Media pushing, GOP to conservative meme

[zantax]

You can't turn on the news or pick up a newspaper lately without hearing or reading about how the republican party has moved too far right and should move to the center. In fact I'm watching some reporter on CNN tell Mitt Romney and Eric Cantor just that as I type. I'm not buying it and here's some fairly convincing proof.

from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/69_of_gop_voters_say_republicans_in_congress_out_o f_touch_with_the_party_base

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans say it is more important for the GOP to stand for what it believes in than for the party to work with President Obamahttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/69_of_gop_voters_say_republicans_in_congress_out_o f_touch_with_the_party_base#). Twenty-two percent (22%) want their party to work with the President more. In January (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/majority_see_reagan_as_republicans_way_back_to_pow er), 56% of all voters said the Republican Party should return to the views and values of President Ronald Reagan to be successful. Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republican voters agreed.Darn it, "to" in the title should be "too", not enough coffee in the system yet

[StoneScratcher]

This is why I think the poll numbers from some pollsters is showing a decline in the number of Republicans.

For example, I don't even know if I'm a Republican anymore. I can't stand the John McCain's within the Party. Also, I don't want any Republican catering to religious groups for the sake of votes.

So if I were polled, I say I'm not a Republican because they are all messed up.

Where's the Party for the Republic? I'd vote for that one.

The media is trying to DEFINE what a Republican should be. And any idiot politician who follows what the media says or indicates is as blind as the muck George Washington scraped from his boots.

[zantax]

snip

Also, I don't want any Republican catering to religious groups for the sake of votes.



What do you mean by "catering"? An example would be helpful.

[Trinka]

There's more to conservatives then religion...

The media would of course love to push cons. to the center...or farther...then there's NO difference in the parties....that's the problem Now...it's dem lites...yuck!

[StoneScratcher]

snip



What do you mean by "catering"? An example would be helpful.

An example of the right: How Mitt Romney suddenly had an epiphany regarding his stance on abortion. Yes, everyone moves from one opinion to the next, but it appears as "catering" to a target voting base mostly consisting of (perhaps not) of Christians.

An example of the left: How Obama stated this Nation was not founded on Christian, Jewish, or Islamic beliefs, but on its citizens, or people, or whatever he said to smooze ALL religions into worshipping his political crapola.

Just two general examples, but I hope you know what I mean.

[StoneScratcher]

There's more to conservatives then religion...

The media would of course love to push cons. to the center...or farther...then there's NO difference in the parties....that's the problem Now...it's dem lites...yuck!

Why is religion any part of being a Conservative?

This is what I mean.

Keep religion out, imo. I consider myself Conservative, but that doesn't mean I have to discuss my religion to be one. Right?

[TCUFan]

If you're going to move to the center, this simply means you'll take socialism in two steps instead of one.

Go ahead and register Democrat.

TCUFan

[zantax]

Why is religion any part of being a Conservative?

This is what I mean.

Keep religion out, imo. I consider myself Conservative, but that doesn't mean I have to discuss my religion to be one. Right?

Doesn't mean you shouldn't mention it either if you happen to run for office. And it's not just a part of conservatism, can you name the last President that was an atheist or agnostic?

[BasicGreatGuy]

As a whole, the GOP has moved further toward the Democrats. It appears that the GOP supporter base ( as a whole ) has as well. The GOP is a big government party.

[ddye]

Doesn't mean you shouldn't mention it either if you happen to run for office. And it's not just a part of conservatism, can you name the last President that was an atheist or agnostic?
It's an established fact that politicians must profess religion to win office, sincere or not.

It's telling that although my side is accused of being atheistic, this is true for Democratic candidates as well.

Doug

[StoneScratcher]

Doesn't mean you shouldn't mention it either if you happen to run for office. And it's not just a part of conservatism, can you name the last President that was an atheist or agnostic?

There is no problem with any politician having or stating they have any belief.

Just as long as it isn't used as a marketing strategy.

As for any President who may be an atheist or agnostic, of course they cannot put that label on themselves if they have marketed themselves to be President. And those Presidents may have checked off one of the Christian denominations, for example, and may have even carried a Bible into church occasionally (with photos for press). To me, if such President declared they were a Christian and did this, does not mean I think they are what they say they are, or what they "appear" to be. They could be a closet atheist, worship Satan, have another "less popular" belief.

This is all due to religion being forced in our faces, belief vs belief.

That is why the devinely enlightened Founding Fathers did not shove any particular religion down the citizens faces via the Government.

Speaking of God, the Great Light, the Creator, but not defining a religion (although they each had their own beliefs).

To me, if a politician sits in church every Sunday and then cheats on his wife, or arranges for his daughter to get an abortion, or puts "the hardship (financially) of the Country" over the "safety and well being of the citizenry" (for example, if such President declares it would benefit the Country financially to pull the plugs on anyone on public assistance who is determined, by Government-assigned Neurologists, "brain dead". So what if he goes to church?

[nebcon]

As a whole, the GOP has moved further toward the Democrats. It appears that the GOP supporter base ( as a whole ) has as well. The GOP is a big government party.

Of course the GOP is too far right for progressives. Not until it is just another wing on their own party would they say otherwise. This is just the sort of thing that Republicans need to learn to ignore. Taking advice from the opposition to heart even a little, is pointless. Who cares what they think.

[mboncher]

I will just suffice to say this:

Any party that refuses to stand by and enforce their ideals will cease to be a party after long. If you do not hold to the majority of what you believe in, no one has a reason to vote FOR you.

THIS is why the RNC is falling apart and will continue to do so till a strong party leader comes in and sets the rules and enforces them on members who too frequently go off the reservation at sensitive times.

[Bluesgtr44]

I think these conservatives are basically telling the republican party that they are not fond of the "pandering" and "appeasement" practices of liberalism. These conservatives understand that you can't please all the people all the time. These agendists that are just "for the cause, man...the cause" will eventually start to eat their own. They don't even have common interests across the board and they just flat out lie about it! Think about the California elections on the constitution.....every indication was that the black population were very against this......and not a word from "the cause, man.....the cause" about that total turncoat, Benedict Arnold block of an agenda itself turning on them in their hour of need......not a word! This is the "wedge", this is the "social injustice"....and not a word! How pathetically obvious these minions are!

[dad49er]

The middle is the majority.
Democrats got their majority by moving to the center.
Republicans could take a cue from that.

The greater the purity, the smaller the tent.
Reagan is often brought up here as the answer for Republican woes.
But Reagan expanded the Republican tent, he didn't make it smaller.

[dad49er]

Of course the GOP is too far right for progressives. Not until it is just another wing on their own party would they say otherwise. This is just the sort of thing that Republicans need to learn to ignore. Taking advice from the opposition to heart even a little, is pointless. Who cares what they think.

Ignoring results is tough, even if it is the opposition.

[tislaw]

An example of the right: How Mitt Romney suddenly had an epiphany regarding his stance on abortion. Yes, everyone moves from one opinion to the next, but it appears as "catering" to a target voting base mostly consisting of (perhaps not) of Christians.

An example of the left: How Obama stated this Nation was not founded on Christian, Jewish, or Islamic beliefs, but on its citizens, or people, or whatever he said to smooze ALL religions into worshipping his political crapola.

Just two general examples, but I hope you know what I mean.


It wasn't an epiphany for Mitt. Our faith is against abortion, however, if I remember correctly, he just said he would uphold the law.
Q: Why such a dramatic and profound change after pledging never to waiver on a woman's right to choose?
A: I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is. And the question for me was, what is the role of government? And it was quite theoretical and philosophical to consider what the role of government should be in this regard, and I felt that the Supreme Court had spoken and that government shouldn't be involved and let people make their own decision. That all made a lot of sense to me. Then I became governor and the theoretical became reality. A bill came to my desk which related to the preservation of life. I recognized that I simply could not be part of an effort that would cause the destruction of human lift. And I didn't hide from that change of heart. I recognize it's a change. Every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as the governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life.


http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm

[tjvh]

The middle is the majority.
Democrats got their majority by moving to the center.
Republicans could take a cue from that.

