immigrants can't get rebate checks. "We didn't block the proposal," McConnell said. "We just said there's a better way to go and there's an alternative." Reid rejected the offer - at least for the time being - but Republicans seemed confident he would eventually agree to comparable changes since the alternative would be to approve the House bill and leave retirees living on Social Security and disabled veterans without rebate checks. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who backs a stimulus bill with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Minority John Boehner, R-Ohio, said House lawmakers are "very receptive to additions to our bill which ensure that disabled veterans and additional seniors are eligible" for rebate checks and want to make sure illegal immigrants are denied them. A Pelosi spokesman said her statement did not represent a break with Reid, even though she seemed to praise McConnell's approach and was silent on Democratic add-ons such the provision benefiting coal companies. Pelosi prefers to try to extend unemployment benefits in a later bill. The climactic Senate vote came after an intense lobbying effort by Democrats to convert wavering Republicans, including those facing tough re-election fights. Their efforts got a boost from outside groups leaning on senators to back the package, including home builders, manufacturers and the powerful seniors lobby. Republicans were under enormous pressure from their own leaders not to support the Democrats' plan. Working to stem defections, GOP leaders assured their rank and file that they would have another chance to support adding senior citizens and disabled veterans to the aid plan even if they opposed the Democrats' bill. That wasn't enough for Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. who threw his support behind the measure. "I'm hopeful that I have chosen the right path," he said just before the vote. "I made my decision on what was best for New Mexico and what's best for America."
its a good question. what the repubs call their 'core' is driven by right wing fanatics like Limbaugh and Coulter. this influential cadre is self righteous enough to discredit McCain's popular support solely 'cause they fear diminished influence. 70% of this 'core' thinks George W is doing a great job . incredible to consider John McCain a moderate when he suggests another 100 years in Iraq! yet, McCain remains the most resonable Repub ... and the incredible irony? they hate him! (the 'core' that is ... folks in the street Repubs give him due & votes) to call the right wing fanatics, that have somehow established moral lordship over their party's future, demagogues, is a monumental understatement. not since monarchies were popular, have a group so oblivious to public opinion, held this much sway. back to your question, what future for the Repubs? go to the polls and lose a few times. perhaps then they'll reconsider the far right wing fanatic influence, perhaps this fabled 'core' is just too fanatically way far right of center, and dubiously, maybe that they'll foster a plan that looks like America in this century.
It's a party filled with a lot of hateful people. Very strong when they are united against one person or goal, but now that they are losing at something, they are turning on themselves and now it's just getting ugly. You have people like ann coulter who hate McCain so much that she said she'll vote Hillary if he wins the nomination. Even though 2008 McCain is very similar to Bush, I don't see the Bush republicans going out to vote for him because he has been painted as a moderate. These people aren't flipfloppers, they stick with their convictions and don't leave them despite whatever the deeper facts may tell them.
I do not think the fiscal conservatives have had any significant influence in the Republican party for a long time. While I am not a McCain fan, I think he is a big step towards ending the stanglehold the that the so called social conservatives have over the Republican party. I just hope that a new wave of fiscal conservatives will start coming forward. Unfortunately, Ron Paul's poor results partially demonstrates that fiscal conservatism is a minority view.
Weslinder: I dearly hope you are right. I would vote for the republican party if they could merge the fiscal and small government sanity of libertarians with an ambivalence towards "moral" causes that are wholly out of place in the federal government. Real conservatives are fiscal conservatives, not puritans or warhawks.
