Republican Civil War?

[Maikeru-sama]

Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war for the future of the party

Senior Republicans believe that John McCain is doomed to a landslide defeat which will hand Barack Obama more political power than any president in a generation

By Tim Shipman in Durango, Colorado
Last Updated: 3:25PM GMT 26 Oct 2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01015/MCCAIN-460_1015422c.jpg

Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.

They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party's future.

Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day.

Their fear is that Democrat candidates riding on Mr Obama's popularity may win the nine extra seats they need in the Senate to give them unfettered power in Congress.

If the Democrat majority in the Senate is big enough - at least 60 seats to 40 - the Republicans will be unable to block legislation by use of a traditional filibuster - talking until legislation runs out of time. No president has had the support of such a majority since Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election. President Reagan achieved his political transformation partly through the power of his personality.

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, told The Sunday Telegraph that Republicans should now concentrate all their fire on "the need for balanced government".

"It's hard to see a turnaround in the White House race," he said. "This could look like an ideological as well as a party victory if we're not careful. It could be 1980 in reverse.

"With this huge new role for federal government in the economy, the possibility for mischief making is very, very great. One man should not have a monopoly of political and financial power. That's very dangerous."

In North Carolina, where Senator Elizabeth Dole seems set to loose, Republicans are running adverts that appear to take an Obama victory for granted, warning that the Democrat will have a "blank cheque" if her rival Kay Hagen wins. "These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis," the narrator says. "All branches of Government. No checks and balances."

Democrats lead in eight of the 12 competitive Senate races and need just nine gains to reach their target of 60. Even Mitch McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans, is at risk in Kentucky, normally a rock solid red state.

A private memo on the likely result of the congressional elections, leaked to Politico, has the Republicans losing 37 seats.

Ed Rollins, who masterminded Ronald Reagan's second victory in 1984, said the election is already over and predicted: "This is going to turn into a landslide."

A former White House official who still advises President Bush told The Sunday Telegraph: "McCain hasn't won independents, nor has he inspired the base. It's the worst of all worlds. He is dragging everyone else down with him. He needs to deploy people and money to salvage what we can in Congress."

The prospect of defeat has unleashed what insiders describe as an "every man for himself" culture within the McCain campaign, with aides in a "circular firing squad" as blame is assigned.

More profoundly, it sparked the first salvoes in a Republican civil war with echoes of Tory infighting during their years in the political wilderness.

One wing believes the party has to emulate David Cameron, by adapting the issues to fight on and the positions they hold, while the other believes that a back to basics approach will reconnect with heartland voters and ensure success. Modernisers fear that would leave Republicans marginalised, like the Tories were during the Iain Duncan Smith years, condemning them to opposition for a decade.

Mr Frum argues that just as America is changing, so the Republican Party must adapt its economic message and find more to say about healthcare and the environment if it is to survive.

He said: "I don't know that there's a lot of realism in the Republican Party. We have an economic message that is largely irrelevant to most people.

"Cutting personal tax rates is not the answer to everything. The Bush years were largely prosperous but while national income was up the numbers for most individuals were not. Republicans find that a hard fact to process."

Other Republicans have jumped ship completely. Ken Adelman, a Pentagon adviser on the Iraq war, Matthew Dowd, who was Mr Bush's chief re-election strategist, and Scott McClellan, Mr Bush's former press secretary, have all endorsed Mr Obama.

But the real bile has been saved for those conservatives who have balked at the selection of Sarah Palin.

In addition to Mr Frum, who thinks her not ready to be president, Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's greatest speechwriter and a columnist with the Wall Street Journal, condemned Mr McCain's running mate as a "symptom and expression of a new vulgarisation of American politics." Conservative columnist David Brooks called her a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party".

The backlash that ensued last week revealed the fault lines of the coming civil war.

Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of right wing talk radio hosts, denounced Noonan, Brooks and Frum. Neconservative writer Charles Krauthammer condemned "the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama", while fellow columnist Tony Blankley said that instead of collaborating in heralding Mr Obama's arrival they should be fighting "in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country".

During the primaries the Democratic Party was bitterly divided between Barack Obama's "latte liberals" and Hillary Clinton's heartland supporters, but now the same cultural division threatens to tear the Republican Party apart.

Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"

Mr Frum thinks that Mrs Palin's brand of cultural conservatism appeals only to a dwindling number of voters.

He said: "She emerges from this election as the probable frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. Her supporters vastly outnumber her critics. But it will be extremely difficult for her to win the presidency."

Mr Nuzzo, who believes this election is not a re-run of the 1980 Reagan revolution but of 1976, when an ageing Gerald Ford lost a close contest and then ceded the leadership of the Republican Party to Mr Reagan.

He said: "Win or lose, there is a ready made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin is not the new Iain Duncan Smith, she is the new Ronald Reagan." On the accuracy of that judgment, perhaps, rests the future of the Republican Party.

Telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3260074/Republican-fears-of-historic-Obama-landslide-unleash-civil-war-for-the-future-of-the-party.html )

[theebs]

They should smarten up.

Dont take it out on Obama.

Take it out on everyones favorite hero who never did anything wrong.

Mr. W

He will be the reason mcain loses if he loses. That and his sidekick from real america.

But to put the blame anywhere else besides W is crazy.

[Danny White]

They should smarten up.

Dont take it out on Obama.

Take it out on everyones favorite hero who never did anything wrong.

Mr. W

He will be the reason mcain loses if he loses. That and his sidekick from real america.

But to put the blame anywhere else besides W is crazy.

I wouldn't exactly call W "everyone's hero." He has precious few defenders anymore. And when's the last time you saw him at a campaign event.

I do agree though that he bears much responsibility for the woes Republicans are having right now.

[iceberg]

I wouldn't exactly call W "everyone's hero." He has precious few defenders anymore. And when's the last time you saw him at a campaign event.

I do agree though that he bears much responsibility for the woes Republicans are having right now.

no other president has had to deal with what bush has had to deal with. i also don't think we'll know the full effect of his presidency for a decade or more. how things unfold in the middle east is his ultimate legacy but if obama goes in and yanks the troops and undoes what bush has done - some will be very happy.

then need a new scapegoat on our next 9/11 crisis.

the biggest foe of the repubs is times got hard towards the end of their watch. maybe that was because of bush but it could also be in spite of. but i'm not gonna let a lot of loud IGS'ers force my opinion.

bush could have done a lot of things better.

now take out bush and put in almost any other president in our history.

that's why i dont' get so worked up on "experience" because how do you prepare for a job like this?

[Bach]

No matter who the candidates were this year the deck was stacked against the Republican due to Bush's dismal approval ratings and people just wanting change.

It doesn't help that McCain has run a weak campaign and then after getting an initial boost with Palin, all the media has totally trashed her for the last 6 weeks.

If this were any other time I don't think Obama would have a chance. But too many aren't even looking at what he's about. They are just thinking "change".

I think if he does indeed win, there will be a huge Republican win in Congress in '10, similar to what happened in '94. And in '12, if the Republicans put forward anyone decent at all they should be able to defeat Obama once the independent/moderate voters find out who he really is and what he's really like and the intitial luster has worn off.

[iceberg]

No matter who the candidates were this year the deck was stacked against the Republican due to Bush's dismal approval ratings and people just wanting change.

It doesn't help that McCain has run a weak campaign and then after getting an initial boost with Palin, all the media has totally trashed her for the last 6 weeks.

If this were any other time I don't think Obama would have a chance. But too many aren't even looking at what he's about. They are just thinking "change".

I think if he does indeed win, there will be a huge Republican win in Congress in '10, similar to what happened in '94. And in '12, if the Republicans put forward anyone decent at all they should be able to defeat Obama once the independent/moderate voters find out who he really is and what he's really like and the intitial luster has worn off.


mccain did start out as the underdog, then the party just ran it like crap from there and never helped themselves along the way.

[Phrozen Phil]

No matter who the candidates were this year the deck was stacked against the Republican due to Bush's dismal approval ratings and people just wanting change.

It doesn't help that McCain has run a weak campaign and then after getting an initial boost with Palin, all the media has totally trashed her for the last 6 weeks.
If this were any other time I don't think Obama would have a chance. But too many aren't even looking at what he's about. They are just thinking "change".