The greater the purity, the smaller the tent.
Reagan is often brought up here as the answer for Republican woes.
But Reagan expanded the Republican tent, he didn't make it smaller.

I don't think the middle is the majority at all, I think we are led to believe that. I'd hardly call Barack Hussein Obama "moving" to the center... If anything he shows the Democrats moved way Left of center.

[zantax]

The middle is the majority.
Democrats got their majority by moving to the center.
Republicans could take a cue from that.

The greater the purity, the smaller the tent.
Reagan is often brought up here as the answer for Republican woes.
But Reagan expanded the Republican tent, he didn't make it smaller.

Then you should be very nervous about this administration governing from the hard left.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

The problem is the majority of Americans disagree with the views of those on the far right. That is why any attempt to remain pure will further reduce the amount of people in the party. Here's a hint: Charlie Christ is more electable than Sarah Palin.

A move to the center on certain issues is needed or the party will become extinct.

[tislaw]

The problem is the majority of Americans disagree with the views of those on the far right. That is why any attempt to remain pure will further reduce the amount of people in the party. Here's a hint: Charlie Christ is more electable than Sarah Palin.

A move to the center on certain issues is needed or the party will become extinct.


Go ahead and keep thinking that. Because the R party was most certainly "center" during this last election.

[StoneScratcher]

It wasn't an epiphany for Mitt. Our faith is against abortion, however, if I remember correctly, he just said he would uphold the law.


http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm

Thank you tislaw!

You know, I'm from MA and I guess I am so brainwashed from the bleets that went on about Romney, I just starting believing myself he did it for political "staging".

But I also know, too, he fought hard to get over $700K of Federal $$ into Massachusetts for sex education WITH abstinence. Unfortunately when Obama's pal, Deval Patrick (now Gov of MA) had that money given to MA, Deval Patrick TURNED IT AWAY because it had abstinence in it.

Romney was a good guy in MA. He had the budget balanced and was UNDER budget and we had millions in excess...

Now? MA is under martial law, taxes out the roof, mismanaged everything, and $20K curtains, a new Caddy etc goes to Deval.

Thanks again.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Go ahead and keep thinking that. Because the R party was most certainly "center" during this last election.

Nope, Sarah Palin pushed it to the far right. The whole "real" vs "fake" America, socialism charges, etc. Plus, it would be almost impossible for any incumbent party to win an election given the state of the country.

[dad49er]

I don't think the middle is the majority at all, I think we are led to believe that. I'd hardly call Barack Hussein Obama "moving" to the center... If anything he shows the Democrats moved way Left of center.

More people identify themselves as moderates as compared to conservatives, or liberals.
I'm talking about the party as a whole, not an individual candidate, since there are always exceptions.
Remember the complaints about the Democrats running conservative candidates? That was the party moving to the center.

[tislaw]

Nope, Sarah Palin pushed it to the far right. The whole "real" vs "fake" America, socialism charges, etc. Plus, it would be almost impossible for any incumbent party to win an election given the state of the country.

Palin was more center than Obama and Biden were with spreading the wealth and a host of other statements.

Besides, since when is the Presidential election about the Vice President nominee instead of the Presidential nominee?

[dad49er]

Then you should be very nervous about this administration governing from the hard left.

According to the 'far left' (DU, The Nation, etc) there not.
The complaints of the far left, and the liberal media is nearly as critical as the criticisms as the far right, and conservative media.

If the 'radicals' were really 'in charge' the radicals would not be complaining.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Palin was more center than Obama and Biden were with spreading the wealth and a host of other statements.

Besides, since when is the Presidential election about the Vice President nominee instead of the Presidential nominee?


This year the vice-presidential choices were very important. Obama for his lack of experience, and McCain for his age and health issues.

The selection of Palin pushed away independents from McCain or undecided into the Obama column.

[dad49er]

Palin was more center than Obama and Biden were with spreading the wealth and a host of other statements.

Besides, since when is the Presidential election about the Vice President nominee instead of the Presidential nominee?

For many undecided voters Palin was the deciding factor.
Most of those voted Obama.
I put myself in that category.

[tislaw]

This year the vice-presidential choices were very important. Obama for his lack of experience, and McCain for his age and health issues.

The selection of Palin pushed away independents from McCain or undecided into the Obama column.

I know many said that and many that supported Hillary came to support McCain. So, I would say that is a wash.

Many cons did not vote at all because they could NOT stand McCain, as well as many others voted 3rd party.

Attempts to say that the center are the power in election are disengenous, at best, IMO.

There were more than 1/3 of this country, w/eligble voters, who declined to vote. I would hazard a guess that we will see many of them turn out for the next elections.

I, personally, know of many who were so disgusted by the R's democrat lite approach that they absolutely refused to vote.

[tislaw]

For many undecided voters Palin was the deciding factor.
Most of those voted Obama.
I put myself in that category.


And thus were guilty of making it about VP rather than Pres.

The reasoning of McCain's age is ridiculous (by those who claim that is why is VP was so important). How old was Reagan when he left office? How old were retired Presidents when they dies, Nixon, etc. How old is Bush Sr.?

[yesterdaystomorrow]

I know many said that and many that supported Hillary came to support McCain. So, I would say that is a wash.

Many cons did not vote at all because they could NOT stand McCain, as well as many others voted 3rd party.

Attempts to say that the center are the power in election are disengenous, at best, IMO.

There were more than 1/3 of this country, w/eligble voters, who declined to vote. I would hazard a guess that we will see many of them turn out for the next elections.

I, personally, know of many who were so disgusted by the R's democrat lite approach that they absolutely refused to vote.

I don't believe you're going to see a dramatic shift in voter turnout during the next election. The turnout this election was higher than the past five I believe.

Also, I'm sure there are many on the far-left that would say they were disgusted by the "republican lite" approach that Obama had and refused to vote.

The problem for Republicans is America is moving away from the social conservatism of the far right, if the far right remains where it is now; it will slowly degenerate into nothing.

[tislaw]

I don't believe you're going to see a dramatic shift in voter turnout during the next election. The turnout this election was higher than the past five I believe.

Also, I'm sure there are many on the far-left that would say they were disgusted by the "republican lite" approach that Obama had and refused to vote.

The problem for Republicans is America is moving away from the social conservatism of the far right, if the far right remains where it is now; it will slowly degenerate into nothing.


That is not fact, that is your OPINION. I will gladly see that proven wrong.

I mean, the country got more socially liberal with Baby Boomers, and then us Gen Xers were more conservative than our parents. Social conservatism and liberalism are like businesses and weather patterns. Cyclical.

[Guild-Sfire]

And thus were guilty of making it about VP rather than Pres.

The reasoning of McCain's age is ridiculous (by those who claim that is why is VP was so important). How old was Reagan when he left office? How old were retired Presidents when they dies, Nixon, etc. How old is Bush Sr.?

Reagan had Alzheimers in the last part of his presidency.......

Age, can certainly be a factor.

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm going to ask it again. So far, this question has never been answered once, not a single time. It's a question that crushes the life out of any argument.

It is NOT a Zen Koan like "What is the sound of one hand clapping"? It is a question that reduces the other sides argument to rubble; it destroys the Libs and their sycophant mouthpieces in the LMSM.

Write it down so you too can ask it too, think of it like, "What is the best question? One that crushes your enemies, sees them driven before you, and lets you hear the lamentation of their women, like say David Brock."

Here it is:

"If Conservatism is no longer relevant in American political life, why did Barack Hussein Obama, a man who never voted for tax cuts once in his life, run on a platform of tax cuts and spending discipline?"

