Okay - What now?

• BoatShoes

  gut;1369613 wrote:Which is also what the liberals/Dems want. So the Repubs carve out a different position, which alienates a lot of more fiscally conservative voters for whom social issues is more important.
  
  It seems so simple to me - be a social conservative, personally, but take a position that it is a state issue. But platforms/campaigns can be counterintuitive because so many people are retarded.

  I think that is definitely the way conservatives should play it because it also follows generally from their own views on the Constitution! It is baffling to me when Michelle Bachmann and Paul Ryan (among others) introduce anti-abortion language at the federal level. Do they not realize this is inconsistent with their own views on Constitutional interpretation??
• Cleveland Buck

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1368527 wrote:Explain to me when exactly it has been like what was said?
  What 1850 something?

  Is your question relevant to his point?
• gut

  BGFalcons82;1369715 wrote:Isn't that Rand Paul? I could get behind him.

  Maybe. I think we need more moderates voting in the primaries because the left and right are dictating our choices in the general.
• believer

  

  gut;1370091 wrote:Maybe. I think we need more moderates voting in the primaries because the left and right are dictating our choices in the general.

  I wouldn't exactly label McCain, Romney, Dole, etc. as "conservative"....so if the right is dictating our choices in general, then the Republican right has some serious perception issues.
  
  The Democratic left, on the other hand, is clearly making the calls. Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Obama....definitely liberal.
• jhay78

  

  gut;1369613 wrote:Which is also what the liberals/Dems want. So the Repubs carve out a different position, which alienates a lot of more fiscally conservative voters for whom social issues is more important.
  
  It seems so simple to me - be a social conservative, personally, but take a position that it is a state issue. But platforms/campaigns can be counterintuitive because so many people are retarded.

  It is simple, but one that Republicans need to get better at articulating.
  
  Ironically, two of the bigger social issues of our day (abortion and gay marriage) have upset some Republicans precisely because the federal government intervened and took those decisions away from the states in the first place. Before 1973 not a single state allowed unlimited abortion on-demand until 7 dudes in black robes decided the issue for all of us. In 2008 Californians(!) voted to amend their state constitution to define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman- until a federal court intervened and said that new part of their constitution was unconstitutional.
  

  believer;1370106 wrote:I wouldn't exactly label McCain, Romney, Dole, etc. as "conservative"....so if the right is dictating our choices in general, then the Republican right has some serious perception issues.
  
  The Democratic left, on the other hand, is clearly making the calls. Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Obama....definitely liberal.

  This myth that the far-right is driving the Republican party is utterly false. If Reagan hadn't defeated Bush, Dole, Anderson, et al in 1980, you'd have to go back to the 20's and probably Coolidge to find a halfway decent conservative Republican presidential nominee.
  
  And all the folks upset about Tea Partiers ruining a potential Senate majority are clueless as well. For every Mourdock and Akin that put their foot in their mouth there was a moderate/liberal like Scott Brown, Linda McMahon, and Tommy Thompson that lost also. And they conveniently forget about the gains in 2010 from guys like Rubio, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, etc, that put the Senate in play this time to begin with.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;1370121 wrote: In 2008 Californians(!) voted to amend their state constitution to define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman- until a federal court intervened and said that new part of their constitution was unconstitutional.

  DOMA lol.
  
  FEDs got involved against gay marriage first.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;1369726 wrote:In all fairness and intellectual honesty the ultra-leftist, social liberal, and - of course - liberal spending Democrats need to be shown the exit as well. I have no issue with ultra-liberal social views if that's your belief, but the Dems are just as guilty of attempting to legislate their brand of morality.
  
  Suffice it to say that both parties are guilty of it. But for some strange reason you never hear Libertarians criticize the Dems for doing it.

  
  For the most part, the place where I see any neo-Democrat assert this is at the fiscal level (compulsory tax support of others via social programs).
  
  I feel as though that got plenty of attention from Libertarians this last election. I know I had my say on the matter.
  

  BoatShoes;1369834 wrote:I think that is definitely the way conservatives should play it because it also follows generally from their own views on the Constitution! It is baffling to me when Michelle Bachmann and Paul Ryan (among others) introduce anti-abortion language at the federal level. Do they not realize this is inconsistent with their own views on Constitutional interpretation??

