The death of the moderate Republican

[RunInRed 19,665]

Bingo...what I've been saying for years...the Republican party as we know it today is a regional group based in the South who's primary concerns are social issues.

Republicans must be wondering: Can it get any worse? As late as 2006, we held the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress. Come January, all three will be in Democratic hands – with a near-filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

As chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee for two of its most successful cycles, I’ve seen our party in much better shape. But I’ve seen it in worse shape as well.

Republicans rebounded from landslide losses in 1964 and 1974 that were more devastating than this year’s. Our presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., received 46 percent of the popular vote this year. He carried 22 states and came within a few thousand votes of carrying four more.

He did as well as could be expected considering the circumstances. He was outspent 4-1 as he carried the banner of a party whose two-term incumbent had lower poll numbers for a longer period than any president in American history, had involved the country in an unpopular war and had seen the economy collapse in October. No other Republican could’ve come close to those numbers.

But let’s not kid ourselves, our party is broken. In no small way, we’ve been victims of our own success. We fought communism and won. We fought stagnation brought on by high taxes and restrictive government policies. Today, voters take low taxes as a given, and the burden of proof – even in the wake of the financial crisis – is on those who would regulate, not those who would remove regulations.

With the heavy lifting out of the way, we indulged in more trivial pursuits – and this led to trouble. We talked to ourselves and not to voters. We became more concerned with stem cell policy than economic policy, and with prayer in schools rather than balance in our public budgets and priorities. Not so long ago, it was easy to paint the Democrats as the party of extremists. Now, they say we’re extremists, and voters agree.

As a result, we’ve seen our support erode. Urban centers remain under Democratic control. Exurbs and rural areas remain under Republican dominance. But in the battleground that lies between – the suburbs -- we were winning them; now we’re not. Our candidates are safe in a swath that extends from North Texas across to North Alabama and up through Appalachia. Elsewhere, we are on the run. Almost every voter who can be convinced – who sometimes votes Democratic, sometimes Republican – now votes Democratic.

We’ve long-since given up on the African-American vote. We’re forfeiting the Hispanic vote with unwarranted and unsavory vitriol against immigrants. Youth vote? Gone. We ask for nothing from these idealistic voters, we offer little except chastisement of their lifestyle choices and denial of global warming, and we are woefully behind the Democrats in learning how to connect with them.

Soccer moms? They’re not comfortable with much of our social policy agenda, so many are gone as well. NASCAR dads? They’re our last redoubt, and the trends even there are not encouraging as unemployment rises and 401 (k)s are decimated. They want clean, competent government that meets basic challenges. They don’t see tax cuts or stimulus checks that net them another $500 per year as meaningful, and they are not comfortable with the profligate deficits that result. As one veteran Republican campaign professional told pollster Charlie Cook: Voting for tax increases hurts politically much more than voting for tax cuts helps.

So what do we do? First, we eliminate checklists and litmus tests and focus on broad principles, not heavy-handed prescriptions. Free trade. Strong defense – at home and abroad. Government as small as is practicable in these times. Economic, education and energy policies that promote growth, energy independence and a competitive agenda that will allow businesses to grow and compete, not be protected by artificial barriers.

That’s it. Believe anything else you want, but advocate for those things outside the structure of the party.

Second, remind ourselves the first principle of conservatism is not tax cuts or free trade or even smaller government. It is prudence, and prudence should be our guide.

Prudence dictates we take seriously the concerns of those who elect us and tailor our policy proposals to counter the government-mandate-heavy ideas bound to emerge from the other side.

Americans want something done about the 43 million of us who lack health care. The question is not: Should government care? It must. The question is: Do we get a top-down, Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all “solution” or a Massachusetts-style program that preserves choice for patients and discretion for doctors?

Prudence dictates we build on the No Child Left Behind Act and get serious about education reform. Americans demand top-notch schools, and it is our constitutional duty to ensure this happens. Yes, constitutional. We’ve reached an age where we can’t, in practice, provide for the common defense or compete economically without an educated citizenry. We should maximize local control … so long as local control is working. We need to measure, and we need to see that failure is addressed. Remember, it’s about the students, not the institutions.

Prudence dictates we pursue energy independence on all fronts. It is our key to a secure future and our bulwark against the price swings we’ve endured in recent years. Moreover, our views enjoy broad support, and we should press the advantage. Americans support drilling offshore and in areas of oil-rich Alaska now deemed off-limits, because they know we can do it safely. They know, with 250 million cars on our roads, that fossil fuels – oil, coal, natural gas – represent at least part of our energy solution. They also know we can’t continue to depend on dysfunctional countries for our energy supply. They know we can conserve more, do more to develop alternative fuels, including nuclear, and adapt smarter policies to get the most from our potential. We were on the right track with this in the 110th Congress, and we should press forward.

The energy legislation we’ll see in the next Congress will give Republicans a great opportunity to draw bright lines between our policies, which promote growth, innovation, prosperity and choice, and Democrats’ policies, which promote regulation and top-down government dictates and invariably reduce the quality of life. We must remind voters that making energy plentiful and affordable remains the best thing governments can do for the environment.

What we can’t do is go back. I’ve heard much talk of going back to our conservative roots, to the issues that helped us win in 1980 and 1994. That issue matrix has changed so much as to be nearly unrecognizable now. The voters who dealt us our electoral disasters in 2006 and 2008 did so because they thought we were all too true to our roots. That we were exclusive, favored rich over poor, and didn’t care sufficiently for the plight of the little person.