[yesterdaystomorrow]

That is not fact, that is your OPINION. I will gladly see that proven wrong.

I mean, the country got more socially liberal with Baby Boomers, and then us Gen Xers were more conservative than our parents. Social conservatism and liberalism are like businesses and weather patterns. Cyclical.

Of course its an opinion, but as elections and hard data are showing, its becoming reality. If America is going to turn socially conservative again it will probably take decades, in which case forget about 2010/2012.

I'm thinking from a politically realistic point of view; America is not going to embrace the current social conservative views by 2012.

[rodeo]

This is why I think the poll numbers from some pollsters is showing a decline in the number of Republicans.

For example, I don't even know if I'm a Republican anymore. I can't stand the John McCain's within the Party. Also, I don't want any Republican catering to religious groups for the sake of votes.

So if I were polled, I say I'm not a Republican because they are all messed up.

Where's the Party for the Republic? I'd vote for that one.

The media is trying to DEFINE what a Republican should be. And any idiot politician who follows what the media says or indicates is as blind as the muck George Washington scraped from his boots.

If I were polled, I would still say that I am a Republican.

We are faced with an interesting scenario.

The same people who keep trying to tell us...Conservatives as much as Republicans...that we are now irrelevant politically are going out of their way to insure that irrelevance by trying to re define us in their image, knowing full well that if they can succeed in that re defining, they will have succeeded in making us irrelevant.

I see know reason for the Conservative movement and the Republican party to listen to some commentator on Liberal CNN try to define what policies and positions we need to adopt in order to return to a position of political prominence. That commentator does not have the best interests of Conservatism/Republicans in mind. That commentator probably voted for Obama and supports everything he and Pelosi and Reid are trying to do to the country.

You don't succeed by taking advice from people who are trying to at best re define you in their image, and at worst who are trying to defeat/destroy you.

[Guild-Sfire]

Here it is:

"If Conservatism is no longer relevant in American political life, why did Barack Hussein Obama, a man who never voted for tax cuts once in his life, run on a platform of tax cuts and spending discipline?"

Before one tries to answer this question...can you support the underlined claim?

[rodeo]

The middle is the majority.
Democrats got their majority by moving to the center.
Republicans could take a cue from that.

The greater the purity, the smaller the tent.
Reagan is often brought up here as the answer for Republican woes.
But Reagan expanded the Republican tent, he didn't make it smaller.

Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in the middle?

[mboncher]

The middle is the majority.
Democrats got their majority by moving to the center.
Republicans could take a cue from that.

The greater the purity, the smaller the tent.
Reagan is often brought up here as the answer for Republican woes.
But Reagan expanded the Republican tent, he didn't make it smaller.
No, we've maintained a 35/30/35 split in this nation for pretty much our entire existence. it's not that the left has moved to the center as much as made people believe they moved to the center, while the right has moved to the center and lost it's support. Till you get a near 100% of the voting population participating, you'll never be too sure if this is true, but both sides are fighting over the middle third.

[rodeo]

I'm going to ask it again. So far, this question has never been answered once, not a single time. It's a question that crushes the life out of any argument.

It is NOT a Zen Koan like "What is the sound of one hand clapping"? It is a question that reduces the other sides argument to rubble; it destroys the Libs and their sycophant mouthpieces in the LMSM.

Write it down so you too can ask it too, think of it like, "What is the best question? One that crushes your enemies, sees them driven before you, and lets you hear the lamentation of their women, like say David Brock."

Here it is:

"If Conservatism is no longer relevant in American political life, why did Barack Hussein Obama, a man who never voted for tax cuts once in his life, run on a platform of tax cuts and spending discipline?"

The big lie is that Conservatism is no longer relevant.

Obama had to fool people into believing he was something that he is not....He had to present the illusion he was in the middle.

Obviously he's not.

You are correct in your assessment.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

I'm going to ask it again. So far, this question has never been answered once, not a single time. It's a question that crushes the life out of any argument.

It is NOT a Zen Koan like "What is the sound of one hand clapping"? It is a question that reduces the other sides argument to rubble; it destroys the Libs and their sycophant mouthpieces in the LMSM.

Write it down so you too can ask it too, think of it like, "What is the best question? One that crushes your enemies, sees them driven before you, and lets you hear the lamentation of their women, like say David Brock."

Here it is:

"If Conservatism is no longer relevant in American political life, why did Barack Hussein Obama, a man who never voted for tax cuts once in his life, run on a platform of tax cuts and spending discipline?"

Because they were tax cuts for the middle/working class. America is populist. Additionally, that is only one aspect of "conservatism" not the embodiment of it.

[CrusaderFrank]

Before one tries to answer this question...can you support the underlined claim?

He voted against Bush Tax cuts. Did he vote for a Tax cut on Pakalolo in Hawaii?

[sparky101]

The big lie is that Conservatism is no longer relevant.

Obama had to fool people into believing he was something that he is not....He had to present the illusion he was in the middle.

Obviously he's not.

You are correct in your assessment.

Actually theres a big lie in that last sentence that you conveniantly left out.

[mboncher]

More people identify themselves as moderates as compared to conservatives, or liberals.
I'm talking about the party as a whole, not an individual candidate, since there are always exceptions.
Remember the complaints about the Democrats running conservative candidates? That was the party moving to the center.
But if you push them to an issue by issue breakdown, they fall more to the right than left. If you allow for undecideds to happen, you get effectively no result. The question is one of what points people disagree on, not the quantity of Right v. Left.

[dad49er]

Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in the middle?

No.
I'm speaking of the party as a whole, those are exceptions. Even though I consider Obama to be a left leaning moderate.
Think back to the Republican complaints about Democrats running conservatives to win elections.
That was the move to the center, and it worked, Democrats now have the majority.

[mboncher]

According to the 'far left' (DU, The Nation, etc) there not.
The complaints of the far left, and the liberal media is nearly as critical as the criticisms as the far right, and conservative media.

If the 'radicals' were really 'in charge' the radicals would not be complaining.
You also left out the NY Times, ABC/NBC/CBS in your selection of far left media outlets.

[jimmyc123]

You can't turn on the news or pick up a newspaper lately without hearing or reading about how the republican party has moved too far right and should move to the center. In fact I'm watching some reporter on CNN tell Mitt Romney and Eric Cantor just that as I type. I'm not buying it and here's some fairly convincing proof.

from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/69_of_gop_voters_say_republicans_in_congress_out_o f_touch_with_the_party_base

Darn it, "to" in the title should be "too", not enough coffee in the system yet

So why didn't conservatives like Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, or Fred Thompson do better in the Republican primaries?

[tislaw]

Of course its an opinion, but as elections and hard data are showing, its becoming reality. If America is going to turn socially conservative again it will probably take decades, in which case forget about 2010/2012.

I'm thinking from a politically realistic point of view; America is not going to embrace the current social conservative views by 2012.
http://newpolitics.net/node/360?full_report=1

Gen Xers continue to be the most Republican generation today, while the Millennials are emerging as the most Democratic generation by a substantial margin. Other polls of Millennials or Millennial-dominated age groups confirm this solid Democratic lead in party ID. Indeed, on election day in 2006, the exit polls showed the Democrats with a 12 point lead on party ID among 18-29 year old voters. Numerous political science studies confirm that party identifications and associated voting behavior, once formed in a generation’s twenties, tend to persist over the life course.


See, cyclical

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28956.html

Conservatives can point to a 2002 survey conducted by the University of California at Berkeley, hardly a noted bastion of right-wing bias, that found today's teens are far more likely than adults to support prayer in school, federal aid to faith-based charities, and restrictions on abortion. Or to a recent Newsweek Web piece on "The New Cool" that noted the rise of a conservative sensibility even in self-consciously edgy youth magazines. Or to a study by the Harvard Institute of Politics that found college students supporting the war in Iraq by a ratio of 2 to 1. A much cited (and much ridiculed) piece in The New York Times Magazine even coined the cringe-inducing term "Hipublicans" to describe the new collegiate right.

