The Grand New Party
 

The health care thread took a left (or right) turn into the politics of the Republican party. I just thought we might want to bring that discussion over here and let the health care discussion get back on track.

Essentially, the question is where do fiscal conservatives go now that the social conservatives have co-opted the Republican party?

Can a group based on fiscal conservatism and limited government be viable? OR will any such group attract and be subsumed by anti-government groups and/or social conservatives.

Can fiscal conservatives remain allied with social conservatives and still be relevant or is it a catch-22? We need them for a majority but in gaining their support we lose the core values of fiscal restraint by the government, personal responsibility and limited, but appropriate, govt. regulation (i.e. oversight of banking, insurance, interstate trade, etc.)?

Re: The Grand New Party
 

When everyone claims to be a moderate...how many from each side do we need to steal?

Re: The Grand New Party
 

Good idea.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Monksdown;557553]When everyone claims to be a moderate...how many from each side do we need to steal?[/quote]

There doesn't need to be sides. How about a party based on ideas and principles. A little looser banding to prevent incestuous thinking and provide for more agility in the idea department.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

I guess the point I was trying to make in the other thread is I just don't see the big legisltive push for the religious right agenda. I hear it talked about but just don't see that it controls the party. Its the same thing on the left. You hear all the tree hughing nuts but you just don't see a hugh push to their agenda.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

Essentially, the 2-party system has divided itself based on how it spends the money.

Since more than 60% of the country, rich and poor, now believe that government can distribute money in one form or another, EIC payments or tax deductions for solar energy or whatever other pet project you may deem worthy of other peoples money, a new party would have to draw from moderates. The problem is moderates won't unite behind one party because the 2 behemoths can co-opt any fledgling ideas, and leave real change behind.

The American government, originally, was limited in scope by the 10 amendments, and specifically #s 9 and 10. That is no longer the case. If the Federal government wants to force the enforcement of a law, they simply punish the bad states by withholding funds. The Supreme Court has been complicit in this growth by allowing interstate commerce regulations to weave webs of entanglement into every level of the government. The media is complicit, because they no longer try to be a neutral observer, but depending on their bias, report news that promotes their agenda.

Sadly, there is not very much chance that the country is suddenly going to agree to limiting government.

Don't know that my rant was coherent, or that it answers any significant question.

No, no new party will be created. 30% of Americans will vote Democratic come hell or high water, 30% will vote Republican come hell or high water, and the other 40% will be so divided by things like choice, healthcare, marriage, and other social divides that the 2 major parties will bring enough to one side or the other to squash any silly new idea, like limited, representative, government of the people.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

Let's define fiscal conservatism and limited government. With respect to social institutions what does that mean? What current government institution/agencies get cut?

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;557586]Let's define fiscal conservatism and limited government. With respect to social institutions what does that mean? What current government institution/agencies get cut?[/quote]

I think we could cut goverment in half and 99% of the people would never notice any change or they might notice an improvement.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;557550]Essentially, the question is where do fiscal conservatives go now that the social conservatives have co-opted the Republican party?

Can a group based on fiscal conservatism and limited government be viable? OR will any such group attract and be subsumed by anti-government groups and/or social conservatives.

Can fiscal conservatives remain allied with social conservatives and still be relevant or is it a catch-22? We need them for a majority but in gaining their support we lose the core values of fiscal restraint by the government, personal responsibility and limited, but appropriate, govt. regulation (i.e. oversight of banking, insurance, interstate trade, etc.)?[/quote]IMO it will be real difficult to have a third party because a split in the GOP and a fiscal conservative/socially moderate party won't pull many Dems. It would just solidify the Dems control on the government and guarantee expanded gov't, higher taxes and liberal social engineering.

The social conservatives need to wake up and let the GOP frame the gay marriage/abortion/other social issues as a "state's rights" issue vs. a gay/straight or abortion/anti-abortion issue. The "what works in Kansas doesn't work in CA" is an argument I think most people get. This would allow the GOP to seem more interested in the reduction of the size & scope of the federal government rather than in pushing their moral beliefs on others. That stance should attract independents and moderates. The social conservatives need to understand if we don't get fiscal control of the government within the next election cycle, a 6-8 year span of a Dem President and Dem Congress will do irreperable harm to the country fiscally. It also won't matter what social issue they social conservatives have, the districts and census will be so gerry-mandered the GOP will be a minority party for 50+ years and they won't have a snowballs chance of getting any ground on their agenda.

