The Grand New Party

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.)?

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.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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?

[70Chip]

Cityfile: Meltdown With Keith Olbermann!

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Cityfile: Meltdown With Keith Olbermann!

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

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by dmek25

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

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

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?

That's what I thought too. What the issues are should be decided by the courts if conflicts between states or constitutionality arise.

[70Chip]

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

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.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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.

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 never 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.

[Beemnseven]

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.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 never 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.

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.