Those who lean left can adduce evidence of their own to suggest that kids today are good little progressives. According to the Institute of Politics survey, college students' trust in the federal government, while down from its post-9/11 peak, remains 15 percentage points higher than in 2000, a drastic departure from Generation X skepticism. Then there's the case made by Anna Greenberg of the Kennedy School of Government. While their Gen X predecessors were a highly conservative bunch, Greenberg writes in The American Prospect, Millennials have "halted these trends toward Republicanism fairly decisively." She cites their "progressive, populist" attitudes on the environment, gay rights, and affirmative action.

"Millennials," says Beale, "might look at politics and say 'these people suck,' whereas Gen Xers and baby boomers before them were more likely to say, 'Man, these people suck and the system sucks.'" The new attitude may make Millennials dangerously susceptible to that old utopian mantra: "If only we had the right people in charge..." As Strauss observes, boomers and Gen Xers were "raised not to follow Hitler or Stalin; Millennials were a post-consciousness raising generation."

All that points to cyclical belief systems.

[Logical425]

That is not fact, that is your OPINION. I will gladly see that proven wrong.

I mean, the country got more socially liberal with Baby Boomers, and then us Gen Xers were more conservative than our parents. Social conservatism and liberalism are like businesses and weather patterns. Cyclical.

:hug: +1

Our generation will bring America back towards its conservative roots when we are of age, at least in my opinion. So many of us are conservative, far more conservative than our parents (who grew up in the 50's-70s'). Also, couldn't agree more with how our country swings like a pendulum on social issues. Been going left for decades, that will change.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

http://newpolitics.net/node/360?full_report=1



See, cyclical

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28956.html







All that points to cyclical belief systems.

Yes, and this looks like it will be a very long center/ center left cycle. Some things are not cyclical. The number of people approving of gay marriage, stem-cell research, and abortion have been increasing for years and years. Approval will constantly increase until laws are made allowing each. Same with other civil rights issues of the past such as segregation. If the party does not want to move, society will move without them.

[mboncher]

That is not fact, that is your OPINION. I will gladly see that proven wrong.

I mean, the country got more socially liberal with Baby Boomers, and then us Gen Xers were more conservative than our parents. Social conservatism and liberalism are like businesses and weather patterns. Cyclical.
:clap: :dance: :Clap:

As the baby boomers age, you will watch the left slowly slough off of this nation. What's the average demographic for those who support the DNC anyway? 49-69 range? There's always an uptick for radical idealism in the youthful demographics purely because they haven't been separated from the indoctrination of school long enough yet and experienced life long enough to realize it's a bunch of bollocks.

But well said Tis. Well said.

[tislaw]

:hug: +1

Our generation will bring America back towards its conservative roots when we are of age, at least in my opinion. So many of us are conservative, far more conservative than our parents (who grew up in the 50's-70s'). Also, couldn't agree more with how our country swings like a pendulum on social issues. Been going left for decades, that will change.


I tend to think so as well.

[mboncher]

Yes, and this looks like it will be a very long center/ center left cycle. Some things are not cyclical. The number of people approving of gay marriage, stem-cell research, and abortion have been increasing for years and years. Approval will constantly increase until laws are made allowing each. Same with other civil rights issues of the past such as segregation. If the party does not want to move, society will move without them.
Not really, thanks to Talk Radio and the intertoobs, what we see now is essentially the last ditch push of the "Me" generation trying to codify and validate all their liberalism and radical hate towards the concept of originalist American ideals.

Fortunately, I can see apolitical economic realities destroying it all for them. You can't hold the market at bay forever. It may have taken 80 years for the Soviets to finally fall to that, but they were willing to live under a lot worse circumstances than Americans are.

[RTchoke]

So why didn't conservatives like Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, or Fred Thompson do better in the Republican primaries?

I never got a chance to vote for anyone other than McCain or Ron Paul in the primaries. By the time we got to vote, those fabulous "key states" made the decision for us.

Yeah!!! :rolleyes:

[rodeo]

Actually theres a big lie in that last sentence that you conveniantly left out.

What last sentence would that be?

[mawst95]

I think the media says the GOP is moving far right is due to some polling numbers and trends. The number of self-identifying Republicans is something hovering around or just under 30%. What happened to the other 18% or so? Some became Dems, like the case in PA where moderate R's switched to vote in the PA Dem primary (this is one fact that pushed Specter to switch). You also have ****ed off R's that became independents and they are a trickier group since Indies span the gamut of far-right to far-left. Polls regarding Obama's popularity and support for his more liberal initiatives may be instructive in this regard. For instance, Obama has very strong Dem support, but also pretty strong independent support. Same with his policies--his budget and health care policies have fairly strong independent support. If you look at that group of 30% or so self-identifying R's they pretty much universally oppose Obama and the Dems. This fact and other polls lead one to surmise that what's left of the R party is hard-right. I don't think its a media conspiracy and certainly you're view on the rightness, centeredness, or leftness of the current R party depends on your own ideological perspective. I think this new meme is a fair reading of the polling data which exist right now.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Not really, thanks to Talk Radio and the intertoobs, what we see now is essentially the last ditch push of the "Me" generation trying to codify and validate all their liberalism.

Unfortunately, I can see apolitical economic realities destroying it all for them. You can't hold the market at bay forever. It may have taken 80 years for the Soviets to finally fall to that, but they were willing to live under a lot worse circumstances than Americans are.

The internet generation is probably the most liberal generation that there will be. With data at people's fingertips and access to unbiased news sources, people can make decisions without listening to talking heads or anything else.

Also, if you want to see just how much the younger generation of American's despise the Republican party, just look at any of the RNC youtube videos.

This is how you turn off an entire generation of Americans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKNbi-_Mxo8&feature=related

Until something changes here, the Republican party will continue falling.

[rory]

This is why I think the poll numbers from some pollsters is showing a decline in the number of Republicans.

For example, I don't even know if I'm a Republican anymore. I can't stand the John McCain's within the Party. Also, I don't want any Republican catering to religious groups for the sake of votes.

So if I were polled, I say I'm not a Republican because they are all messed up.

Where's the Party for the Republic? I'd vote for that one.

The media is trying to DEFINE what a Republican should be. And any idiot politician who follows what the media says or indicates is as blind as the muck George Washington scraped from his boots.
Anybody that blames the media for all the problems of the Republican party are cowards. The Cons loved the media when they were piling on Clinton, they loved the media when they were chomping at the bit to cover the Iraq war.
The media does what the media does it works both ways.

[Guild-Sfire]

He voted against Bush Tax cuts. Did he vote for a Tax cut on Pakalolo in Hawaii?


In the Illinois State Senate, this meant working with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state.

I will concur...that he most likely has never voted for tax cuts aimed at the rich.....

[tislaw]

Yes, and this looks like it will be a very long center/ center left cycle. Some things are not cyclical. The number of people approving of gay marriage, stem-cell research, and abortion have been increasing for years and years. Approval will constantly increase until laws are made allowing each. Same with other civil rights issues of the past such as segregation. If the party does not want to move, society will move without them.


You need to back that up with some facts, here I'll help

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2939293&page=1


The number of Americans who say abortion should be legal in all cases, 16 percent, is down 11 points from its peak of 27 percent in 1995. At the same time, the 12 percent who say abortion should be flatly illegal is down eight points from its high, 20 percent in 2001 and 2004. As these have fallen, "mostly legal" and "mostly illegal" responses have risen.





http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm




And if you look at the polls on the rest of the page, the numbers are pretty static.