Put fiscal responsibility first and find candidates that don't have skeletons in closets or are sold out to special interests. Fight the social issues at the state and local level and make the Dems/liberals appear to be the ones trying to force their agenda down everyone's throat at the federal level.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;557577]You hear all the tree hughing nuts but you just don't see a hugh push to their agenda.[/quote]There are a initiatives that Obama and the Dems are pushing through that will raise energy costs and hurt U.S. industry. I also believe a new version of Kyoto is being negotiated or will be soon and the President is all for it. All this pushed heavily by the environmental lobby. There is also a video mentioned on the front page of Fox News today, All About Stuff I think it was, it's basically a 20 minute rant on how bad the U.S. is for the environment (using a bunch of bogus statistics, as usual) and this is being shown in schools throughout the country. Don't underestimate the power of the environmental lobby (Dark Side).

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;557577]I guess the point I was trying to make in the other thread is I just don't see the big legisltive push for the religious right agenda. I hear it talked about but just don't see that it controls the party. Its the same thing on the left. You hear all the tree hughing nuts but you just don't see a hugh push to their agenda.[/quote] Nice ,, LOL !!!

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;557586]Let's define fiscal conservatism and limited government. With respect to social institutions what does that mean? What current government institution/agencies get cut?[/quote]

WOW, where to start.

Dept of Ed gone

Department of Defense, restored to a self - defense posture
Army -Reserves only, 2yr compulsory service, with a Officer Corp maintained.
Air Force and Navy Funded, but for defense of borders and trade only
NASA gone (privatized)

Dept. of Health and Human Services gone

Dept of State, fully funded

Department of Justice, funded for Judicial Branch requirements.

Department of the Treasury funded for printing money, and protecting American currency from fraud

Department of Housing and Urban Development gone

Department of Transportation, funded as necessary for maintain interstate commerce.

Department of Interior, probably subsumed mostly gone

Department of Agriculture, Fully funded, perhaps put food assistance to the poor here.

Department of Commerce funded for appropriate regulatory agencies

Department of Labor fully funded

Department of Energy fully funded

Department of Homeland Security gone (goodby big brother)

Department of Veterans Affairs placed under DOD.

I suppose thats a start, most anything that creates a dependency on the federal government, rather than a reliance on self, family and local community, ought to be out and out eliminated. And before anyone cries how awful, and cruel. Remember the federal government does not create money out of thin air(if they do we are in serious trouble.) If our government's payroll was reduced, more could go to individuals/local communities/charities and state governments in order to handle the needs of the local community and people.

Also, this is a pipe dream, I know it will NEVER happen, and if it did, it would be so painful as to be apocalyptic in nature. But our Federal government was established to maintain a framework in which the States, unique and distinct could take care of their own needs. We are now much closer to the England of King George, than we are of the United (but individual) States of America.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;557602]WOW, where to start.

Dept of Ed gone

Department of Defense, restored to a self - defense posture
Army -Reserves only, 2yr compulsory service, with a Officer Corp maintained.
Air Force and Navy Funded, but for defense of borders and trade only
NASA gone (privatized)

Dept. of Health and Human Services gone

Dept of State, fully funded

Department of Justice, funded for Judicial Branch requirements.

Department of the Treasury funded for printing money, and protecting American currency from fraud

Department of Housing and Urban Development gone

Department of Transportation, funded as necessary for maintain interstate commerce.

Department of Interior, probably subsumed mostly gone

Department of Agriculture, Fully funded, perhaps put food assistance to the poor here.

Department of Commerce funded for appropriate regulatory agencies

Department of Labor fully funded

Department of Energy fully funded

Department of Homeland Security gone (goodby big brother)

Department of Veterans Affairs placed under DOD.

I suppose thats a start, most anything that creates a dependency on the federal government, rather than a reliance on self, family and local community, ought to be out and out eliminated. And before anyone cries how awful, and cruel. Remember the federal government does not create money out of thin air(if they do we are in serious trouble.) If our government's payroll was reduced, more could go to individuals/local communities/charities and state governments in order to handle the needs of the local community and people.