I think if he does indeed win, there will be a huge Republican win in Congress in '10, similar to what happened in '94. And in '12, if the Republicans put forward anyone decent at all they should be able to defeat Obama once the independent/moderate voters find out who he really is and what he's really like and the intitial luster has worn off.


Why not call Palin's candidacy for what it is: a triumph of style over substance. She's a weak candidate who was selected to pander to a specific group: Social Conservatives. Neither McCain nor Palin has connected outside of that group and the constant shifts in strategy by the Republicans is like watching a flailing octopus. As for 2010, it's just a bit early to tell.

[ABQCOWBOY]

mccain did start out as the underdog, then the party just ran it like crap from there and never helped themselves along the way.

It's funny how fait takes a hand sometimes.

Down through history, fate does make apperances.

McCain was winning this election just a few short weeks ago. After the bottom fell out, I don't believe that any Republican candidate could have faired well. IMO, the only chance that McCain had was to vote no to the 700 Bill. JMO

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why not call Palin's candidacy for what it is: a triumph of style over substance. She's a weak candidate who was selected to pander to a specific group: Social Conservatives. Neither McCain nor Palin has connected outside of that group and the constant shifts in strategy by the Republicans is like watching a flailing octopus. As for 2010, it's just a bit early to tell.


I don't really believe this. Palin has done one very important thing, to date. She has solidified the Conservative base, which will not be a factor in this election, but will server to win seats in the upcoming Congressional Races and will have a significant impact in the next Presidential Election.

Sara Palin draws. The Democratic Left will not have won this election, should Mr. Obama go on to win it. The moderate, independant vote did. As was mentioned earlier, the shine will, in all likelyhood, wear off by 2012. A focused Republican Party will be a force in that election, IMO.

[iceberg]

Why not call Palin's candidacy for what it is: a triumph of style over substance. She's a weak candidate who was selected to pander to a specific group: Social Conservatives. Neither McCain nor Palin has connected outside of that group and the constant shifts in strategy by the Republicans is like watching a flailing octopus. As for 2010, it's just a bit early to tell.

i disagree. i'm not a palin fan, but i only know what the repubs and the media have chosen to show me so far. if this "civil war" is happening (glad we don't overstate things around here) then maybe it needs to. maybe she wants to take the party back from those who are not treating it properly.

mccain hasn't connected "inside" his own group, dude. so while i won't argue that watching the repubs flail has been happening, i wont tie palin into that out of convenience. i don't need to make up my mind about her today. it can wait till i know more.

[ZeroClub]

The other day I heard some talkinghead say that the number of registered Republicans has taken a nose dive and that a large proportion of remaining Republicans are evangelical christians.

I wonder how that might impact the party.

In the absence of relatively more moderate/centrist Republicans (who are apparently leaving the party), will the party be pulled even farther to the right? If so, is the party destined to nominate presidential candidates who are too far right to appeal to more moderates/independents?

(For example, somebody like Palin would appeal to the new reduced Republican base, but perhaps isn't mainstream enough to appeal to the mainstream).

[Phrozen Phil]

i disagree. i'm not a palin fan, but i only know what the repubs and the media have chosen to show me so far. if this "civil war" is happening (glad we don't overstate things around here) then maybe it needs to. maybe she wants to take the party back from those who are not treating it properly.

mccain hasn't connected "inside" his own group, dude. so while i won't argue that watching the repubs flail has been happening, i wont tie palin into that out of convenience. i don't need to make up my mind about her today. it can wait till i know more.

If that's true, then McCain's campaign has failed on more than front and she and McCain weren't really much of a team.

BTW, I agree on the "Civil War" thing to a point. But I really do not believe that Palin has the chops to be a real contender at this point. Too many unknowns regarding her credentials. Her poor performance in interviews has to be a concern, even from her supporters. Time will tell.

[Rogah]

Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war for the future of the party I don't think this will happen beyond the normal routine of guys positioning themselves for leadership roles. As the minority party in both houses of Congress, and assuming they lose the White House, they will quickly learn that if they don't hang together then they will hang separately.

[iceberg]

If that's true, then McCain's campaign has failed on more than front and she and McCain weren't really much of a team.