Also, I suspect this call to return to our “roots” really is a call to do nothing. And doing nothing, I hope Republicans will agree, is not an option.

We need to talk less about the size of government and more about its efficiency. Voters want action on the issues that affect them most: energy, security, education, transportation and health care. We need to show these issues can be tackled without creating huge government bureaucracies or necessitating growth-killing tax hikes.

We also need to stop talking about how much we hate government if we expect people to elect us to run it. Perfecting it, reducing it to its ideal size, having it accomplish what we need with minimal resources requires that we embrace it and study it and work hard at it.

Also, as Newt Gingrich has pointed out, we need to remember that every election is important and that it’s important we field good candidates in every race. Eight years ago, we found out it mattered a great deal who the Secretary of State in Florida was. We need to find new leaders and nurture them and re-invest in the organizational infrastructure we need to build our base of volunteers and, again, have the best get-out-the-vote effort.

All is not lost. Even today, significantly more voters identify themselves as conservatives than liberals. They want us to succeed, and they don’t want to return to a society of handouts and big government. But we won’t get there by waiting for the Democrats to fumble the ball. We won’t get there by trying to divine what Ronald Reagan would do in any given situation. We can get there, though, if we stop the infighting and show we have a better way.

The party with the best, freshest ideas always wins. That can be us – that needs to be us – once again.

http://www.riponsociety.org/forum109a.htm

This is a pretty good analysis except Davis left out one glaring omission: nothing about "Strong family values". In fact, he ignores the issue altogether, pretending that the modern GOP isn't beholden to its Sarah Palin wing. There is no doubt Palin cost McCain support among independents and Democrats, but she certainly energized McCain's campaign by bringing aboard its most motivated foot soldiers. Who does Tom Davis think will knock on doors for GOP candidates if you strip out its evangelical base? Wall Street Rockafeller Republicans? Stockbrokers? Bankers?

[Auburn85 438]

good riddance to the death of the moderate republican.

the moderate republican is what doomed the entire republican party. they thought they could please both sides by making the size of government bigger while lowering taxes across the board.

why did so many folks stay home on that first tuesday in november rather than live up the hype of the biggest voter turnout in nearly 100 years?

the republican party's fundamentals are extremely flawed. sort of a relfection of our current federal government.

tax cuts do work if you control your spending. because again, our debt ridden citizens are a relfection of our debt ridden federal government. i'm not going to even argue the fact that tax cuts increase revenues because that is not what the argument should be about. it should be about people keeping as much money in their pockets as possible.

this administration and several in congress took the idea of putting low income and minority families into NEW homes and ran with it. they made banks give out risky loans. not to be outdone, alof of people bought homes they couldn't afford. we could have then, taken a damage control approach. instead we kept having government interfere and play with the interest rates.

we had republicans trying to speak up about fannie mae and freddie mac before it's collaspe, while we had democrats saying nothing was wrong. it was bass ackwards

what could the republican party do to gain more african american support?

what could they do to gain more latino support?

Americans want something done about the 43 million of us who lack health care. The question is not: Should government care? It must. The question is: Do we get a top-down, Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all “solution” or a Massachusetts-style program that preserves choice for patients and discretion for doctors?

massachusetts had a mandate too. You can be fined for not having coverage. Who was the governor of mass. When this got passed? republican mitt romney.

look at what was being proposed earlier this year for that government mandated Massachusetts universal healthcare program.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0277.htm

Cigarette Taxes

Massachusetts lawmakers are considering raising cigarette taxes by as much as $ 1 per pack. In April, Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi pushed to raise the tax by $ 2. 51. The tax increase is

expected to generate between $ 152 and $ 175 million per year (Stack, Kevin, “States Look to Tobacco Tax for Budget Holes” N. Y. Times, April 21, 2008).

Premium Rates

Beginning July 1, 2008, Massachusetts will increase insurance premiums by 10% to help offset the increased costs incurred by the subsidized program. The lowest premiums will range from $ 39 to $ 116 per month. Individuals with an annual income of less than $ 15,000 do not pay any premiums (S. B. 2650, 185th Gen. Assem. , Reg. Sess. (Mass. 2008)).

Patient Copayments

Beginning July, 1, 2008, the copayments for members of Commonwealth Care who visit a primary-care physician will increase by $ 5, $ 10, or $ 15 dollars. Copayments for drugs will also increase. Additionally, out-of-pocket expenses will be capped between $ 750 and $ 1,500 for all medical expenses, depending on an individual's income. A separate cap will be placed on prescription drugs (S. B. 2650, 185th Gen. Assem. , Reg. Sess. (Mass. 2008)), (Dembner, Alice. “State Health Plan Underfunded” Boston Globe, March 21, 2008).

Penalties

For tax year 2007, the law penalizes individuals who do not enroll in coverage through a $ 219 tax deduction loss. The penalty increases for 2008 to an amount equal to 50% of the lowest premium the person would have paid for coverage. The penalty is paid from any tax refund due, or if this is insufficient, through additional tax payments.

The law also imposes a “fare share” surcharge on employers not offering employees health insurance at a cost of $ 295 per employee. About 500 companies out of tens of thousands covered by the law paid the surcharge in 2007. While state officials and business leaders reported that the small number reflects compliance with the law, healthcare advocates believe it is due to the state not enforcing the surcharge in many circumstances.