Also, this is a pipe dream, I know it will NEVER happen, and if it did, it would be so painful as to be apocalyptic in nature. But our Federal government was established to maintain a framework in which the States, unique and distinct could take care of their own needs. We are now much closer to the England of King George, than we are of the United (but individual) States of America.[/quote]

Now that's Conservativism. Why is it that when someone says conservative people think of Bibles, abortion, or homosexual special interest?

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;557590]IMO it will be real difficult to have a third party because a split in the GOP and a fiscal conservative/socially moderate party won't pull many Dems. It would just solidify the Dems control on the government and guarantee expanded gov't, higher taxes and liberal social engineering.

[U]The social conservatives need to wake up and let the GOP frame the gay marriage/abortion/other social issues as a "state's rights" issue vs. a gay/straight or abortion/anti-abortion issue. [/U]The "what works in Kansas doesn't work in CA" is an argument I think most people get. This would allow the GOP to seem more interested in the reduction of the size & scope of the federal government rather than in pushing their moral beliefs on others. That stance should attract independents and moderates. The social conservatives need to understand if we don't get fiscal control of the government within the next election cycle, a 6-8 year span of a Dem President and Dem Congress will do irreperable harm to the country fiscally. It also won't matter what social issue they social conservatives have, the districts and census will be so gerry-mandered the GOP will be a minority party for 50+ years and they won't have a snowballs chance of getting any ground on their agenda.

Put fiscal responsibility first and find candidates that don't have skeletons in closets or are sold out to special interests. Fight the social issues at the state and local level and make the Dems/liberals appear to be the ones trying to force their agenda down everyone's throat at the federal level.[/quote]

I thought by law they were State's Rights issues because the Constitution doesn't cover reproduction or sodomy. Why is abortion or homosexuals issues anyway?

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[url=http://cityfile.com/dailyfile/5807]Cityfile: Meltdown With Keith Olbermann![/url]

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;557605]I thought by law they were State's Rights issues because the Constitution doesn't cover reproduction or sodomy. Why is abortion or homosexuals issues anyway?[/quote]
That's what I thought too. What the issues are should be decided by the courts if conflicts between states or constitutionality arise.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

When the other side has the ball, you wait for them to fumble. The Democrats didn't get back on top through arduous debate and self reflection. They did it by waiting, and waiting, and waiting until Conservative Republicanism shot itself in the foot. Hell, the reason Conservatism was so strong since 1978 was because the Liberal Democrats themselves ran out of gas. It's a pendulum. So there is nothing to do now but wait. The Dems have the ball, let's see what they do with it.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;557604]Now that's Conservativism. Why is it that when someone says conservative people think of Bibles, abortion, or homosexual special interest?[/quote]

I was conservatively drunk the day my mom got out of the abortion clinic, and I went to pick her bible up in the RAIN. But before I could get to the bible emporium, she got runned over by a homosexual train.....
--New age Conservative David Allen Coe

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;557604]Now that's Conservativism. Why is it that when someone says conservative people think of Bibles, abortion, or homosexual special interest?[/quote]

Holy smokes this has been my point. And I agree a lot with the principles stated there.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;557593]There are a initiatives that Obama and the Dems are pushing through that will raise energy costs and hurt U.S. industry. I also believe a new version of Kyoto is being negotiated or will be soon and the President is all for it. All this pushed heavily by the environmental lobby. There is also a video mentioned on the front page of Fox News today, All About Stuff I think it was, it's basically a 20 minute rant on how bad the U.S. is for the environment (using a bunch of bogus statistics, as usual) and this is being shown in schools throughout the country. Don't underestimate the power of the environmental lobby (Dark Side).[/quote]

Lobbyists ruin governments regardless of which side they're on. It's quite a shame that the people that make such key decisions often have no knowledge on them and rely on what somebody who swoons them feeds.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=tryfuhl;557631]Could you please explain how the environmental issues are not a concern? Why are we one of what, 2 civilized countries who haven't ratified the KP? It is time for a new Kyoto Protocol, though I haven't reviewed any new version, so I'll have to look into that.[/quote]

The difference between the U.S. ratifying a treaty and France or China doing likewise is that we would probably endeavour to live up to it.

