Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates - WTF?!!

[SezMe]

Yes, you'd much rather prefer a party of RINOs competing for who can fall to the liberal tide first.

Let me take that from the other side. Yep, I'd rather have a party with a bunch of Blue Dogs screwing up my agenda than not. Why? Because the party in power has, well, lots of power. Chairmanships. Setting the calendar. Determining what even comes to the floor. Allowing what hearings occur and who can testify. And yes, other things such as more lobbyist gravy, more media attention, etc.

In short, enjoy your minority status and I'll enjoy my majority status. Hey, we're both happy.

 

[Thunder]

Yes, you'd much rather prefer a party of RINOs competing for who can fall to the liberal tide first. .

i think RINO has become synonymous with "Republicans who are not religious or social extremists"

 

[Upchurch]

In short, enjoy your minority status and I'll enjoy my majority status. Hey, we're both happy.

And every four to eight years (+/- 30 years) everything switches and we get to enjoy that too.

Yay, Democracy!

 

[Sporanox]

That's all well and good, but the registered Republicans in her district don't seem to agree with you, as evidenced by the fact that she won the primary, and was running as the Republican in the general election.

Because the CP fielded a candidate against her, they split the conservative vote, giving the Democrats a win in a district they have not held for over 100 years.

How can this be explained away as something positive for the Republican party or conservatism. Regardless of political ideology, this instance is an example of the harm being caused to the Republican party due to this infighting.

Two things wrong with your post - first, the Republican was chosen in a smoke-filled room, and second, the Democratic win wasn't that big of a deal. A glance at the history of the seat will tell you. Thus, the point you are trying to make is rendered invalid.

As I've said, you can only maintain power in a country this large by forming coalitions, and there are always contradictions in those coalitions.

Then, let's form coalitions with the newly minted independents Snowe, Collins, and Specter (provided that dinosaur will still be around in the Senate) when they agree with us. Otherwise, don't. Not too worried about the presidential election, either, because an independent candidate could theoretically steal votes from either side.

Let me take that from the other side. Yep, I'd rather have a party with a bunch of Blue Dogs screwing up my agenda than not. Why? Because the party in power has, well, lots of power. Chairmanships. Setting the calendar. Determining what even comes to the floor. Allowing what hearings occur and who can testify. And yes, other things such as more lobbyist gravy, more media attention, etc.

In short, enjoy your minority status and I'll enjoy my majority status. Hey, we're both happy.

See, here's the problem - every single time a major party has come to power in Congress, they've screwed up. Lost their purity of ideology to yellow-bellied waffling or simple corruption.

Actually having a party that would stand for firm principles would change that status quo. If that would mean Republicans don't win a couple of elections going forward, I still might be for it. The Democrats can't last much longer the way they're going in the first place.

A cynic will argue the pupose of getting elected is to get the things the lobbyists want done.

Heh. ><

 

[Thunder]

i honestly believe, that if the GOP continues down the extremist route, they will break the trend, and NOT recapture Congress or the White House in 2012 or 2016.

 

[Upchurch]

i think RINO has become synonymous with "Republicans who are not religious or social extremists"

I think it is more "Republicans who do not subscribe to my particular flavor of Republicanism." But let us not forget that the term DINO also exists in our political vocabulary.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that we here TPINO next.

 

[Sporanox]

i honestly believe, that if the GOP continues down the extremist route, they will break the trend, and NOT recapture Congress or the White House in 2012 or 2016.

Is believing in...

1: Small, nonintrusive government

2: Fiscal conservatism (in other words, not racking up debt)

3: A strong national defense

...so insane?

 

[Thunder]

Is believing in...

1: Small, nonintrusive government

2: Fiscal conservatism (in other words, not racking up debt)

3: A strong national defense

...so insane?

who said anything about sanity? and have you seen the 10 points of the GOP litmus test?

what does abortions and gay marriage have to do with your above three topics?

do you realize how much national debt the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has created?

 

[Upchurch]

what does abortions and gay marriage have to do with your above three topics?

I think they are specifically contrary to Sporanox's first point.

Of course, experience has shown that Sporanox's second and third points are mutually exclusive to one another.

 

[Sporanox]

who said anything about sanity? and have you seen the 10 points of the GOP litmus test?

what does abortions and gay marriage have to do with your above three topics?

do you realize how much national debt the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has created?

An argument could be made to ban abortion on nonreligious terms. For example, murder of a pregnant woman is a double homicide. You don't have to crab about the soul to realize that. (I don't believe in the discrete, personalized existence of a soul.) Second, you can refuse gay marriage and still pass the test.