The state will collect about $ 6 million in employee surcharge instead of the $ 24 million budgeted based on a survey of employers done in 2005. By law, businesses with at least 11 full-time equivalent employees are subject to the surcharge unless 25% of their employees buy company-sponsored insurance or the employers contribute at least one-third of employees' premiums for individual insurance.

Healthcare advocates believe the law's employer surcharge is too low and premium contribution requirement is too weak, resulting in taxpayers carrying a larger-than-expected burden (Dembner, Alice. “Most Firms Comply with Health Law” Boston Globe, November 22, 2007 and “State Health Plan Underfunded” Boston Globe, March 21, 2008).

the cigarette tax passed by the way.

So the government sees the people are paying in less revenue. Rather than do what some Americans do and that is cut their own costs, the government passed on more taxes and fees to offset the cost to those same people who weren’t paying revenues up to government standards. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. more and more people are becoming dependant on this program. why? people losing their jobs, seeing their premiums increasing too much. Just like our federal government, it’s becoming unsustainable.

Back to the federal government though.

Are we to the point where our next proposed budget is unacceptable if it’s $2.9 trillion?

We can’t even get a friggin stimulus package in this doomsday scenario without any pork in it. Rather than have numerous silly earmarks, why can’t congress just this one time, one time! Go without them? Better yet, since it’s probably already been printed with our printing press because this isn’t actual money we have (borrowed at best),why can’t the pork injected go to the road improvement in congressman or woman’s district? Now, we have to hold our breath not only for the pork, but for the entire thing that we don’t get a teapot museum, or a bridge to nowhere, or 6-lane highways in rural areas.

I voted against Richard Shelby in his last election. He’s gotten back on my good side for standing up against the bailout of the big 3 and not backing down. The southern senators are getting a bad rep in all of this. Shelby used to be a democrat. Shelby voted against the first Chrysler bailout back in the day before Mercedes came to Alabama, which I think they came around 1993.

Yet, the story of these senators takes extra emphasis on the “southern” aspect. Why on earth would cnn frame it as being a north vs. south thing? As if these 8 senators are meeting in a basement plotting to chip away at the prosperity above the mason Dixon line so the south can rise again.

Investment and bailout are 2 completely different words in the vocabulary.

Some say that nobody would buy cars from a company that goes bankrupt. News flash, how did these 3 get here? Why would anyone want to buy a vehicle from a company who can’t stand on it’s own? It’s going to be like a charity case with more severe consequences. This is a bankrupty with a different word being used.

The government doesn’t have the power to completely reverse the economy. A government cannot stop a recession in a country that contains over 300 million people.

[autigeremt 7,551]

Great take on this Auburn85. If we are headed where I think we are headed, the South may rise again. What caused the last civil war???? Not slavery, but states rights. The Federal Government is getting way to big, and their are a lot of us who see this as the begining of a long, hard road for anyone who disagrees with the process.

[otterinbham 0]

Great take on this Auburn85. If we are headed where I think we are headed, the South may rise again. What caused the last civil war???? Not slavery, but states rights. The Federal Government is getting way to big, and their are a lot of us who see this as the begining of a long, hard road for anyone who disagrees with the process.

Um....that's nice, except for the fact that you ignore a salient point: The Bush administration presided over one of the biggest expansions of government and government spending in history. Because the Bush administration simply could not be bothered with economics, it is the chief culprit and architect of today's metastasizing government. It is simply criminal what he's done. He's thrown the party's principles of economic responsibility under the bus, and now we're looking at a terrible situation as a result.

The moderate wing of the GOP was in favor of restraint in spending in government. It was the hard right wing of the government that pushed for these programs because, as Dick Cheney famously declared, "Deficits don't matter." I remember reading that in the paper and thinking, "What?"

As it stands today, the GOP stands for nothing, and its most ardent supporters are really repeating the script of the 90s in kneejerk fashion, when the party actually did have an alternative vision. It is an irrelevant force on the American political landscape, and it's only through sheer inertia that it's held on to its remaining seats in Congress.

Nope, with the exception of his stance on nationalized healthcare, the writer is on target, pointing out some pretty awful truths about the last decade. The Bush administration grew government to disastrous levels, he egged on the growth of government, and he shredded the Constitution--and the GOP stood by and did nothing. As one Republican writer offers, "Bush had all the luck of Jimmy Carter, the attention to detail of Ronald Reagan, the adaptability of Lyndon Johnson, the abiding respect for the Constitution of Richard Nixon, the humility of Teddy Roosevelt, the rhetorical skills of Calvin Coolidge, the fiscal restraint of Franklin Roosevelt, the cronyism of Warren Harding, and the overreaching idealism of Woodrow Wilson."

If the GOP wants to climb back into political legitimacy any time in the next decade, then it really needs to take a hard look at its stance on things. The GOP should be about economic freedom, which comes directly from fiscal restraint in government, and little else. This will be a compelling message in about five years once the hangover and damages from these massive bailouts and incentives becomes glaringly apparent--which was just the creation of yet another economic bubble along the lines of the Internet and the Housing bubbles. Not stem cells, not prayer in schools, not flag burning amendments, not any of the other social engineering nonsense. Just the growth of the economy and the growth of middle class income in this country, something that has been under pressure for the past decade. Do that, and the GOP has a fighting chance of resurgence in this country. Fail to do so, and it will become marginalizes and--most likely--will go the way of the Whigs.