The question concerning global warming is do you want to stifle an already struggling economy with rules that under the best scenario would have a marginal impact on global warming(assuming global warming is real)? I would prefer to keep the economy going and try to adapt to any changes that occurr with our climate through other means. Even if we did everything Al Gore wants right now, they tell us we're still screwed.

I believe that global warming is merely a rationale from the left to impose policies they've been in favor of since before anyone ever noticed global warming. Capitalism just works better, so they've latched onto a quasi-religious movement to even the playing field. If the data suggested global cooling, they would offer exactly the same solutions they're giving us now.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=70Chip;557624]When the other side has the ball, you wait for them to fumble. The Democrats didn't get back on top through arduous debate and self reflection. They did it by waiting, and waiting, and waiting until Conservative Republicanism shot itself in the foot. Hell, the reason Conservatism was so strong since 1978 was because the Liberal Democrats themselves ran out of gas. It's a pendulum. So there is nothing to do now but wait. The Dems have the ball, let's see what they do with it.[/quote]

That's a pretty simple, yet pretty accurate way to state it, I think. And I agree with FRPLG and TTE on the direction the "definition" of conservatism has swung.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=70Chip;557632]I believe that global warming is merely a rationale from the left to impose policies they've been in favor of since before anyone ever noticed global warming. Capitalism just works better, so they've latched onto a quasi-religious movement to even the playing field. If the data suggested global cooling, they would offer exactly the same solutions they're giving us now.[/quote]I agree with you. Here's a little more info on Kyoto:

[URL="http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR021405.html"]Ten Second Response: The Cost of Kyoto[/URL]

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=SmootSmack;557633]That's a pretty simple, yet pretty accurate way to state it, I think. And I agree with FRPLG and TTE on the direction the "definition" of conservatism has swung.[/quote]

I was thinking about this on the way home tonight. It seems to me that, somehow, the litmus test for conservatism became abortion and opposing gay marriage. Essentially, the tail started wagging the dog. The religious right knew that the limited government conservatives could not get elected without their votes while they didn't care about being elected... they just wanted to be right. Doctrine became more important than governing.

While Reaganism gave lip service to the religious right and first courted the movement as part of Reagan's America First type program, Reagan was, philosophically (if not in practice) a small government kind of guy. Bush 1 was [I]never[/I] a fan of the religious right nor they of him. During the Clinton years, middle and center right folks fell into his "third way". It was during this time that the religious right really started coming into its own and organizing on a grass roots level. During Bush II, the social conservatives essentially cut out the fiscal conservatives.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

There already is a party devoted to fiscal conservatism and is liberal on social issues -- it's called the Libertarian Party. They're able to get about 1% in a typical election.

The sad reality for limited government conservatives is that voters today actually do want bigger government. They want government to take care of them if they become unemployed, they want prescription drug coverage, health care, they want gov't to handle their retirement, they want their kids educated by government . . . it just goes on and on.

What makes matters worse is that capitalism is under attack and everybody is just fine with it. People are okay with CEOs having their salaries and bonuses dictated by Congress, government taking over businesses, oil company execs have to go before House and Senate committees to answer for their "windfall profits". Ugh.

Call me a pessimist, but this is a chain of events that may never get turned around.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=70Chip;557632]The difference between the U.S. ratifying a treaty and France or China doing likewise is that we would probably endeavour to live up to it.

The question concerning global warming is do you want to stifle an already struggling economy with rules that under the best scenario would have a marginal impact on global warming(assuming global warming is real)? I would prefer to keep the economy going and try to adapt to any changes that occurr with our climate through other means. Even if we did everything Al Gore wants right now, they tell us we're still screwed.

I believe that global warming is merely a rationale from the left to impose policies they've been in favor of since before anyone ever noticed global warming. Capitalism just works better, so they've latched onto a quasi-religious movement to even the playing field. If the data suggested global cooling, they would offer exactly the same solutions they're giving us now.[/quote]

Well without global cooling we really don't have that leg to stand on. The Kyoto treaty was not brought up in a time like now, the economy was much better, but I do agree that it could have a major economic impact. It's not so much that we need to ratify a treaty, just we need to take better steps towards preserving the environment.