[tislaw]

I never got a chance to vote for anyone other than McCain or Ron Paul in the primaries. By the time we got to vote, those fabulous "key states" made the decision for us.

Yeah!!! :rolleyes:


Same here except in the national, we had RP as a choice in national but not in primary, I was a Fred Thompson fan, he was my first choice.

[CrusaderFrank]

The internet generation is probably the most liberal generation that there will be. With data at people's fingertips and access to unbiased news sources, people can make decisions without listening to talking heads or anything else.

Also, if you want to see just how much the younger generation of American's despise the Republican party, just look at any of the RNC youtube videos.

This is how you turn off an entire generation of Americans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKNbi-_Mxo8&feature=related

Until something changes here, the Republican party will continue falling.

They'll turn away from Libs, when they realize they have to pay for all that.

My oldest son came back from freshman semester at NYU a screaming Lib.

His faith in Librulism was ****tered when he received his first pay check. "The government didn't do 30% of my work, why should I give them 30% of my pay?!" was how he turned away from Librulism, never to return.

[CrusaderFrank]

I will concur...that he most likely has never voted for tax cuts aimed at the rich.....

I'm sorry, did you overlook his voting record in the US Senate? I know his stay there was very brief, but he did get a chance to vote on tax cuts there.

How did he vote?

[johnrocks]

As a whole, the GOP has moved further toward the Democrats. It appears that the GOP supporter base ( as a whole ) has as well. The GOP is a big government party.

Yes indeed it is, want to see support of big government by conservatives,visit some of the drug, marriage, foreign policy and even economic threads.

[tislaw]

The internet generation is probably the most liberal generation that there will be. With data at people's fingertips and access to unbiased news sources, people can make decisions without listening to talking heads or anything else.

Also, if you want to see just how much the younger generation of American's despise the Republican party, just look at any of the RNC youtube videos.

This is how you turn off an entire generation of Americans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKNbi-_Mxo8&feature=related

Until something changes here, the Republican party will continue falling.


Again, supposition w/no hard evidence or even basic facts.

I've provided information that while the millienial generation tends to lean more democrat there was a large number of them that are Rs as well.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

You need to back that up with some facts, here I'll help

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2939293&page=1






http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm




And if you look at the polls on the rest of the page, the numbers are pretty static.

In otherwords, America is moderate.

The polls, like the CNN one, show an increase in the number that approve of abortion from previous years. Or they show little to no change;however, there is a majority showing pro-choice.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Again, supposition w/no hard evidence or even basic facts.

I've provided information that while the millienial generation tends to lean more democrat there was a large number of them that are Rs as well.

The last election is enough evidence to tell us about how the current youth are voting, and how they will continue to vote.

[tislaw]

In otherwords, America is moderate.

The polls, like the CNN one, show an increase in the number that approve of abortion from previous years. Or they show little to no change;however, there is a majority showing pro-choice.


Nice spin.

No, what the numbers show is in "certain" cases, support for abortion has grown, most likely from those previously against any abortion.

However, support for abortion at any time has decreased into in most cases.

Overall, the numbers for and against have remained static through the years.

[sparky101]

I'm sorry, did you overlook his voting record in the US Senate? I know his stay there was very brief, but he did get a chance to vote on tax cuts there.

How did he vote?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/540/

Please read.

[tislaw]

The last election is enough evidence to tell us about how the current youth are voting, and how they will continue to vote.


Again, no. What it showed was an anything but Bush (or ties to Bush) election.

You can't make an accurate gauge out of just one election.

[mawst95]

I wouldn't use abortion as the litmus test of where America stands ideologically.

[mawst95]

2006 and 2008 are 2 elections.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Nice spin.

No, what the numbers show is in "certain" cases, support for abortion has grown, most likely from those previously against any abortion.

However, support for abortion at any time has decreased into in most cases.

Overall, the numbers for and against have remained static through the years.

The fact is America is in the middle, you won't win any elections with radicals advocating the overturning of Roe v Wade.

They have remained static in a support for abortion, there has been no decline.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

I wouldn't use abortion as the litmus test of where America stands ideologically.

This is true, abortion is a really touchy subject.

[tislaw]

2006 and 2008 are 2 elections.


*smack* Where have you been? Haven't seen your smart ass for months.

2006 was also about people sick of R spending.

And the approval for Congress just in this last year were atrocious.

So if things change in 2010 and Obama is out in 2012 can I point to that as evidence of a shift to the right?

I wouldn't do, because it is NOT significant evidentiary support of that notion.

[tislaw]

The fact is America is in the middle, you won't win any elections with radicals advocating the overturning of Roe v Wade.

They have remained static in a support for abortion, there has been no decline.


And vice versa statically.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

And vice versa statically.

Yes, the problem is that Roe v Wade is already a law, thus any attempt to overturn it will be met with a lot of skepticism and resistance by the American public. I bet if there was a poll for overturning Roe v Wade, the results would be lower than those who are pro life or slightly pro-life.

[tislaw]

Yes, the problem is that Roe v Wade is already a law, thus any attempt to overturn it will be met with a lot of skepticism and resistance by the American public. I bet if there was a poll for overturning Roe v Wade, the results would be lower than those who are pro life or slightly pro-life.


Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision, but I'd also bet you that instead of overturning Roe v. Wade but instead placing more restrictions on abortion you'd the results in favor restrictions increase.

[mawst95]

*smack* Where have you been? Haven't seen your smart ass for months.

2006 was also about people sick of R spending.

And the approval for Congress just in this last year were atrocious.

So if things change in 2010 and Obama is out in 2012 can I point to that as evidence of a shift to the right?

I wouldn't do, because it is NOT significant evidentiary support of that notion.

I live in DC now and I can't post to the forums from work and plus everything is "Obama sucks, he's not a citizen, socialism, blah blah" and it gets old given my preferred ideology.

I don't think 2 elections make a trend, no. But I think there has been a left shift in the past 3 years. Look at support for government intervention in things like the economy and health care. Dems and Indies really support BO's policies like it or not. I think the days of "Federal Government is evil!" are over.

I also think there are some disturbing trends for the GOP. The average voter old and white and most likely from the South or Mid-West. Younger voters are generally pro-environment, pro-gay rights and haven't been ingrained with the old Regan gov't is out to get you stuff. You've ceded the North East and the Southwest isn't trending well for you. And you've lost blacks and hispanics, the latter of which will really hurt you as their numbers skyrocket. The GOP could find itself in the wilderness for quite a while.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Of course the GOP is too far right for progressives. Not until it is just another wing on their own party would they say otherwise. This is just the sort of thing that Republicans need to learn to ignore. Taking advice from the opposition to heart even a little, is pointless. Who cares what they think.

As we both know, there isn't much difference at all between the two. Sadly, most seem to think otherwise despite the slap of reality in their face day after day.

[nebcon]

The problem is the majority of Americans disagree with the views of those on the far right. That is why any attempt to remain pure will further reduce the amount of people in the party. Here's a hint: Charlie Christ is more electable than Sarah Palin.

A move to the center on certain issues is needed or the party will become extinct.

Prove it. I'm tired of hearing you people spout this unsupportable tripe without a shred of proof. What you see in polls and academic studies on the subject is invariably about voting trends. Voting trends

ARE NOT CORE VALUES!

Trends in voting are driven by a number of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with core values. Including, but not restricted to, misinformation, false assumptions, ignorance, tradition (daddy was a Democrat, I am too), self interest, sobbing candidates and poor messengers.

Now I don't know what you think of as the "far right". More often than not that refers to theocratic evangelicals, and on that I would agree. However that policy view is NOT CONSERVATISM.

So produce the studies that show this conclusively. I doubt you can. Everyone wants to think that they have the majority opinion, but if you have no proof, you are simply spouting off.

[tislaw]

I live in DC now and I can't post to the forums from work and plus everything is "Obama sucks, he's not a citizen, socialism, blah blah" and it gets old given my preferred ideology.