[DKW 86 8,235]

Otter, I agree with all and disagree with all you said.

I dont think Bush 43 was a conservative anymore than his dad. They are both CINOs IMHO. There is no connection of Conservative to Radical Govt Spending. There is in the Moderates however. Bush 43 is an anomaly. He was a free spending moderate that just about destroyed the US. His spending may at times be on Conservative "things" but the growth of govt makes him amoderate to me and many others.

Conservatives have zero to offer in leadership at this moment. But that could change in a moment though.

[CCTAU 3,883]

Bush got tied up with the war on terror and tried appease everyone by making that war transparent at home. He left his conservative republican roots and attempted to become a moderate. Didn't work. Won't work. Gotta have it one way or the other. In order for this country to survive, we must all tighten our belts and make wise choices in spending. This must start with the federal government. If Bush had cut taxes AND cut spending, McCain would be in office today. Now we have a country so fed up with what they think (or have been told by the media) was conservative government, that they have totally gone the other direction. Bush screwed us on the spending aspect. We are a much safer nation today, but it could have been reached in a more conservative manner.

Had there been no 9/11 attack, this country would be a lot better off financially. If for no other reason that the Bush admin would have had to focus on the economy and not the war.

Can the ONE pull it all together? Not if he is the same man that his past implies. Much change will be needed. And that change must be more him than anything.

[otterinbham 0]

Otter, I agree with all and disagree with all you said.

I dont think Bush 43 was a conservative anymore than his dad. They are both CINOs IMHO. There is no connection of Conservative to Radical Govt Spending. There is in the Moderates however. Bush 43 is an anomaly. He was a free spending moderate that just about destroyed the US. His spending may at times be on Conservative "things" but the growth of govt makes him amoderate to me and many others.

Conservatives have zero to offer in leadership at this moment. But that could change in a moment though.

See, I would argue that Bush 43 is a social conservative and spending liberal. But everybody filed into the voting booth thinking they were getting a pure conservative because he said all the right things.

As far as Bush 41 is concerned, I really hesitate to tar him with the same brush as his son. Bush 41 was masterful at foreign policy with a crackerjack team under him. There is simply no comparison between the way Bush 41 handled the overthrow of the Soviet Bloc, the Invasion of Panama, the Gulf War, and the final collapse of Communism in Russia and his son's blundering in Iraq and the unravelling of the Western powers. I mean, all one has to do is read Woodward's books on the savage gamesmanship and infighting in his administration to realize that Bush 43 never was in control of his administration, never had a grasp on the facts, never listened to dissenting opinions, and generally governed with a total lack of reality. It was all spin and gamesmanship.

On the economic front, Bush 41 faced a mild recession that was the result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Compared to today's economic issues, it's like comparing a mild case of the sniffles to walking pneumonia.

The only way the GOP is going to battle their way back is by addressing the country's economic needs--namely the need to restrain governmental growth. Everything else is off the table.

[DKW 86 8,235]

Otter, I agree with all and disagree with all you said.

I dont think Bush 43 was a conservative anymore than his dad. They are both CINOs IMHO. There is no connection of Conservative to Radical Govt Spending. There is in the Moderates however. Bush 43 is an anomaly. He was a free spending moderate that just about destroyed the US. His spending may at times be on Conservative "things" but the growth of govt makes him amoderate to me and many others.

Conservatives have zero to offer in leadership at this moment. But that could change in a moment though.

See, I would argue that Bush 43 is a social conservative and spending liberal. But everybody filed into the voting booth thinking they were getting a pure conservative because he said all the right things.

As far as Bush 41 is concerned, I really hesitate to tar him with the same brush as his son. Bush 41 was masterful at foreign policy with a crackerjack team under him. There is simply no comparison between the way Bush 41 handled the overthrow of the Soviet Bloc, the Invasion of Panama, the Gulf War, and the final collapse of Communism in Russia and his son's blundering in Iraq and the unravelling of the Western powers. I mean, all one has to do is read Woodward's books on the savage gamesmanship and infighting in his administration to realize that Bush 43 never was in control of his administration, never had a grasp on the facts, never listened to dissenting opinions, and generally governed with a total lack of reality. It was all spin and gamesmanship.

On the economic front, Bush 41 faced a mild recession that was the result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Compared to today's economic issues, it's like comparing a mild case of the sniffles to walking pneumonia.

The only way the GOP is going to battle their way back is by addressing the country's economic needs--namely the need to restrain governmental growth. Everything else is off the table.

I agree, with one caveat. Bush 41 agreed/partnered/supported to the Mitchell Tax Package and put us into a recession.

41 was as moderate as they come and benefitted from Reagan's efforts all the while bashing Reagan from afar and turning almost civil politics down the path of MAD.

43 may have some War on Terrorism solace in his leagacy 10+ years from now, but ultimately he will go down as a domestic disaster. He was never a Fiscal Conservative as President. He has also tainted Social Conservatives for many years to come. If Obama is successful, Conservativism will be junked for another 8 or so years at least, just as Viqueries said a year ago.

[RunInRed 19,665]

If the GOP wants to climb back into political legitimacy any time in the next decade, then it really needs to take a hard look at its stance on things. The GOP should be about economic freedom, which comes directly from fiscal restraint in government, and little else...Not stem cells, not prayer in schools, not flag burning amendments, not any of the other social engineering nonsense. Fail to do so, and it will become marginalizes and--most likely--will go the way of the Whigs.