People call talk about skewered facts or whatever they'd like, but the huge emission of pollutants teamed with deforestation can certainly not be helping or neutral.

Even aside from all of this, whether global warming be a scare tactic or not, it is pushing innovation in some stagnant industries and helping speed along the development and research of more efficient energy and processes to help us. In turn that is helping create jobs and technologies from which we can benefit.

Global warming is real -- it's just debated whether man has anything to do with it or not. I'd be inclined to say yes, it's just to what level we are.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;557635]I was thinking about this on the way home tonight. It seems to me that, somehow, the litmus test for conservatism became abortion and opposing gay marriage. Essentially, the tail started wagging the dog. The religious right knew that the limited government conservatives could not get elected without their votes while they didn't care about being elected... they just wanted to be right. Doctrine became more important than governing.

While Reaganism gave lip service to the religious right and first courted the movement as part of Reagan's America First type program, Reagan was, philosophically (if not in practice) a small government kind of guy. Bush 1 was [I]never[/I] a fan of the religious right nor they of him. During the Clinton years, middle and center right folks fell into his "third way". It was during this time that the religious right really started coming into its own and organizing on a grass roots level. During Bush II, the social conservatives essentially cut out the fiscal conservatives.[/quote]

No American politician has ever spoken more eloquently against abortion than Ronald Reagan. He couldn't, for instance, ban partial birth abortion because the Democrats always controlled the house. But he said things that Bush 43 would never have dreamed of. As for gay marriage, it did not emerge as an issue until the late 1990s, so it's not really valid to use it as sign of the right's increasing influence. Also, to suggest that the religious right "came into it's own" in the 1990s is a misreading of history. It came into it's own as a movement in the 1970s. People who try to seperate Reagan from the evangelicals are revisionists.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;557604]Now that's Conservativism. Why is it that when someone says conservative people think of Bibles, abortion, or homosexual special interest?[/quote]

Because those are the people that jump on TV at any point that they can. The two groups aren't completely exclusive either, there's a lil Venn Diagram action going on there.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=70Chip;557647]No American politician has ever spoken more eloquently against abortion than Ronald Reagan. He couldn't, for instance, ban partial birth abortion because the Democrats always controlled the house. But he said things that Bush 43 would never have dreamed of. As for gay marriage, it did not emerge as an issue until the late 1990s, so it's not really valid to use it as sign of the right's increasing influence. Also, to suggest that the religious right "came into it's own" in the 1990s is a misreading of history. It came into it's own as a movement in the 1970s. People who try to seperate Reagan from the evangelicals are revisionists.[/quote]

It's amazing how Reagan has achieved a god-like status among conservatives today.

We forget how much help he had from Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Beemnseven;557643]There already is a party devoted to fiscal conservatism and is liberal on social issues -- it's called the Libertarian Party. They're able to get about 1% in a typical election.

The sad reality for limited government conservatives is that voters today actually do want bigger government. They want government to take care of them if they become unemployed, they want prescription drug coverage, health care, they want gov't to handle their retirement, they want their kids educated by government . . . it just goes on and on.

What makes matters worse is that capitalism is under attack and everybody is just fine with it. People are okay with CEOs having their salaries and bonuses dictated by Congress, government taking over businesses, oil company execs have to go before House and Senate committees to answer for their "windfall profits". Ugh.

Call me a pessimist, but this is a chain of events that may never get turned around.[/quote]
I find myself agreeing with you on this unfortunately.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=tryfuhl;557646]Global warming is real -- it's just debated whether man has anything to do with it or not. I'd be inclined to say yes, it's just to what level we are.[/quote]

There's a large , uncrackpot contingent of the scientific community who thinks you're wrong. The data on global warming from everything I have read really is pretty debatable.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=70Chip;557607][URL="http://cityfile.com/dailyfile/5807"]Cityfile: Meltdown With Keith Olbermann![/URL][/quote]
what a cheap shot. the guys mom suddenly dies, but that had nothing to do with him missing work. come on 70, your better then that

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=dmek25;557658]what a cheap shot. the guys mom suddenly dies, but that had nothing to do with him missing work. come on 70, your better then that[/quote]

Are you kidding? His mom died two weeks prior the incidents in question. As the article points out, he threw a three episode long temper tantrum, and has a history of temper tantrums and grudge holding. It's not like this stuff is isolated. Why couldn't David Shuster have filled for him as soon as his mother passed? Why did Shuster tweet some BS about flu season and say he hopes Olberman will be back with the network? Exactly.