I don't think 2 elections make a trend, no. But I think there has been a left shift in the past 3 years. Look at support for government intervention in things like the economy and health care. Dems and Indies really support BO's policies like it or not. I think the days of "Federal Government is evil!" are over.

I also think there are some disturbing trends for the GOP. The average voter old and white and most likely from the South or Mid-West. Younger voters are generally pro-environment, pro-gay rights and haven't been ingrained with the old Regan gov't is out to get you stuff. You've ceded the North East and the Southwest isn't trending well for you. And you've lost blacks and hispanics, the latter of which will really hurt you as their numbers skyrocket. The GOP could find itself in the wilderness for quite a while.


Well, I'm glad that you decided to come back around, at least when you have some down time.

I think we will just have to wait to see.

Antecdotal evidence I've seen is that there are just as many young people (4 out of 6) in my office that are conservative/libertarian.

The GOP does have huge problems, with much of its base, including me.

[tislaw]

As we both know, there isn't much difference at all between the two. Sadly, most seem to think otherwise despite the slap of reality in their face day after day.

Exactly.

[tislaw]

Prove it. I'm tired of hearing you people spout this unsupportable tripe without a shred of proof. What you see in polls and academic studies on the subject is invariably about voting trends. Voting trends

ARE NOT CORE VALUES!

Trends in voting are driven by a number of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with core values. Including, but not restricted to, misinformation, false assumptions, ignorance, tradition (daddy was a Democrat, I am too), self interest, sobbing candidates and poor messengers.

Now I don't know what you think of as the "far right". More often than not that refers to theocratic evangelicals, and on that I would agree. However that policy view is NOT CONSERVATISM.

So produce the studies that show this conclusively. I doubt you can. Everyone wants to think that they have the majority opinion, but if you have no proof, you are simply spouting off.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Logical425]

Yes, the problem is that Roe v Wade is already a law, thus any attempt to overturn it will be met with a lot of skepticism and resistance by the American public. I bet if there was a poll for overturning Roe v Wade, the results would be lower than those who are pro life or slightly pro-life.

I can safely assume you have no idea what you are talking about. Every post is filled with fact-LESS claims that support your argument. The internet will produce the "most liberal generation ever." Using abortion as a basis to claim America as a NATION is moderate or left-leaning.

And now a hyperbole about America as a whole concerning an entire IDEOLOGY.:rolleyes:

Seeing Christianity is based upon the principle of pro-life, with 75% or more of the nation identifying with Christianity, your assertions are wrong.(http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html)

[Logical425]

Well, I'm glad that you decided to come back around, at least when you have some down time.

I think we will just have to wait to see.

Antecdotal evidence I've seen is that there are just as many young people (4 out of 6) in my office that are conservative/libertarian.

The GOP does have huge problems, with much of its base, including me.

Agreed. I hope the GOP can go back to its base and let conservatism reign. If they do so, they will see there numbers exponentially increase. But, people like McCain, Specter, and Snowe to name some hurt the party much more than Democrats ever could. America is ready for a conservative president, it was this election, but no one showed up (of course Obama had no problem running on conservative values).

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Prove it. I'm tired of hearing you people spout this unsupportable tripe without a shred of proof. What you see in polls and academic studies on the subject is invariably about voting trends. Voting trends

ARE NOT CORE VALUES!

Trends in voting are driven by a number of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with core values. Including, but not restricted to, misinformation, false assumptions, ignorance, tradition (daddy was a Democrat, I am too), self interest, sobbing candidates and poor messengers.

Now I don't know what you think of as the "far right". More often than not that refers to theocratic evangelicals, and on that I would agree. However that policy view is NOT CONSERVATISM.

So produce the studies that show this conclusively. I doubt you can. Everyone wants to think that they have the majority opinion, but if you have no proof, you are simply spouting off.

I don't get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that I should prove that the "core values," of America have been changing? Core values are different between every individual. We are talking about how to win elections here, and the future of a POLITICAL party.

My view of far right is the theocratic evangelist, or the abuser of the state. The people that are against gay marriage because it "threatens their values" the people that would use the state to interfere in other peoples lives. The same people that use fear as a way to manipulate the public. The people who would rather we invade a country, rather than analyze the consequences of such an action: The interventionists. People who claim to be moral, but advocate torture. People who claim to be pro-life, but advocate the death penalty. I could go on and on.

[tislaw]

Agreed. I hope the GOP can go back to its base and let conservatism reign. If they do so, they will see there numbers exponentially increase. But, people like McCain, Specter, and Snowe to name some hurt the party much more than Democrats ever could. America is ready for a conservative president, it was this election, but no one showed up (of course Obama had no problem running on conservative values).


We are our own worst enemy, in all things, including politics.

[Logical425]

I don't get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that I should prove that the "core values," of America have been changing? Core values are different between every individual. We are talking about how to win elections here, and the future of a POLITICAL party.

My view of far right is the theocratic evangelist, or the abuser of the state. The people that are against gay marriage because it "threatens their values" the people that would use the state to interfere in other peoples lives. The same people that use fear as a way to manipulate the public. The people who would rather we invade a country, rather than analyze the consequences of such an action: The interventionists. People who claim to be moral, but advocate torture. People who claim to be pro-life, but advocate the death penalty. I could go on and on.

See: Deflection, Spin.

Could you please provide the evidence to support your claims?

[tislaw]

I don't get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that I should prove that the "core values," of America have been changing? Core values are different between every individual. We are talking about how to win elections here, and the future of a POLITICAL party.

My view of far right is the theocratic evangelist, or the abuser of the state. The people that are against gay marriage because it "threatens their values" the people that would use the state to interfere in other peoples lives. The same people that use fear as a way to manipulate the public. The people who would rather we invade a country, rather than analyze the consequences of such an action: The interventionists. People who claim to be moral, but advocate torture. People who claim to be pro-life, but advocate the death penalty. I could go on and on.


It's the assumptions that get you every time.

You seem to think because someone objects to same sex marriage it is because it threatens their values.

I have varying reasons for opposing it, the least of which has to do with religion or faith, the most of my opposition has to do with societal norms and the reason for which marriage was advocated by society from the beginning.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

See: Deflection, Spin.

Could you please provide the evidence to support your claims?

What spin?

What claims are you talking about? I just asked you in the previous post.

[Logical425]

We are our own worst enemy, in all things, including politics.

You have to stop using that common sense and logic, it scares people. :lol:

[tislaw]

You have to stop using that common sense and logic, it scares people. :lol:

Stop? How do I do that? It does not compute :razz:

[Logical425]

What spin?

What claims are you talking about? I just asked you in the previous post.

Do I really need to go through this thread and point out the claims you made based upon your opinion then stated them as facts?

Here is one for you, since you can't recall what YOU said:

"The internet generation will be the most Liberal generation, ever."

Look, I am not saying you are wrong, but I am asking you show some proof to back up such a large claim. Just as people in this thread have when claims were made (Generation X is more conservative than Baby Boomers for example).

[MustangGT]

You can't turn on the news or pick up a newspaper lately without hearing or reading about how the republican party has moved too far right and should move to the center. In fact I'm watching some reporter on CNN tell Mitt Romney and Eric Cantor just that as I type. I'm not buying it and here's some fairly convincing proof.

from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/69_of_gop_voters_say_republicans_in_congress_out_o f_touch_with_the_party_base

Darn it, "to" in the title should be "too", not enough coffee in the system yet

Uh, Reagan's "Big Tent" Republican Party has been getting smaller for years. Those years of a shrinking Republican tent was punctuated by the defection of SENIOR Republican Senator, Arlen Specter, who originally assumed office in the aftermath of the Reagan revolution just prior to Reagan, himself, being sworn into office in 1981.