BTW, I agree on the "Civil War" thing to a point. But I really do not believe that Palin has the chops to be a real contender at this point. Too many unknowns regarding her credentials. Her poor performance in interviews has to be a concern, even from her supporters. Time will tell.

i'd not argue that at all. they seldom seem on the same page. and if palin is busting people up and a part of the beginning of this CW - then she definatey has the chops to get into it.

we'll see what she does after that.

now if you agree that they were never much of a team taking her only at interviews is wrong. is she interviewing to promote the party or what she wants it to be? i think she's mixed on that and has a hard time answering because of how we love to relive soundbytes.

well palin in 08 you said xyz but now you're a flipper cause you said 123...

like i said, we're seeing a lot of cracks in the repub machine so to blame any 1 person for just about anything to me is self-serving because as a collective they've bonered the donkey kong.

palin seems to be trying to ignite a different direction or movement. we'll have to see where it goes from here before we can say she's good/bad/whatever.

i think anyway.

[Bach]

The other day I heard some talkinghead say that the number of registered Republicans has taken a nose dive and that a large proportion of remaining Republicans are evangelical christians.

I wonder how that might impact the party.

In the absence of relatively more moderate/centrist Republicans (who are apparently leaving the party), will the party be pulled even farther to the right? If so, is the party destined to nominate presidential candidates who are too far right to appeal to more moderates/independents?

(For example, somebody like Palin would appeal to the new reduced Republican base, but perhaps isn't mainstream enough to appeal to the mainstream).


It all depends on the political environment and how the candidate runs the campaign. This nation, imo, is still right of center, yet one of the most, if not the most, liberal candidates to ever be nominated in on the cusp of winning. It's all due to the environment of "change" and Obama being a relative newcomer who is running away from his true self and appealing to the center.

It'd be hard for a candidate to run and win as a hardcore liberal or conservative. But they can still win if they successfully hide that fact and in the right political atmosphere.

A real conservative would have to do what Obama is doing, run towards the middle while having your base solidified.

[iceberg]

The other day I heard some talkinghead say that the number of registered Republicans has taken a nose dive and that a large proportion of remaining Republicans are evangelical christians.

I wonder how that might impact the party.

In the absence of relatively more moderate/centrist Republicans (who are apparently leaving the party), will the party be pulled even farther to the right? If so, is the party destined to nominate presidential candidates who are too far right to appeal to more moderates/independents?

(For example, somebody like Palin would appeal to the new reduced Republican base, but perhaps isn't mainstream enough to appeal to the mainstream).


good point/question. i'm looking into libertarian in my spare time and am likely to switch if it seems to match my own beliefs more. so this repub has fallen out of favor of what they want to do, but keep in mind that's not a validation for democrats, only a sign of my own "growing" i've been doing. will be interesting to see how things shape up after this election.

in any event, i do think people are building obama so high on a pedastal he'll have nowhere to go but down if/when elected.

[Sasquatch]

Her poor performance in interviews has to be a concern, even from her supporters. Time will tell.

It's a positive virtue for those who despise intelligence and eloquence.

[iceberg]

It's a positive virtue for those who despise intelligence and eloquence.

and how long have you been doing that when it wasn't inline with your own thoughts?

[ZeroClub]

It all depends on the political environment and how the candidate runs the campaign. This nation, imo, is still right of center, yet one of the most, if not the most, liberal candidates to ever be nominated in on the cusp of winning. It's all due to the environment of "change" and Obama being a relative newcomer who is running away from his true self and appealing to the center.

It'd be hard for a candidate to run and win as a hardcore liberal or conservative. But they can still win if they successfully hide that fact and in the right political atmosphere.

A real conservative would have to do what Obama is doing, run towards the middle while having your base solidified.

Yeah. I guess I'm wondering if the republican party is approaching a tipping point such that only an obviously hardcore social conservative is capable of winning the party's nomination.

There was a time when the democratic party was so far left of center that they were doomed to nominate candidates who were too far left to be electable (e.g., McGovern).

It seems to me that if the republicans veer even farther right (as a result of losing moderates while retaining the evangelical right), the republicans may find themselves in the position of nominating candidates who are too far right to be electable (candidates that only Gary Bauer could love).