I appreciate you coming to the defense of this uber-liberal mouthpiece, but a cheap shot it was not. What's cheap is Olberman using his mother's death as an excuse for his unprofessional crybaby behavior.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;557655]There's a large , uncrackpot contingent of the scientific community who thinks you're wrong. The data on global warming from everything I have read really is pretty debatable.[/quote]

Those scientists can usually be put into a list, the ones supporting man's impact is too long of a list to generate. It seems that quite a number of those who don't agree either say that it's too inconclusive or that man isn't the MAIN cause of it, which I didn't say that we were. In addition, a number of these professionals are geologists (many petroleum geologists) and many others are meteorologists, which may seem surprising, but they're more familiar with short term changes.

It is still of advantage of us to look into more efficient and responsible practices.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=70Chip;557647]No American politician has ever spoken more eloquently against abortion than Ronald Reagan. He couldn't, for instance, ban partial birth abortion because the Democrats always controlled the house. But he said things that Bush 43 would never have dreamed of. As for gay marriage, it did not emerge as an issue until the late 1990s, so it's not really valid to use it as sign of the right's increasing influence. Also, to suggest that the religious right "came into it's own" in the 1990s is a misreading of history. It came into it's own as a movement in the 1970s. People who try to seperate Reagan from the evangelicals are revisionists.[/quote]

You're right. I was talking somewhat off the cuff and trying to remember events. I agree that the evangelical movement started in the 70's and was a powerful force then. I would suggest, however, that after Bush I, they reinvented themselves as a more grassroots organization and that it was then that they started to become more aggressive in formulating and pushing a legislative agenda. I haven't done a study, and I don't have a link but I remember reading some articles about how the religious right lost influence in Bush I and in the Clinton era and so began looking for ways to organize.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

The Moral Majority, generally considered the beginning of the religious right as a political movement was founded in 1979.

"[Jerry] Falwell was an important figure in the early days of the Religious Right, but his influence had waned considerably[.] ... The Lynchburg, Va., televangelist shut down his Moral Majority in 1989, after a decade of political activity, to spend more time on building his Liberty University. Although Falwell still frequently appeared in the media and worked through various religious and educational organizations, he never recovered his former prominence.

Lessons Learned From Falwell's Failings

The new breed of Religious Right leaders has learned from Falwell's mistakes. Falwell's rhetoric was often intemperate. While they made for lively television, his over-the-top remarks probably alarmed more people than they attracted. Even in his home state of Virginia, polls showed Falwell with high negative ratings.

Falwell also failed to truly cultivate the grassroots. By the time the Moral Majority collapsed, it had become apparent that the group was essentially a large mailing list with little local presence. By contrast, groups like the Christian Coalition Christian Coalition saw the value in local organizing. The Coalition, founded by TV preacher Pat Robertson at one time had viable chapters in most states and even some at the county level. "

[url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+religious+right+after+Falwell%3a+fundamentalist+political+movement...-a0166751119]The religious right after Falwell: fundamentalist political movement is less visible but more powerful than ever. - Free Online Library[/url]

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Beemnseven;557643]There already is a party devoted to fiscal conservatism and is liberal on social issues -- it's called the Libertarian Party. They're able to get about 1% in a typical election.

The sad reality for limited government conservatives is that voters today actually do want bigger government. They want government to take care of them if they become unemployed, they want prescription drug coverage, health care, they want gov't to handle their retirement, they want their kids educated by government . . . it just goes on and on.

What makes matters worse is that capitalism is under attack and everybody is just fine with it. People are okay with CEOs having their salaries and bonuses dictated by Congress, government taking over businesses, oil company execs have to go before House and Senate committees to answer for their "windfall profits". Ugh.