After all, Specter isn't some back bencher or first term Senator. He's served in major chairmanship positions and he's been in the US Senate for 28 years.

[tislaw]

Uh, Reagan's "Big Tent" Republican Party has been getting smaller for years. Those years of a shrinking Republican tent was punctuated by the defection of SENIOR Republican Senator, Arlen Specter, who originally assumed office in the aftermath of the Reagan revolution just prior to Reagan, himself, being sworn into office in 1981.

After all, Specter isn't some back bencher or first term Senator. He's served in major chairmanship positions and he's been in the US Senate for 28 years.


Who was a democrat before he was a Republican, so.....?

Would you be saying the same thing about the Dems if Leibermann had decided to switch to Rs instead of I?

[MustangGT]

Who was a democrat before he was a Republican, so.....?

Would you be saying the same thing about the Dems if Leibermann had decided to switch to Rs instead of I?

...which should tell conservatives something about what's happened to the coalition of Repbulicans and conservative Democrats that Reagan forged almost 30 years ago.

[tislaw]

...which should tell conservatives something about what's happened to the coalition of Repbulicans and conservative Democrats that Reagan forged almost 30 years ago.


Which is why the "base" is so ticked at the current state of the GOP.

I'm sorry, Specter's defection should have happened long ago.

I think one unifying theme that those who have traditionally supported the GOP would like is fiscal responsibility and less government.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Do I really need to go through this thread and point out the claims you made based upon your opinion then stated them as facts?

Here is one for you, since you can't recall what YOU said:

"The internet generation will be the most Liberal generation, ever."

Look, I am not saying you are wrong, but I am asking you show some proof to back up such a large claim. Just as people in this thread have when claims were made (Generation X is more conservative than Baby Boomers for example).

By liberal I guess I mean anti-Republican party as they stand now. From what I've OBSERVED the internet generation tends to be socially liberal, and economically conservative. Look at youtube and compare the ratings/comments on any political video with over thousands of views. As far as national defense the internet generation SEEM to prefer strong national defense, but not the stubborn posturing and intervention of previous administrations. This explains the success of candidates like Ron Paul and Barack Obama whose initial backing came primarily from the internet.

I do believe that with youth there is potential for a libertarian-esque candidate, but not a social-authoritarian one.

Here is a piece by a professor Jim Burkee. He explains it much better than I can.

This love of liberty translates into a unique political composite. Gen-Yers are less nationalistic and more likely to see all politicians as corrupt than older voters. They support liberalization of drug laws and would prefer to see marijuana legalized. And they are much less likely to support restrictions on immigration than older voters. On these counts, they seem to lean left of center, at least as the political spectrum is defined today.



But they are also free-traders, much more supportive of globalization than older voters. They're optimistic, overwhelmingly believing that they can change the country for the better. And in the most recent surveys, they support proposals to privatize Social Security, which few believe will be there for them when they retire. On these counts, they seem to lean right of center

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/42998747.html

[TCUFan]

By liberal I guess I mean anti-Republican party as they stand now. From what I've OBSERVED the internet generation tends to be socially liberal, and economically conservative. Look at youtube and compare the ratings/comments on any political video with over thousands of views. As far as national defense the internet generation SEEM to prefer strong national defense, but not the stubborn posturing and intervention of previous administrations. This explains the success of candidates like Ron Paul and Barack Obama whose initial backing came primarily from the internet.

I do believe that with youth there is potential for a libertarian-esque candidate, but not a social-authoritarian one.

Here is a piece by a professor Jim Burkee. He explains it much better than I can.



http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/42998747.html

Which just means Gen Y'ers are as addled by ideology as the most hardened of segregationists. You can't get 100 people in the same room to agree that ice cream's a pretty good dessert. How the hell do you think you're going to change the world for the better?

Head over to Gaza and see how long that idealism lasts.

People are stupid. They get even crazier when you start putting them in large groups. Today, it's 'Legalize Pot', tomorrow it might be 'Kill the Jews'.

TCUFan

[mamapajamas]

Nope, Sarah Palin pushed it to the far right. The whole "real" vs "fake" America, socialism charges, etc. Plus, it would be almost impossible for any incumbent party to win an election given the state of the country.

Sarah Palin was #2 on the ticket. It was MCCAIN who kept Republican voters home in droves.

McCain was too far left, but more "tolerable" than Obama. It was his last-minute scramble to support Bush's TARP thing that was the last straw for way too many of us.

Keep on thinking that the GOP is "too far right". You're in for a really nasty surprise down the line. ;)

And when Obama's "tax credit" turns into "the shriek heard 'round the world" next tax cycle, when people who have always gotten a tax refund discover that they are not only going to get a smaller tax refund, but might actually have to write a check to the IRS, there's going to be some REAL changes made... in Congress. :))

[TCUFan]

I love it when people say Palin cost McCain the election. I laugh hysterically.

McCain didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell to begin with and Palin is the only reason he got the votes he did.

Had he picked anyone else, the defeat would have been even more resounding.

TCUFan

[blackcatrun]

Why is religion any part of being a Conservative?

This is what I mean.

Keep religion out, imo. I consider myself Conservative, but that doesn't mean I have to discuss my religion to be one. Right?

Part of the " political mob" type of thinking is why. you know the {incert, race,sexuality,religion,non-religion,stupid here} type of politics. Frankly very bigoted and shallow in scope.
They may ask me but the words non of the biz wax comes out as a responce.

Follow the constitution you damned idiots is mostly what I believe political partys need to be. Other wise than that the rest is pure bull droppings with a lot of flys.

[MustangGT]

Which is why the "base" is so ticked at the current state of the GOP.

I'm sorry, Specter's defection should have happened long ago.

I think one unifying theme that those who have traditionally supported the GOP would like is fiscal responsibility and less government.

Fiscal responsibility went out the window when Clinton moved out of the WH and Bush move in.

Specter's defection, while self-serving, still probably wouldn't have happened if the conservative base of the GOP wasn't trying to drag the party even further to the right by haranguing party members who don't pass some kind of conservative litmus test and charges of RINO every time a member votes his conscience on an issue.

Whether you like it or not, if conservatives don't pull the GOP back from the edge of the abyss on which they're currently forcing the GOP to stand because of their desire to pull the party further to the right, they're about to relegate the Republican Party to minoirtiy party status for maybe the next 20 years or longer just as the electorate as a whole is moving in the other direction. That's what's known as a self-inflicted wound.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

I love it when people say Palin cost McCain the election. I laugh hysterically.

McCain didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell to begin with and Palin is the only reason he got the votes he did.

Had he picked anyone else, the defeat would have been even more resounding.

TCUFan

If McCain would've picked someone else it probably would've been a little bit closer.

The majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of Governor Palin as of now. If the GOP wants to continue losing elections then by all means run her in 2012, it would be the final nail in the coffin.

Also, people need to stop with the claims that liberals fear Sarah Palin because it's simply not true. It's quite the opposite, like Michael Steele, she is the gift that keeps on giving.

[blackcatrun]

If McCain would've picked someone else it probably would've been a little bit closer.

The majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of Governor Palin as of now. If the GOP wants to continue losing elections then by all means run her in 2012, it would be the final nail in the coffin.

Also, people need to stop with the claims that liberals fear Sarah Palin because it's simply not true. It's quite the opposite, like Michael Steele, she is the gift that keeps on giving.

You a registered Republican?

[yesterdaystomorrow]

You a registered Republican?

Nope I'm a realist.

[ChaosControl]

The GOP needs to be the party of the constitution, the party of the people. It needs to stop being the party of the bankers and corporations. Same goes for the Democratic party.

It isn't about too liberal or too conservative, those terms are meaningless. It is about whether the party truly is for the benefit of the people or not. Right now, neither party is.