It's just a thought.

[Rogah]

It seems to me that if the republicans veer even farther right (as a result of losing moderates while retaining the evangelical right), the republicans may find themselves in the position of nominating candidates who are too far right to be electable (candidates that only Gary Bauer could love). Counterpoint: McCain is the most moderate candidate they have nominated in an awful long time. And he is going to lose to a non-moderate Democrat. So perhaps being moderate and nominating moderates is over-rated... :D

[ABQCOWBOY]

i'd not argue that at all. they seldom seem on the same page. and if palin is busting people up and a part of the beginning of this CW - then she definatey has the chops to get into it.

we'll see what she does after that.

now if you agree that they were never much of a team taking her only at interviews is wrong. is she interviewing to promote the party or what she wants it to be? i think she's mixed on that and has a hard time answering because of how we love to relive soundbytes.

well palin in 08 you said xyz but now you're a flipper cause you said 123...

like i said, we're seeing a lot of cracks in the repub machine so to blame any 1 person for just about anything to me is self-serving because as a collective they've bonered the donkey kong.

palin seems to be trying to ignite a different direction or movement. we'll have to see where it goes from here before we can say she's good/bad/whatever.

i think anyway.


I believe that Palin supported John McCain up until the GOP started to believe that McCain would not win. At that point, I believe they realized two things. One, Palin is a star. The Democratic party may say otherwise and the Media may be trying to ruin her but she is a star. When she talks, people listen and they listen on both sides. The second thing they wanted to accomplish was to have Palin distence herself from John McCain. How does the press get that 150K spent expense report? Those reports are not made public until after the election. Somebody withing the party leaked that info IMO. I believe the Republican Party is trying to create space between Palin and John McCain because in 2012, they want her to be the strong conservative candidate and John McCain has never been regarded as that in all of his political life. I would not be surprised if the GOP does not try to run Palin for Senate in 2010. JMO of course.

[iceberg]

I believe that Palin supported John McCain up until the GOP started to believe that McCain would not win. At that point, I believe they realized two things. One, Palin is a star. The Democratic party may say otherwise and the Media may be trying to ruin her but she is a star. When she talks, people listen and they listen on both sides. The second thing they wanted to accomplish was to have Palin distence herself from John McCain. How does the press get that 150K spent expense report? Those reports are not made public until after the election. Somebody withing the party leaked that info IMO. I believe the Republican Party is trying to create space between Palin and John McCain because in 2012, they want her to be the strong conservative candidate and John McCain has never been regarded as that in all of his political life. I would not be surprised if the GOP does not try to run Palin for Senate in 2010. JMO of course.

i can see that.

[ZeroClub]

Counterpoint: McCain is the most moderate candidate they have nominated in an awful long time. And he is going to lose to a non-moderate Democrat. So perhaps being moderate and nominating moderates is over-rated... :D

I think you have a point. But, still, I think of Bob Dole as a moderate. W's dad, too. McCain of 2000 appeared more moderate than today's McCain, but the McCain of 2000 was too moderate to be nominated, so today's McCain is farther right.

But I'm talking more about the future, really, when the full effect of a harder right Republican party truly hits ... perhaps in 2012.



Also, I know a lot of people here think that Obama is somehow far left of Bill Clinton, but I don't think so. The thrust of their policies are more similar than different. There wasn't much in the way of policy differences between Obama and Hillary, either. I simply don't buy into the idea that Obama is radically liberal (or the delusion that he's socialist or communist). But that's for another thread (or 100 other threads).

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's a positive virtue for those who despise intelligence and eloquence.


I think your impressions of her abilities are a bit colored by her early interviews. I don't believe we have seen the real Sarah Palin as yet. She is a bit conflicted in that she does not believe all that John McCain believe. However, because she represents the Ticket and not Palin, she goes with the party line. I suspect, and I have no real proof of this Sas, that Palin will be a much stronger candidate when she is running on her own platform. She is not stupid. I have heard many say this. Once the election is over, we will get the real truth on how intelligent she is IMO.

It's interesting to me.