Nail head.

[TitanTiger 22,262]

Hold on, the "hard right" pushed for these programs? Define "hard right." If you mean far right neo-cons on issues of war and the military, maybe. But if you're going to tar and feather social conservatives with the spending increases, you need to get out more.

I am in the circles of the most ardent social conservatives and almost every one in that group falls in the "smaller government", "pay down debt", "live within your means" end of the economic debates. Time and again you'd hear about how they were glad they had a president that cared about the unborn or was a Christian, but it would always contain the caveat that they don't like his economic policies or that they don't like this or that gov't program he's pushing.

The problem is, people have been slow to catch on the the shift that's taken place the last 8 years or so. It used to be that if someone was a so-called "moderate", they were that way across the board, fiscally and socially. Same with "conservative." But folks have long since broken out of those constrictions. You've got young evangelicals who are socially traditional/conservative but have moderate to liberal views on economics. And even within that, where their parents were culture warriors on social issues, they are trying to find points of agreement where they can with groups that are normally on the other side of issues. Thus conservative Christians and gay advocacy groups work together on helping AIDS patients. Liberal feminist groups and pro-lifers team up to get women better health care coverage and work/school situations that afford them have child care.

Then you've got folks that are moderate to liberal on social issues but fiscally conservative. And all of this is a change from the eras before the mid 1960s when Democrats were typically social traditionalists but were populist on economic issues while Republicans were based in the Northeast and tended to be fiscally conservative and viewed as "pro-big business" while being socially moderate to liberal.

We're again in a period of transition from the old labels and teams and people that blindly line up behind one party's banner or the other without looking at the whole picture are going to be in for some surprises. All of that to say, anyone that tries to freeze things as they are right now and make that the template for moving forward and who will be the winners and losers is premature. This hasn't settled out quite yet.

[RunInRed 19,665]

Titan --

You make a lot of sense. I would just clarify that the overwhelming chant of the Republican party as we know it today is around social issues. That is why Sarah Palin was able to inject so much juice into McCain's campaign. The social conservatives might value both platforms but the issues that get them moving are abortions, stem cells, prayer school, flag burning, etc. That's got to change if the party wants survival because like it or not, the majority of American aren't in alignment with this credo.

As I've said before and for the record, I would chart myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. But even still, I find it harder and harder to put myself in those boxes...at least by today's definitions.

[OldNewby 27]

This administration and several in congress took the idea of putting low income and minority families into NEW homes and ran with it. They made banks give out risky loans. Not to be outdone, a lot of people bought homes they couldn't afford. We could have then, taken a damage control approach. Instead we kept having government interfere and play with the interest rates.

Add the demonstrations outside of banks to pressure them to make risky loans to the arm twisting and coercion in DC, and here we sit. Screwed big time.

It is easy to be charitable with someone else's money.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Bush got tied up with the war on terror and tried appease everyone by making that war transparent at home. He left his conservative republican roots and attempted to become a moderate. Didn't work. Won't work. Gotta have it one way or the other. In order for this country to survive, we must all tighten our belts and make wise choices in spending. This must start with the federal government. If Bush had cut taxes AND cut spending, McCain would be in office today. Now we have a country so fed up with what they think (or have been told by the media) was conservative government, that they have totally gone the other direction. Bush screwed us on the spending aspect. We are a much safer nation today, but it could have been reached in a more conservative manner.

Had there been no 9/11 attack, this country would be a lot better off financially. If for no other reason that the Bush admin would have had to focus on the economy and not the war.

Can the ONE pull it all together? Not if he is the same man that his past implies. Much change will be needed. And that change must be more him than anything.

99% of Americans want the same things. Strong defense, good economic policies, small deficits, and a government that works. After enflaming the 'religious right' on "social issues" in 2000, the Rove Government failed to detect a trend in America. That is, a more live and let live attitude. "Government needs to worry about providing us with good government, and we will worry about presonel, social issues."

Now that the ZERO is leaving we can get back to running a government and less on telling people how they should live their lives.

[TitanTiger 22,262]

Titan --

You make a lot of sense. I would just clarify that the overwhelming chant of the Republican party as we know it today is around social issues. That is why Sarah Palin was able to inject so much juice into McCain's campaign. The social conservatives might value both platforms but the issues that get them moving are abortions, stem cells, prayer school, flag burning, etc. That's got to change if the party wants survival because like it or not, the majority of American aren't in alignment with this credo.

I think that's oversimplifying it. The problem with the GOP ticket (aside from the disadvantage of being linked to Bush by party) was that none of the ones running for the ticket excited all or even most of the GOP coalition. Social conservatives liked Huckabee, but he's something of a populist on economics. Giuliani made war hawks happy but he had little economic background and his messy public divorce and positions on social issues didn't excite social traditionalists. Romney seemed to make fiscal conservatives happy but had little to no history on foreign policy issues (not even speeches or writings that outlined his philosophy) and seemed to be a Johnny come lately to social conservative positions. Then there was McCain who had managed to piss off virtually every segment at one time or another but seemed much older and more ornery than he was in 2000.