Call me a pessimist, but this is a chain of events that may never get turned around.[/quote]

I wouldn't say that all Libertarians are liberal on social issues. They're just so far to the right that they seem strange. Ron Paul and Bobb Barr are so far to the right that things like, let the States decide for themselves when it comes to drugs, abortion, and homosexual special interest seem almost foreign to the average person. Auditing the Federal Reserve is a libertarian / conservative Ron Paul idea that is gaining strength in the House right now. If you have to take the good and the bad, well . . . . there's a lot more good to that idea than bad.

I wouldn't say that no one notices either. You and I have. I'll go out on a limb and say that a lot of people on this thread have too. Capitalism isn't under attack because we're not really practicing it. Our government already had it's hand in the socialist cookie jar to begin with. Capitalism is the answer. The liberal media doesn't like capitalism so they smear it every chance they get.

Perhaps the majority of Americans don't do their homework. Many of the ones I know don't. A lot of them are just ignorant. Even they read the news papers and get fed up. No one that I know truly likes these bailouts.

The problem for many of the voters that I know is that they're to lazy to get involved in the process. I vote in the primary, or I used to. One thing that should be done IMO is to stop having the Northern wing of the Republican Party decide who the nominee is. Everyone knows that the Republican's bread and butter is in the South and Midwest. Yeah, there are conservatives up North and on the Left Coast, but they're out numbered five to one.

I liked Romney and Giuliani but I wouldn't have voted for them. Giuliani would've made a great addition to the State Department and Romney would've been nice to have in a public office with this economy. I might have voted for Romney. I dunno . . . .

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Beemnseven;557643]There already is a party devoted to fiscal conservatism and is liberal on social issues -- it's called the Libertarian Party. They're able to get about 1% in a typical election.

The sad reality for limited government conservatives is that voters today actually do want bigger government. They want government to take care of them if they become unemployed, they want prescription drug coverage, health care, they want gov't to handle their retirement, they want their kids educated by government . . . it just goes on and on.

What makes matters worse is that capitalism is under attack and everybody is just fine with it. People are okay with CEOs having their salaries and bonuses dictated by Congress, government taking over businesses, oil company execs have to go before House and Senate committees to answer for their "windfall profits". Ugh.

Call me a pessimist, but this is a chain of events that may never get turned around.[/quote]


Bravo sir, mighty fine observation on your part. The people get what the people want and what they want is what the people is getting.

All this talk of a new party is worthless if one can not convince the people of their ideas. People are selfish to the teeth and self-preservation is always at the forefront consciously and subconsciously.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;557867]Bravo sir, mighty fine observation on your part. [B]The people get what the people want and what they want is what the people is getting.
[/B]
All this talk of a new party is worthless if one can not convince the people of their ideas. People are selfish to the teeth and self-preservation is always at the forefront consciously and subconsciously.[/quote]

Sadly this statement will be written on the tombstone of American History.

"the people" are an easily driven mass, guided by media, the internet, and talking heads. "They" have no sense of historical presence and can be guided by a skilled orator into drinking poison, or voting for unsustainable obligations. A wise leader, which Obama may, or may not be, will guide the people through deserts, hills and valleys. A crafty or unwise leader, which Obama may, or may not be, will guide the people into the desert.

I give as my proof:
The Lion King. Mufasa, a good and wise king, knows what the whole herd needed, and put herd above the self desires and the whole herd and valley prospered. Scar, a crafty and evil animal, used the resources which Mufasa had so carefully nurtured and grew, and the herd eventually starved and rebelled.

What more need be said

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;557873]Sadly this statement will be written on the tombstone of American History.

"the people" are an easily driven mass, guided by media, the internet, and talking heads. "They" have no sense of historical presence and can be guided by a skilled orator into drinking poison, or voting for unsustainable obligations. A wise leader, which Obama may, or may not be, will guide the people through deserts, hills and valleys. A crafty or unwise leader, which Obama may, or may not be, will guide the people into the desert.

I give as my proof:
The Lion King. Mufasa, a good and wise king, knows what the whole herd needed, and put herd above the self desires and the whole herd and valley prospered. Scar, a crafty and evil animal, used the resources which Mufasa had so carefully nurtured and grew, and the herd eventually starved and rebelled.

What more need be said[/quote]


We should not underestimate the people, they could have after all stayed at home like the many that currently do. They may not know everything they need to know but they do know enough to want to go vote. Whether they take a left or a right they control their destiny.