[JRid21]

good point/question. i'm looking into libertarian in my spare time and am likely to switch if it seems to match my own beliefs more. so this repub has fallen out of favor of what they want to do, but keep in mind that's not a validation for democrats, only a sign of my own "growing" i've been doing. will be interesting to see how things shape up after this election.

in any event, i do think people are building obama so high on a pedastal he'll have nowhere to go but down if/when elected.


Barry Goldwater was known as Mr. Conservative and wrote a book called
The Conscience of a Conservative and he supported gay rights and abortion rights. He gave some pretty convincing reasons on how they were true conservative views. He was pretty much a libertarian however if you go by how we classify views now.

It's "the Godfather of Conservatism" who said :
"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process." (in a 1994 Washington Post essay)

"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,"

"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."

"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ***."

"A woman has a right to an abortion."

The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
Interview with Lloyd Grove, The Washington Post, ibid. 28 July 1994.

A few years before his death he went so far as to address the right wing, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have

[trickblue]

The other day I heard some talkinghead say that the number of registered Republicans has taken a nose dive and that a large proportion of remaining Republicans are evangelical christians.

I wonder how that might impact the party.

In the absence of relatively more moderate/centrist Republicans (who are apparently leaving the party), will the party be pulled even farther to the right? If so, is the party destined to nominate presidential candidates who are too far right to appeal to more moderates/independents?

(For example, somebody like Palin would appeal to the new reduced Republican base, but perhaps isn't mainstream enough to appeal to the mainstream).

That makes no sense whatsoever... it's the conservative base that is decides elections for or against the GOP in many major races. If Conservatives controlled the party, McCain would have had no chance at the nomination...

The party is chock full of moderate/centrists... that is the problem. They are called Neo-Cons... at least on the fiscal side. That argument also doesn't explain Reagan Democrats who still tend to vote Republican if the Democrat candidate is too liberal...

With as bad has Bush has been, if the Republican Party was fleeing to the Democrat Party, this race would have been over before it started. It's not...

I don't like either candidate, and I don't hold high hopes for either... and both (whichever is elected) could very well be one-term wonders.

Cronyism and out of control spending need to be curtailed before anything improves in this country...

In the mean time, I'm thinking of starting my own party... The Cynical Party of America. "Cynics" for short... Our motto: "We don't care who you are, or what party you represent... you still suck"...

[joseephuss]

That makes no sense whatsoever... it's the conservative base that is decides elections for or against the GOP in many major races. If Conservatives controlled the party, McCain would have had no chance at the nomination...

The party is chock full of moderate/centrists... that is the problem. They are called Neo-Cons... at least on the fiscal side. That argument also doesn't explain Reagan Democrats who still tend to vote Republican if the Democrat candidate is too liberal...

With as bad has Bush has been, if the Republican Party was fleeing to the Democrat Party, this race would have been over before it started. It's not...

I don't like either candidate, and I don't hold high hopes for either... and both (whichever is elected) could very well be one-term wonders.

Cronyism and out of control spending need to be curtailed before anything improves in this country...

In the mean time, I'm thinking of starting my own party... The Cynical Party of America. "Cynics" for short... Our motto: "We don't care who you are, or what party you represent... you still suck"...

I'll join, but I am so cynical I may not even support the founding member.

[ABQCOWBOY]

That makes no sense whatsoever... it's the conservative base that is decides elections for or against the GOP in many major races. If Conservatives controlled the party, McCain would have had no chance at the nomination...

The party is chock full of moderate/centrists... that is the problem. They are called Neo-Cons... at least on the fiscal side. That argument also doesn't explain Reagan Democrats who still tend to vote Republican if the Democrat candidate is too liberal...

With as bad has Bush has been, if the Republican Party was fleeing to the Democrat Party, this race would have been over before it started. It's not...

I don't like either candidate, and I don't hold high hopes for either... and both (whichever is elected) could very well be one-term wonders.

Cronyism and out of control spending need to be curtailed before anything improves in this country...

In the mean time, I'm thinking of starting my own party... The Cynical Party of America. "Cynics" for short... Our motto: "We don't care who you are, or what party you represent... you still suck"...

I think a free round of Billy Beer, on the Dems, would also go a long ways towards fixen stuff round here too.

;)

[trickblue]

I'll join, but I am so cynical I may not even support the founding member.

