Sane Republicans should leave the party now

[MattusMaximus]

And if the economy has begun a reversal by the '10 elections, then how do we get a Republican renaissance?

You don't. Not with the GOP playing the games it is right now.

Sorry, Piggy.

 

[ToddH]

I used to consider myself a Republican until the wacko religious right took over the party. Now I'm just a moderate independent that thinks the inane babble from the extremists on both sides is making things worse.

 

[Piggy]

I used to consider myself a Republican until the wacko religious right took over the party. Now I'm just a moderate independent that thinks the inane babble from the extremists on both sides is making things worse.

Would you consider joining a Conservative Party with leaders like Powell and Collins, maybe even cross-overs like Sam Nunn (if we could get him), with a platform that kept the nutjobs out?

 

[SezMe]

One big problem with this scenario... GOP primaries. Huntsman will never get past the Republican primaries which are dominated by the hardcore conservatives - those folks don't want a moderate.

My fantasy scenario was just that so it is not worth spending a lot of time on but I'll take a quick shot at defending it and knocking it.

My point is that if the Reps lose again in 2010 then maybe reality will sink in and the moderates will muscle in and the extremists will not have the power they do now. That said, I do recognize that primaries tend to bring out the party faithful which pushes both parties further away from the center. But it's just one example ......

Conversely, if the USA sustains another major terrorist attack, the red-meat faction of the Reps will become even stronger and an internationalist like Huntsman - a diplomat at that - probably wouldn't make it on the ballot in his home state.

 

[superbu]

Mob action? What mob action? Oh, you mean people exercising their constitutional right to free speech and petitioning their government.

Yes, I mean people exercising their Constitutional right to free speech... by disrupting meetings as an expressed political strategy.

Right on, Piggy! It's disgusting. A fake "grass roots" movement coordinated by higher-ups who tell them where and when to show up and what to say, trying to shut people up just because they don't agree with them. Free speech does NOT mean trying to silence others. Those damn Republicans. God, it all sounds so... familiar...

Oh, wait, that's right...

From the Chicago Tribune, September 18, 2008:

Obama’s presidential campaign is increasingly using [its contact] list to beat back media messages it does not like, calling on supporters to flood radio and television stations when those opposed to him run anti-Obama ads or appear on talk shows.

A page on the campaign’s Web site, headlined “Hit ‘em where it hurts,” told supporters how to complain to advertisers at stations that ran a recent anti-Obama ad.

“We’ll provide you with talking points on this maliciously false hit ad to help guide you through the process,” the page said, citing a spot run by a conservative group called the American Issues Project.

Obama’s campaign describes the system as a grass-roots truth squad that arms supporters with information. But others see an attempt to stifle free speech.


http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/sep/17/nation/chi-obama-mediasep17

Paybacks are a bitch, aren't they?

 

[SezMe]

Yeah they sure are. Urging supports to call radio and TV stations is EXACTLY the same as disrupting public meetings. Sure. Riiiiight.

 

[superbu]

Yeah they sure are. Urging supports to call radio and TV stations is EXACTLY the same as disrupting public meetings. Sure. Riiiiight.

Really? You mean like the Democratic protesters who sneaked into the Republican National Convention and disrupted that? Or the Obama supporters who followed Hillary Clinton around and heckled her? Or the ones who, at a small John McCain rally at a restaurant adjoining an outdoor mall, showed up outside screaming, "Yes, we can!" repeatedly, drowning him out, until McCain had to cancel the event? You mean disrupting public meetings like that?

Nonetheless, the Democrats are complaining that this is not a grass roots movement, and is coordinated by others. The above linked article proves they are hypocrites.

 

[GreyICE]

Would you consider joining a Conservative Party with leaders like Powell and Collins, maybe even cross-overs like Sam Nunn (if we could get him), with a platform that kept the nutjobs out?

I have a question. What is so attractive about this 'Conservative Party?' Are we going back to libertarian mumble-jumble that wants 2009 technology with 1809 economics? What are these policies that you would stand for, and why would anyone care? I mean you talk about making a new party without all the crazies, but all I see is an image makeover, same crazy policies, new crazies with less objectionable language promoting them, because gee, everyone figured out Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren't worth horse farts.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Tu queque is not a defense.

 

[ToddH]

Would you consider joining a Conservative Party with leaders like Powell and Collins, maybe even cross-overs like Sam Nunn (if we could get him), with a platform that kept the nutjobs out?

Absolutely.

 

[leftysergeant]

Then they could make it so they have to abide by the policy they pass and not exempt themselves as they have done now. Yes that's right members of the government will have their own special health plan. Much better than the one they will mandate for you. Is that fair?

Will you please wake up and have a cup of coffee so that you can see what you are talking about?

Nobody is required to give up their present health plan.

The proposals now on the table include a plan similar to what the Congress has.

You get the public plan IF you want it.

There is no contradiction here.

If your current health insurer gos belly-up because everyone goes to the public plan volumntarily, it means your old system was not worth saving..