So when the time came for McCain to select a veep, because he really wasn't any particular group's poster boy, it was going to excite some group or another. The idea of Palin excited GOP voters because at first blush she seemed to have it all: that "everywoman" persona, fiscal conservative, bonafide social conservative credentials, and an outsider's mystique that appeals to anti-bureaucracy types. Plus, being a woman, it seemed to be a nice parry to the novelty and history angle that the Obama nomination had going for it. No other candidate for the VP would have garnered half as much attention to McCain's overshadowed run for office.

So it was far more complicated that simply "social issues" injecting juice into the campaign. McCain just wasn't the same candidate he was 8 years ago and he needed a shakeup. She provided that...until she embarrassed herself during the various interviews with her shallow understanding of foreign policy. She had her moment and fumbled the ball. Mainly because she wasn't ready. She may have been a rising star but she needed more seasoning in the minors before hitting the big stage. On the other hand, Democrats don't even want to ponder what the race would have looked like had she gone into those interviews and nailed it. But the bottom line is, the spark she provided was about more than abortion and gays.

As I've said before and for the record, I would chart myself as a fiscal conservative and socially liberal. But even still, I find it harder and harder to put myself in those boxes...at least by today's definitions.

Probably explains why we lock horns so much. I share your struggle to figure out my niche in today's two party system, but I'm the opposite: a social conservative and fiscal populist/moderate. Mainly when it comes to economics, I'm not a hard core ideologue. I just want what works without stacking the deck against the average Joe.

[autigeremt 7,551]

By TitanTiger per quote from runinred:

"Probably explains why we lock horns so much. I share your struggle to figure out my niche in today's two party system, but I'm the opposite: a social conservative and fiscal populist/moderate. Mainly when it comes to economics, I'm not a hard core ideologue. I just want what works without stacking the deck against the average Joe."

And this explains my total and undeniable frustration with the entire political system in America. Democrats have subdivisions. The GOP (what's left of it) has subdivisions. The problem is.....they lean on what THEY want and not what the American people want.

I am in the same cloth of Titan. A social conservative who may flex on some issues, but maintain on principal (I hope I didn't mis-characterize you). Fiscally, I'm a moderate, but not at the expense of the freedoms that we have from a financial standpoint. There are some things we have to have in place to help the disabled. We also need to provide the ability for someone to rise up from the ashes, but they must be willing to work for it.

All I know is this.....if you FORCE your agenda on a large group of people long enough, they will revolt in some way, shape, or form. History proves it.

[AFTiger 282]

The Republicans ran a moderate for President in 2008 and look what happened. Out with the neo-cons and in with the neo-comms. The economic conservatives had better embrace the the social conservatives or there will never be a Republican Party in power again.

[otterinbham 0]

The Republicans ran a moderate for President in 2008 and look what happened. Out with the neo-cons and in with the neo-comms. The economic conservatives had better embrace the the social conservatives or there will never be a Republican Party in power again.

See, I take the total opposite viewpoint. McCain was the only legitimate shot the Republicans had. The fact that he came as close as he did despite Bush's terrible record and the fact that the economic plunge took place right in the middle of the election season speaks volumes. Romney would have been obliterated.

[TitanTiger 22,262]

The Republicans ran a moderate for President in 2008 and look what happened. Out with the neo-cons and in with the neo-comms. The economic conservatives had better embrace the the social conservatives or there will never be a Republican Party in power again.

See, I take the total opposite viewpoint. McCain was the only legitimate shot the Republicans had. The fact that he came as close as he did despite Bush's terrible record and the fact that the economic plunge took place right in the middle of the election season speaks volumes. Romney would have been obliterated.

Well yeah, because Mr. Charisma would have been trading shots with an android.

[otterinbham 0]

The Republicans ran a moderate for President in 2008 and look what happened. Out with the neo-cons and in with the neo-comms. The economic conservatives had better embrace the the social conservatives or there will never be a Republican Party in power again.

See, I take the total opposite viewpoint. McCain was the only legitimate shot the Republicans had. The fact that he came as close as he did despite Bush's terrible record and the fact that the economic plunge took place right in the middle of the election season speaks volumes. Romney would have been obliterated.

Well yeah, because Mr. Charisma would have been trading shots with an android.

True. Huckabee would not have fared any better.

[RunInRed 19,665]

It's early but a lot of Democrats are hoping Palin runs in 2012.

[Auburn85 438]

Hold on, the "hard right" pushed for these programs? Define "hard right." If you mean far right neo-cons on issues of war and the military, maybe. But if you're going to tar and feather social conservatives with the spending increases, you need to get out more.

I am in the circles of the most ardent social conservatives and almost every one in that group falls in the "smaller government", "pay down debt", "live within your means" end of the economic debates. Time and again you'd hear about how they were glad they had a president that cared about the unborn or was a Christian, but it would always contain the caveat that they don't like his economic policies or that they don't like this or that gov't program he's pushing.

The problem is, people have been slow to catch on the the shift that's taken place the last 8 years or so. It used to be that if someone was a so-called "moderate", they were that way across the board, fiscally and socially. Same with "conservative." But folks have long since broken out of those constrictions. You've got young evangelicals who are socially traditional/conservative but have moderate to liberal views on economics. And even within that, where their parents were culture warriors on social issues, they are trying to find points of agreement where they can with groups that are normally on the other side of issues. Thus conservative Christians and gay advocacy groups work together on helping AIDS patients. Liberal feminist groups and pro-lifers team up to get women better health care coverage and work/school situations that afford them have child care.