You have to support the founding member, joseephus...

I am tying things up in East Texas and I moved my family from Circle C Ranch to Belterra over the weekend. I am an Austinite in a month and, darn it, I have a right to be cynical and I will plaster dozens of bumper stickers all over the paint of my vehicle to prove my point... :D

[trickblue]

It's a positive virtue for those who despise intelligence and eloquence.


http://img.textbookx.com/images/large/30/0062736930.jpg

Approves!!! ;)

[joseephuss]

You have to support the founding member, joseephus...

I am tying things up in East Texas and I moved my family from Circle C Ranch to Belterra over the weekend. I am an Austinite in a month and, darn it, I have a right to be cynical and I will plaster dozens of bumper stickers all over the paint of my vehicle to prove my point... :D

Belterra is a nice area. Hwy 290 sucks and is a death trap, but it is pretty area. You will enjoy living near The Nutty Brown Cafe. Try to bring some trees down from East Texas. That is the one thing I miss that this area does not have. Real trees.

[Bach]

I think you have a point. But, still, I think of Bob Dole as a moderate. W's dad, too. McCain of 2000 appeared more moderate than today's McCain, but the McCain of 2000 was too moderate to be nominated, so today's McCain is farther right.

But I'm talking more about the future, really, when the full effect of a harder right Republican party truly hits ... perhaps in 2012.

Also, I know a lot of people here think that Obama is somehow far left of Bill Clinton, but I don't think so. The thrust of their policies are more similar than different. There wasn't much in the way of policy differences between Obama and Hillary, either. I simply don't buy into the idea that Obama is radically liberal (or the delusion that he's socialist or communist). But that's for another thread (or 100 other threads).

McCain is as moderate if not more so than Dole.

And Obama is much farther left than Clinton, although he's smart enough not to campaign as such.

The problem with McCain isn't that he's too far right, because he's not right at all. His problem is he's too much of a moderate.

[Bach]

Barry Goldwater was known as Mr. Conservative and wrote a book called
The Conscience of a Conservative and he supported gay rights and abortion rights. He gave some pretty convincing reasons on how they were true conservative views. He was pretty much a libertarian however if you go by how we classify views now.

It's "the Godfather of Conservatism" who said :
"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process." (in a 1994 Washington Post essay)

"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,"

"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."

"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ***."

"A woman has a right to an abortion."

[/SIZE]A few years before his death he went so far as to address the right wing, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have

A true conservative isn't a social liberal. Goldwater wouldn't even be a libertarian today. He'd be more of a blue dog Democrat.

[trickblue]

Belterra is a nice area. Hwy 290 sucks and is a death trap, but it is pretty area. You will enjoy living near The Nutty Brown Cafe. Try to bring some trees down from East Texas. That is the one thing I miss that this area does not have. Real trees.

Funny you mention that...

We found a nicer home in Ledge Stone for the same price, but there is no traffic signal there on to 290 (there should be), and with a son that will be driving next year, we chose the safer route...

Nutty Brown is a place we want to go, but it is ALWAYS crowded it seems. We pass it every time we drive home...

I loved having 4 acres here, a custom built home and being master of my domain, but we have to move on at some point...

It's all good...

[Beast_from_East]

I believe that Palin supported John McCain up until the GOP started to believe that McCain would not win. At that point, I believe they realized two things. One, Palin is a star. The Democratic party may say otherwise and the Media may be trying to ruin her but she is a star. When she talks, people listen and they listen on both sides. The second thing they wanted to accomplish was to have Palin distence herself from John McCain. How does the press get that 150K spent expense report? Those reports are not made public until after the election. Somebody withing the party leaked that info IMO. I believe the Republican Party is trying to create space between Palin and John McCain because in 2012, they want her to be the strong conservative candidate and John McCain has never been regarded as that in all of his political life. I would not be surprised if the GOP does not try to run Palin for Senate in 2010. JMO of course.

SPOT ON:)

[Wheat]

Aren't both Senators seats in Alaska up this year? This would be they won't be again until 2014.

Palin will need to get her magically pipeline built in record time since she talks about it like its up and running.

If both parties crashed and burned. I wouldn't shed any tears. I hope they all imploded.