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think some of you folks might want to revisit the election of 1860 and see how the convention went, wherein a man from Illinois become the candidate. (Bruce Catton covered it well in "The Coming Fury." Others have as well.)

What you are seeing is old school American politics, applied to the media age. Honest Abe would approve.

DR

 

[Alt+F4]

I think some of you folks might want to revisit the election of 1860 and see how the convention went, wherein a man from Illinois become the candidate. (Bruce Catton covered it well in "The Coming Fury." Others have as well.)

What you are seeing is old school American politics, applied to the media age. Honest Abe would approve.

DR

Yup, same thing happened in 1912 with Roosevelt/Taft split and in comes (worse President ever, in my opinion) Wilson. Divide and conquer rarely fails. The British knew it in India, the Belgians in Rwanda.

 

[Piggy]

Right on, Piggy! It's disgusting. A fake "grass roots" movement coordinated by higher-ups who tell them where and when to show up and what to say, trying to shut people up just because they don't agree with them. Free speech does NOT mean trying to silence others. Those damn Republicans. God, it all sounds so... familiar...

Oh, wait, that's right...

From the Chicago Tribune, September 18, 2008:

Paybacks are a bitch, aren't they?

Paybacks to whom?

Please don't put words in my mouth, btw. I said nothing about astroturfing. And I've never claimed that any of this is organized by the GOP (you obviously haven't read my posts) or scripted by the GOP.

My objection is to the hooliganism itself (regardless of the political affiliations of the screamers) and the NRCC's endorsement and encouragement of it.

 

[Piggy]

You mean like the Democratic protesters who sneaked into the Republican National Convention and disrupted that? Or the Obama supporters who followed Hillary Clinton around and heckled her? Or the ones who, at a small John McCain rally at a restaurant adjoining an outdoor mall, showed up outside screaming, "Yes, we can!" repeatedly, drowning him out, until McCain had to cancel the event? You mean disrupting public meetings like that?

As for me, yes, I mean disrupting meetings like that.

Should the DNC have encouraged it? I don't think so. (Have no idea if they did.)

So I don't want to see the NRCC encouraging anything like that, either.

 

[Piggy]

I have a question. What is so attractive about this 'Conservative Party?' Are we going back to libertarian mumble-jumble that wants 2009 technology with 1809 economics? What are these policies that you would stand for, and why would anyone care? I mean you talk about making a new party without all the crazies, but all I see is an image makeover, same crazy policies, new crazies with less objectionable language promoting them, because gee, everyone figured out Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren't worth horse farts.

Libertarians have their party already.

I listed some of the planks upthread that I thought would comprise a centrist conservative platform. Let me know if you don't find that post and I'll repost.

 

[GreyICE]

Libertarians have their party already.

I listed some of the planks upthread that I thought would comprise a centrist conservative platform. Let me know if you don't find that post and I'll repost.

I really don't see them. Post #?

 

[Piggy]

I really don't see them. Post #?

66

 

[GreyICE]

No, I don't believe that.

What I'm saying is that it would be better for conservatism if moderates like Powell and Snow, as well as rank and file members who aren't on the far right fringe, were to leave the party to the birthers and Palinistas and let it wither on the vine.

Suppose you did have pragmatic Republicans forming a Conservative Party, along with some Democratic defectors who don't care for that party's left wing, and a few independents and maybe some 3rd party folks who have only been where they are by default.

With the right platform, it could be the new home for reasonable conservatives who see where the GOP seems to be headed and don't like it, along with Reagan Democrats, McCain swing voters, etc.

Given a rational pro-business policy, a willingness to compromise to get things done (no insistence on ideological purity), more openness toward minorities, a distaste for obstructionism, a balance of social conservatism with personal freedom, an inclusive stance on religion, a tempered fiscal conservatism rather than a mere tax-cut mantra, a realistic environmental policy, a firm stance on illegal immigration that doesn't lapse into race baiting, and an explicit disavowal of conspiracy theories and paranoia, at this moment such a party could do very well.

Okay, this is apparently Piggy's platform.

-Rational Pro-Business policy

I suppose this will be differentiated from the current 'deregulate and feed money to business' policy, but I imagine it will end up more or less the same.

- tempered fiscal conservatism

No more deficit spending?

-a realistic environmental policy


I'd LOVE to hear what a realistic environmental policy is, because at the moment it's my firm belief that the DEMOCRATS are too weak in their stance, nevermind the destroy-the-planet party.

Things that are utterly irrelevant to government or that everyone says they do:
a willingness to compromise to get things done (yep, everyone says this)
more openness toward minorities (check)
a distaste for obstructionism (check)
an inclusive stance on religion (I want policy, not mantras)
a firm stance on illegal immigration that doesn't lapse into race baiting (Everyone is very firm on their stance on illegal immigration. Firm as a word means very little)
an explicit disavowal of conspiracy theories and paranoia (Waaa, people on the JREF think the Republicans are v. stupid)

 

[RandFan]

Tu quoque is not a defense.

True but everyone else does it so why not join the party?