Finally, the wars have created debt (though not anywhere as much as recent initiatives...funny the way that is). But there are ways to balance that debt that a realistic conservative would have to accept.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Paging Ralph Nader. Al Gore is on the line, he wants his election back.

I think the right-wing would be even crazier than they already are if Gore had won.

 

[Thunder]

Finally, the wars have created debt (though not anywhere as much as recent initiatives...funny the way that is). But there are ways to balance that debt that a realistic conservative would have to accept.

George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus.

Um..how high was our budget deficit just before the sub-prime crisis began?

fiscal conservatives huh? right.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Every constituency is different.

I live in the great state of Nevada. Now, we only have two senators, two representatives, and four electoral college votes, so we wouldn't count until ... until we counted as much as one corner of Florida ...

Nonetheless. Nevada was a "red state" for Bush. It went blue for Obama. It could go red again.

But when Republicans scheme about how to turn it red, they need to think about the following subjects:

(1) We have a large Hispanic community. Good luck with that.

(2) We have a 0% state income tax. You can't make that better unless you start paying us all a stipend. Like Alaska.

(3) The income of the state, and the reason that our citizens have 0% state income tax, is based on the fact that we provide vices that horrify Christian conservatives.

---

So, we're not likely to choose a conservative ideologue. A Republican, perhaps. Indeed, frequently. But the idealist ideologue who scores a 10 on the purity test, never.

Now, I admit, Nevada is not a large or significant state. But it all adds up. And Nevada is not a typical state. But no state is a typical state. So they all add up one by one.

 

[Thunder]

George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus.

Um..how high was our budget deficit just before the sub-prime crisis began?

fiscal conservatives huh? right.

wow, will you look at this? look at all those budget deficits for EVERY year of the Bush regime. wow. fiscal conservatives huh?

 

[Piggy]

And every four to eight years (+/- 30 years) everything switches and we get to enjoy that too.

Yay, Democracy!

<tangent>

Cute kid, Upchurch. Hadn't seen a pic of the spawn yet.

Must take after mom.

</tangent>

 

[Piggy]

Then, let's form coalitions with the newly minted independents Snowe, Collins, and Specter (provided that dinosaur will still be around in the Senate) when they agree with us. Otherwise, don't. Not too worried about the presidential election, either, because an independent candidate could theoretically steal votes from either side.

You are still not understanding this....

You're defining "us" -- by which I assume you mean the GOP -- in terms of one faction of the party.

You're starting out by assuming that the extreme right is the True Israel and everyone else in the party doesn't belong.

Fact is, the failed strategies of the extreme right have managed to decimate our party when their anti-reality stance got its ass kicked by reality (e.g., military quagmires, financial collapse, and denial of environmental truths which even "big business" now generally accepts) and as a result the large majority of those who are still left happen to be from dead-ender districts and therefore are beholden to folks who persist in their fantasies of a workable unregulated market and other such pipe dreams.

If we're going to recover, we're not going to do it by kicking even more people out and circling the wagons around policies that appeal to the least informed, most gullible segments of the population.

In order to get back in power, we've got to find a way to bring our old allies back into the fold, including (and especially) the mainstream business constituency who were rightly appalled by the rank-and-file GOP non-response to what was very nearly a global economic freeze which could have pitched us into a worldwide depression.

In other words, "us" is not the radical right. "Us" is the entire party, the whole spectrum.

And if we don't broaden the spectrum, eventually someone else will figure out a way to organize the big unaffiliated middle -- which is now the overwhelming majority -- into a new party that could send the GOP the way of the Whigs.

 

[Piggy]

See, here's the problem - every single time a major party has come to power in Congress, they've screwed up. Lost their purity of ideology to yellow-bellied waffling or simple corruption.

Actually having a party that would stand for firm principles would change that status quo.

Where did you get that idea?

(I suspect datum ex rectum.)

There are many reasons for shifts in party power, but losing ideological purity ain't one of them.

 

[Newtons Bit]

wow, will you look at this? look at all those budget deficits for EVERY year of the Bush regime. wow. fiscal conservatives huh?

[qimg]http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs094.snc3/16145_1203425659820_1653977305_500205_7885050_n.jpg[/qimg]

Which is one of the reasons why people like myself no longer trust the Republicans to do anything fiscally responsible. They used to, as a party, promote that ideal. Now they're all "INO's" as far as being fiscally responsible goes. They want to spend much just like the Democrats. The only difference is what they want to spend it on.

 

[SezMe]

You are still not understanding this....<snipity>

Well said, Piggy.

ETA: I mean the whole post, not just the quoted part.

 

[NobleXenon54]

At least you can be pro-choice and in favor of marriage equality at the same time. Though I don't see many Republicans supporting that. I'll wait for the other fifty commandments that will kill social liberalism...