  
  I honestly don't even consider either of those two to have such views on Constitutional interpretation. They might pay it lip service, but that doesn't really matter when their actions reflect otherwise.
• believer

  

  jhay78;1370121 wrote:Ironically, two of the bigger social issues of our day (abortion and gay marriage) have upset some Republicans precisely because the federal government intervened and took those decisions away from the states in the first place. Before 1973 not a single state allowed unlimited abortion on-demand until 7 dudes in black robes decided the issue for all of us. In 2008 Californians(!) voted to amend their state constitution to define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman- until a federal court intervened and said that new part of their constitution was unconstitutional.

  Spot on. This is precisely why the abortion issue will remain a part of the national political scene. Federal intervention always has ramifications and those are generally never good consequences.
  

  jhay78;1370121 wrote:This myth that the far-right is driving the Republican party is utterly false. If Reagan hadn't defeated Bush, Dole, Anderson, et al in 1980, you'd have to go back to the 20's and probably Coolidge to find a halfway decent conservative Republican presidential nominee.

  Agreed. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush 1, and Bush 2 all came from the moderate establishment wing of the Republican party. The media and left-wing Dems want us to buy-off on the idea that the party has been hijacked by the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party has only served to make the establishment Repubs take token notice of the conservative and Libertarian wings of the party. Yet they still keep trotting out guys like McCain, Romney, and Dole...and then scratch their heads at why they keep losing. Blows my mind.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;1370189 wrote:Yet they still keep trotting out guys like McCain, Romney, and Dole...and then scratch their heads at why they keep losing. Blows my mind.

  Yeah, the notion that the country needs a "moderate" doesn't mean just any old moderate will do.
  
  Someone who pushes the social views of the contemporary Republican Party (I don't like using the term "Neocon") at the federal level, yet is cool with big spending (including military conflicts) is not the same as someone who supports substantially lower spending while either deferring social issues to the states or supporting a more liberal platform at the federal level.
  
  Both perceived as moderate in comparison to today's two parties, yet virtual opposites.
• believer

  

  O-Trap;1370367 wrote:Both perceived as moderate in comparison to today's two parties, yet virtual opposites.

  Exactly. As long as establishment Repubs continue to ignore this, they set themselves up as easy political targets for the Dems and their pals in the media.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;1370386 wrote:Exactly. As long as establishment Repubs continue to ignore this, they set themselves up as easy political targets for the Dems and their pals in the media.

  PARTICULARLY when moving to the center in social views not only helps their ideological positioning with moderates, but it even demonstrates some level of a willingness to compromise, which bodes well in the public view.
  
  Sometimes I feel like there has to be more to the reason why they don't because it just seems far too easy for the party's current leaders not to understand this.
• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;1370177 wrote:DOMA lol.
  
  FEDs got involved against gay marriage first.

  In a way, yes (section 3), but it also upheld states' rights to recognize or not recognize a union performed in another state.
  

  O-Trap;1370618 wrote:PARTICULARLY when moving to the center in social views not only helps their ideological positioning with moderates, but it even demonstrates some level of a willingness to compromise, which bodes well in the public view.
  
  Sometimes I feel like there has to be more to the reason why they don't because it just seems far too easy for the party's current leaders not to understand this.

  I don't see why anyone has to "move" in any direction in his or her personal views as long as issues are left to states. Unless one is advocating the abandonment of principle in favor of following whichever way the political winds are blowing.
• O-Trap

  

  jhay78;1370682 wrote:I don't see why anyone has to "move" in any direction in his or her personal views as long as issues are left to states. Unless one is advocating the abandonment of principle in favor of following whichever way the political winds are blowing.

  Not at all. I was providing potential scenarios. Not saying either one was good or bad from a principle standpoint. Merely stating that either would be more effective from a votes standpoint.
• jhay78

  

  O-Trap;1370737 wrote:Not at all. I was providing potential scenarios. Not saying either one was good or bad from a principle standpoint. Merely stating that either would be more effective from a votes standpoint.

  Fair enough.
  
  I just hear this argument all the time with the immigration debate, something like "Republicans need to embrace open borders and amnesty if they want to gain ground on the Latino vote." In other words, they need to abandon all principles of secure borders and rewarding those who go through the proper immigration process.
  
  Those in the Party who fall for that nonsense forget that 1) most (not all) Hispanics don't care about immigration policy, they care more about economic "fairness" and obtaining ever-increasing portions of the welfare state, and 2) Democrats don't care about Hispanics as individuals, they care about increasing the number of consumers of the welfare state of which they have anointed themselves caretakers, and thus increasing the number of people who will depend on them and ultimately vote for them.
  
  Since Republicans will never win the immigration argument by pandering, they may as well stand on their principles, and if it fails and the ship sinks, then the ship was going to sink anyway.