GOP-RIP

It’s about time Specter was shown the door.

Good riddance!

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

Neither of your descriptions is accurate. Casey ran as a conservative, pro-life candidate against one of the MSM’s favorite targets. And Coleman is a relatively moderate Republican – and still hasn’t lost, despite the blatantly improper, and in some cases, probably illegal, actions of the MN Democrats and the high name recognition of his opponent, in a very liberal state. There were other races that might help your argument, but in general the Republicans who lost were moderates, not conservatives. Certainly McCain demonstrates the futility of running as a “same but less” candidate. And whether they lose or not, it still serves the party better to provide a clear choice. At least when the economy collapses and we’re dealing with double-digit inflation, they’ll represent a viable alternative to the party of Marx. Besides, if they are going to be nothing but a pale echo of the Democrat Party, there’s no reason for their existence in the first place.

Well said.

Right now the country is in a state of flux. Obamachev’s election was historic, and we had Mr. Big Government Booosh for 8 years, which turned a lot of people off. Bush wasn’t actually that conservative at all, except for tax cuts. He still spent, grew the gov’t, and wanted illegal aliens to run amok. Not very damned conservative. And HE is largely the reason people are turned off to our party.

Now, what would happen if we all shift the party left, but the people discover, after 4 years of obamachev, that they really want to return to genuine conservatism? Then the party will certainly die, because it will be too far left.

Don’t forget that our party and our very country began life just shy of anarchy, so to move back into solid conservatism without the progressive twist isn’t that far-fetched. Let’s not throw it all away just because the people are caught up in the moment. We need to be more solid than that.

It’s like thinking you can lower high blood pressure by slitting your wrists. It works well but the results are less than ideal.

argh… we need a 1 time or timed edit tool

Ummm… Try the Preview button and, read your post first ?
Honestly, it really works !

In that vein I do believe that if republicans would stand up and act like real conservatives they would in fact win more elections, not less.

Which is borne out by the fact that McCain trailed badly until he selected Palin, after which he surged into the polling lead – only to blow it when he let his natural inclinations to support big government overwhelm him.

On May 7th, 2009 at 6:23 pm, SilverCat said:

Advocating either end of the political spectrum leads to anarchy on the right and Communism on the left.

No it doesn’t. We’re conservatives, not libertarian anarchists. Reread the part about supporting and defending the Constitution. That’s the problem with you trying to paint people as extreme.
And describing yourself as a “moderate conservative” is essentially calling yourself a liberal lite – or a little pregnant. You may consider the middle saner, but it’s still not going to lead to smaller government or more liberty. Moderates are inherently compromisers, and when you start in the “middle”, you will inevitably compromise to the left. That way is inevitable destruction. If you truly want things to be in the “middle” (which I personally think is not only impossible, but undesirable), you need true conservatives to provide maximum pull against the left – of which there is only far, extreme, and loony.

As a moderate Conservative, I believe somewhere in the middle is a saner approach.

Okay, that’s not an unreasonable statement in general. We obviously should have rule of law, and the governmetn certainly has a place providing that which individuals are unable to provide themselves: things like national defence, polica and fire service, etc.

Where we probably differ is that values that are called “ultra-right wing” today were in fact common among even democraps in the past. Fiscal responsibility and little government intrusion were ideas common on the left once, because the left wasn’t quite that far left.

The problem is that most of the politicians have shifted left, and those of us holding the line are now branded extreme. That is not the case, and we are getting to the point that we are no longer going to apoligize for holding on to genuine American values.

Hat tip to txvet for his above posts. He is right that many of the republicans losing to the left aren’t all that conservative themselves. In that vein I do believe that if republicans would stand up and act like real conservatives they would in fact win more elections, not less. It is precisely when our candidates move to the center that we lose.

On May 7th, 2009 at 5:26 pm, SilverCat said:

We need Conservative-lite(i.e. Ridge)to survive as a viable party. Wanting every GOP politician to pass an extreme socially conservative litmus test is taking the party down a slippery slope to irrelevance.

When you use terms like “extreme socially conservative”, you reveal yourself as a liberal in the first place, and therefore a natural member of the Democrat Party, whether you vote that way or not. There is nothing “extreme” in supporting and defending the Constitution, life, and liberty against attacks from those who would deprive others of all three.

On May 7th, 2009 at 5:19 pm, SilverCat said:

txvet2 – Just look at recent history. When blue state voters have a clear choice (Santorum v Casey) (Coleman v Franken) etc., the R’s lose. Even Dole lost in N.C., not a real blue state. The R’s are losing almost every contested Senate race.

Neither of your descriptions is accurate. Casey ran as a conservative, pro-life candidate against one of the MSM’s favorite targets. And Coleman is a relatively moderate Republican – and still hasn’t lost, despite the blatantly improper, and in some cases, probably illegal, actions of the MN Democrats and the high name recognition of his opponent, in a very liberal state. There were other races that might help your argument, but in general the Republicans who lost were moderates, not conservatives. Certainly McCain demonstrates the futility of running as a “same but less” candidate. And whether they lose or not, it still serves the party better to provide a clear choice. At least when the economy collapses and we’re dealing with double-digit inflation, they’ll represent a viable alternative to the party of Marx. Besides, if they are going to be nothing but a pale echo of the Democrat Party, there’s no reason for their existence in the first place.