Then you've got folks that are moderate to liberal on social issues but fiscally conservative. And all of this is a change from the eras before the mid 1960s when Democrats were typically social traditionalists but were populist on economic issues while Republicans were based in the Northeast and tended to be fiscally conservative and viewed as "pro-big business" while being socially moderate to liberal.

We're again in a period of transition from the old labels and teams and people that blindly line up behind one party's banner or the other without looking at the whole picture are going to be in for some surprises. All of that to say, anyone that tries to freeze things as they are right now and make that the template for moving forward and who will be the winners and losers is premature. This hasn't settled out quite yet.

i actually held back on a rant in a previous post and kind of sort of taking it in the direction that titan did. i feel the conservative line has been blurred and now being piegon holed as a southern thing. hey if the word southern ever gets old, use appalachia more like they did when hillary won in west virginia and kentucky.

the first 3 republican primaries had 3 different winners

Iowa- Huckabee

Wyoming- Romney

New Hampshire- McCain

When everyone was declaring their run for president, Guliani seemed to be the front runnner. Then, we got all the hype for Fred Thompson. Ron Paul raised an enormous amount of money. Huckabee won states with very little money. In the beginning, McCain was left for dead because conservatives didn't like his extremist immigration plan with Kennedy (sarcasm).

We had Pat Roberton endorce Guliani

We had a right to life organization endorce Thompson

We had the minutemen endorce Huckabee

There was no clear cut candidate

as otter has pointed out, we had an enormous expansion in government.

and like otter and i have mentioned in previous threads, we had a republican president and congress enable the creation of an entitlement program. how many times have republicans done this??

bush and risky loans to low income and or minority families

no child left behind

borrowing endless amounts for a war. i'm not even going to argue the merits for fighting the war. at some point you must use actual revenues than borrow for the majority of it.

why do you think the moderate republican is dead you may ask? because they are now democrats. why should someone claim to be a republican when they clearly prove time and time again that they have no fundamental attributes of conservatism? alot have embraced more government; bigger government. it's the new trend. republicans lost this genrational round because of the way the entire campaign was played out.

an on your own society is not cool anymore. we want an on your society to a degree still. we want the opportunity to be as prosperous as possible, but if we see someone else propser alot more than we would like, we have to interfere. we want the opportunity to be as properous as possible, but when we fall flat on our face, we want to be bailed out. i guess it was a slow bleed over several years. we can go from the government being the root of all problems to the same body of government that's going to allegedly solve those problems. talk about a vicous cycle.

the people are what make this country great, not the government.

i'm not even going to knock this definition of a moderate republican as the writer put it. just be true to yourself and don't be ashamed or be something you're not.

and i'm sorry, i'm not going to embrace it no matter how many goodies one is willing to offer.

i voted for bush in 2004. do i think john kerry would have done any better? no, that's why i obviously voted for bush. the vote didn't come to fruition. i don't regret the vote, but i learned alot from it.

you know not many democrats complain about how big the budgets bush and republicans gave us. their only complaints are the war, class warfare, and bush didn't do enough with this or that despite having these enormous budgets.

bush's ratings aren't at record levels because liberals hate him. they hated him from the get go. they are so low because conservatives hate him.

[autigeremt 7,551]

NAIL MEET HEAD (Sorry run....had to use it)

Quote frm Auburn85: "Why do you think the moderate republican is dead you may ask? Because they are now democrats."

The GOP should be what's it's supposed to be, and not what people are trying to make it out to be.

[TitanTiger 22,262]

The Republicans ran a moderate for President in 2008 and look what happened. Out with the neo-cons and in with the neo-comms. The economic conservatives had better embrace the the social conservatives or there will never be a Republican Party in power again.

See, I take the total opposite viewpoint. McCain was the only legitimate shot the Republicans had. The fact that he came as close as he did despite Bush's terrible record and the fact that the economic plunge took place right in the middle of the election season speaks volumes. Romney would have been obliterated.

Well yeah, because Mr. Charisma would have been trading shots with an android.

True. Huckabee would not have fared any better.

Well, I think Huckabee had strengths in terms of connecting with people and charisma that McCain lacked, forget Romney. He would have had to fight being pigeonholed as narrow on social issues, but I think he would have done much better in debates against Obama than Romney and probably McCain too, though he wouldn't have been able to exploit Obama's main weakness...inexperience.

[Auburn85 438]

The Republicans ran a moderate for President in 2008 and look what happened. Out with the neo-cons and in with the neo-comms. The economic conservatives had better embrace the the social conservatives or there will never be a Republican Party in power again.

See, I take the total opposite viewpoint. McCain was the only legitimate shot the Republicans had. The fact that he came as close as he did despite Bush's terrible record and the fact that the economic plunge took place right in the middle of the election season speaks volumes. Romney would have been obliterated.

Well yeah, because Mr. Charisma would have been trading shots with an android.

True. Huckabee would not have fared any better.

Well, I think Huckabee had strengths in terms of connecting with people and charisma that McCain lacked, forget Romney. He would have had to fight being pigeonholed as narrow on social issues, but I think he would have done much better in debates against Obama than Romney and probably McCain too, though he wouldn't have been able to exploit Obama's main weakness...inexperience.

i voted for huckabee in the primaries.

i favored him when he decided to support the fair tax.

also, i like how he connects with people.

in my opinion, he had the best speech at the RNC

i was one of the lucky ones who got the "500 dollar seats" when he came to the Samford campus.

sure, he's great at the one line zinger. i don't even agree with everything he says. the book he just released is a good read. it does tend to sprinkle in a shot or 2 at romney throughout the book. he's slightly more partisan in the the book than he was on the campaign trail.

in his book also is a list of all the taxes that were raised on his watch.

it took a court order to increase funding for schools

the people voted to increase the gas tax

the cigarette tax increased

don't want to give away the whole book. he does a great job of putting you there with him on the campaign trail. he tells a few stories of the people that supported him.

he couldn't get his message out in time. Alot of people on the right didn't like him because of all the tax increases. They didn't like one particular stance he took on illegal immigration. Some on the left didn't like him because he's a little more religious than the regular candidates as he is/was a minister. he was for eliminating the irs. plus, we already had a president from the small town of hope, arkansas.

yet on Romney's watch, they had universal healthcare. that one issue alone turned me completely off. had nothing to do with him being a mormon. in fact, i'm a huge mike leach fan.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Hold on, the "hard right" pushed for these programs? Define "hard right." If you mean far right neo-cons on issues of war and the military, maybe. But if you're going to tar and feather social conservatives with the spending increases, you need to get out more.

I am in the circles of the most ardent social conservatives and almost every one in that group falls in the "smaller government", "pay down debt", "live within your means" end of the economic debates. Time and again you'd hear about how they were glad they had a president that cared about the unborn or was a Christian, but it would always contain the caveat that they don't like his economic policies or that they don't like this or that gov't program he's pushing.

The problem is, people have been slow to catch on the the shift that's taken place the last 8 years or so. It used to be that if someone was a so-called "moderate", they were that way across the board, fiscally and socially. Same with "conservative." But folks have long since broken out of those constrictions. You've got young evangelicals who are socially traditional/conservative but have moderate to liberal views on economics. And even within that, where their parents were culture warriors on social issues, they are trying to find points of agreement where they can with groups that are normally on the other side of issues. Thus conservative Christians and gay advocacy groups work together on helping AIDS patients. Liberal feminist groups and pro-lifers team up to get women better health care coverage and work/school situations that afford them have child care.

Then you've got folks that are moderate to liberal on social issues but fiscally conservative. And all of this is a change from the eras before the mid 1960s when Democrats were typically social traditionalists but were populist on economic issues while Republicans were based in the Northeast and tended to be fiscally conservative and viewed as "pro-big business" while being socially moderate to liberal.

We're again in a period of transition from the old labels and teams and people that blindly line up behind one party's banner or the other without looking at the whole picture are going to be in for some surprises. All of that to say, anyone that tries to freeze things as they are right now and make that the template for moving forward and who will be the winners and losers is premature. This hasn't settled out quite yet.

i actually held back on a rant in a previous post and kind of sort of taking it in the direction that titan did. i feel the conservative line has been blurred and now being piegon holed as a southern thing. hey if the word southern ever gets old, use appalachia more like they did when hillary won in west virginia and kentucky.

the first 3 republican primaries had 3 different winners

Iowa- Huckabee

Wyoming- Romney

New Hampshire- McCain

When everyone was declaring their run for president, Guliani seemed to be the front runnner. Then, we got all the hype for Fred Thompson. Ron Paul raised an enormous amount of money. Huckabee won states with very little money. In the beginning, McCain was left for dead because conservatives didn't like his extremist immigration plan with Kennedy (sarcasm).

We had Pat Roberton endorce Guliani

We had a right to life organization endorce Thompson

We had the minutemen endorce Huckabee

There was no clear cut candidate

as otter has pointed out, we had an enormous expansion in government.

and like otter and i have mentioned in previous threads, we had a republican president and congress enable the creation of an entitlement program. how many times have republicans done this??

bush and risky loans to low income and or minority families

no child left behind

borrowing endless amounts for a war. i'm not even going to argue the merits for fighting the war. at some point you must use actual revenues than borrow for the majority of it.

why do you think the moderate republican is dead you may ask? because they are now democrats. why should someone claim to be a republican when they clearly prove time and time again that they have no fundamental attributes of conservatism? alot have embraced more government; bigger government. it's the new trend. republicans lost this genrational round because of the way the entire campaign was played out.

an on your own society is not cool anymore. we want an on your society to a degree still. we want the opportunity to be as prosperous as possible, but if we see someone else propser alot more than we would like, we have to interfere. we want the opportunity to be as properous as possible, but when we fall flat on our face, we want to be bailed out. i guess it was a slow bleed over several years. we can go from the government being the root of all problems to the same body of government that's going to allegedly solve those problems. talk about a vicous cycle.

the people are what make this country great, not the government.

i'm not even going to knock this definition of a moderate republican as the writer put it. just be true to yourself and don't be ashamed or be something you're not.

and i'm sorry, i'm not going to embrace it no matter how many goodies one is willing to offer.

i voted for bush in 2004. do i think john kerry would have done any better? no, that's why i obviously voted for bush. the vote didn't come to fruition. i don't regret the vote, but i learned alot from it.

you know not many democrats complain about how big the budgets bush and republicans gave us. their only complaints are the war, class warfare, and bush didn't do enough with this or that despite having these enormous budgets.

bush's ratings aren't at record levels because liberals hate him. they hated him from the get go. they are so low because conservatives hate him.

We elitist didn't hate him from the get go. He just proved what we thought all along