Neither party is right wing or left wing, they are corporate wing. The GOP has not gone to the right and the Democratic party hasn't gone to the left. I used to the think the Democrats were going further left, getting more "liberal", but that isn't really the issue at all. That isn't what is happening. People blame it on being too far right or too far left, however it wouldn't really matter as long as the parties actually represented the people.

[blackcatrun]

Nope I'm a realist.

Yeah we are experiancing that reality of FAILER of the progressive movement without any doubt. fine job so far of killing this nation one step at a time.
Which means you have no idea what your going on about any canidate for the Republican side. {like the republicans party has any room to crow success either} The democrat side has nothing but failer written all over it dispite this many still cheer for them.

Which means they are not really stable in the thinking dept.

As a constitutionalist none of them have any appeal for my considered vote. As we are stuck with "lame controlists" no matter what party one belongs to. those whom follow this become subject instead of one indavidual. Which means you are granted rights by the authority.


Yes I am a bit angry over those whom choose to follow such controlists and demand our allegance to a monarchy rather than the rules reguarding our founding.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Yeah we are experiancing that reality of FAILER of the progressive movement without any doubt. fine job so far of killing this nation one step at a time.
Which means you have no idea what your going on about any canidate for the Republican side. {like the republicans party has any room to crow success either} The democrat side has nothing but failer written all over it dispite this many still cheer for them.

Which means they are not really stable in the thinking dept.

As a constitutionalist none of them have any appeal for my considered vote. As we are stuck with "lame controlists" no matter what party one belongs to. those whom follow this become subject instead of one indavidual. Which means you are granted rights by the authority.


Yes I am a bit angry over those whom choose to follow such controlists and demand our allegance to a monarchy rather than the rules reguarding our founding.

Yes, the constitution is an important building blockof our society, but the founders were not perfect. People have to realize this, even back then many of the founders had different views on how the state should be run.

Other than that, I can't really make out the other points you are trying to make.

[blackcatrun]

The GOP needs to be the party of the constitution, the party of the people. It needs to stop being the party of the bankers and corporations. Same goes for the Democratic party.

It isn't about too liberal or too conservative, those terms are meaningless. It is about whether the party truly is for the benefit of the people or not. Right now, neither party is.

Neither party is right wing or left wing, they are corporate wing. The GOP has not gone to the right and the Democratic party hasn't gone to the left. I used to the think the Democrats were going further left, getting more "liberal", but that isn't really the issue at all. That isn't what is happening. People blame it on being too far right or too far left, however it wouldn't really matter as long as the parties actually represented the people.

As this nation goes on the willto put a name on a bill or building or just have the name out there enough to be reconized by the whole nation no matter how much it hurts America while they do this. ALL of it has become a game for control over our lives in places the government was never ment to be in.

We become so distant from each other EVEN HATE EACH OTHER for the simple ideals of a party political base, which is anouther form of control.

The whole lot of them politicians stink like the death of freedom.

[ChaosControl]

Yes. In a way I think they all encourage the bickering over petty differences. The more divided the people, the weaker the people and the more powerful the government.

[mboncher]

The internet generation is probably the most liberal generation that there will be. With data at people's fingertips and access to unbiased news sources, people can make decisions without listening to talking heads or anything else.

Also, if you want to see just how much the younger generation of American's despise the Republican party, just look at any of the RNC youtube videos.

This is how you turn off an entire generation of Americans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKNbi-_Mxo8&feature=related

Until something changes here, the Republican party will continue falling.
That smacks of whistling past the graveyard. Second you're talking party affiliation, not philosophical bent. The GOP has drifted left, very much so. The people have not. Don't be surprised if a 3rd party does rise up in the next 4-12 years that supplants the GOP as both the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party will vie for it's replacement.

[blackcatrun]

Yes, the constitution is an important building blockof our society, but the founders were not perfect. People have to realize this, even back then many of the founders had different views on how the state should be run.

Other than that, I can't really make out the other points you are trying to make.

Of course you cant, I require thinking for communications. Something that humans often forget to do in this day and age. Which is why you need to be told what to do by lessers of this world.

Nothing has changed from the day this nation started until today. To comand a change of the rules for a new set of ideals is asking for milions to die in the horrors that will follow.
Only the tools we use in our lives have changed the human has not.

[mboncher]

Yes, the problem is that Roe v Wade is already a law, thus any attempt to overturn it will be met with a lot of skepticism and resistance by the American public. I bet if there was a poll for overturning Roe v Wade, the results would be lower than those who are pro life or slightly pro-life.
I think the days of "Federal Government is evil!" are over.

No, the belief that this is true are over. In the next 4 years, they will be proven that the Federal Government needs to return to it's constitutional roles and quit being a charitable organization for humanitarian aid. Support your favorite non-profit for that, and quit demanding money for your pet cause by force of a gun in taxes.

[mboncher]

Uh, Reagan's "Big Tent" Republican Party has been getting smaller for years. Those years of a shrinking Republican tent was punctuated by the defection of SENIOR Republican Senator, Arlen Specter, who originally assumed office in the aftermath of the Reagan revolution just prior to Reagan, himself, being sworn into office in 1981.

After all, Specter isn't some back bencher or first term Senator. He's served in major chairmanship positions and he's been in the US Senate for 28 years.
No, he's a washington insider that saw the hand writing on the wall his political career was done, and is doing everything he can as a hack politician to extend his tenure yet another undeserved election. Can't wait till the DNC primary where he has to defend his career against much more capable leftists. Yes, he brings home the pork, but will that be enough to win over the DNC to his aid?

I bank that the votes won't be there when the time comes.

[mboncher]

Fiscal responsibility went out the window when Clinton moved out of the WH and Bush move in.

My God! I agree with Mustang GT on something!


Specter's defection, while self-serving, still probably wouldn't have happened if the conservative base of the GOP wasn't trying to drag the party even further to the right by haranguing party members who don't pass some kind of conservative litmus test and charges of RINO every time a member votes his conscience on an issue.

Oh whew... back to normal disagreement. There needs to be, not a litmus test but a consistancy standard of supporting the party. Say voting at least 75% of the time with the party platform before support gets drained away? What good is having an R or D behind the name if you won't vote with the party that got you the office? Even the DNC figured THAT out.

Whether you like it or not, if conservatives don't pull the GOP back from the edge of the abyss on which they're currently forcing the GOP to stand because of their desire to pull the party further to the right, they're about to relegate the Republican Party to minoirtiy party status for maybe the next 20 years or longer just as the electorate as a whole is moving in the other direction. That's what's known as a self-inflicted wound.

Read up on the Whig party and it's collapse. It's pretty much a mirror image of what's going on now. Party schism followed by no enforcement of party standards and poor leadership brought on by the deaths of their standard bearers and some pretty clear corruption. The party then split and went into nigh dormancy for about 8 years before they came out with Lincoln unifying the upstart Republican party out of many possible choices. Yes the election of 1860 was VERY unique, but that level of fission can happen again. Especially in the direction we're currently heading.

[mboncher]

Nope I'm a realist.
I darn near blew soda out my nose with that delusion.

[mboncher]

Yes, the constitution is an important building blockof our society, but the founders were not perfect. People have to realize this, even back then many of the founders had different views on how the state should be run.

Other than that, I can't really make out the other points you are trying to make.
And they made room for that in the constitution by providing that the federal government stay out of most things and leave it up to the individual states to deal with the rest. That way, if a state went bonkers, you could move.

Not to mention the amendment process which can also allow for "countermanding" amendments like we had to do with prohibition. Classic example of a social issue that had no business being dealt with at the constitutional level.

[mboncher]

I think its past drifting, there is no difference between the parties now. Obama being bush's third term is a good showing of it.
In some ways you're right. More like Carter's second to give you an idea of how far Bush drifted left.

[mtdim]

I wouldn't say conservatism is dead, but social conservatism is shifting left as it always has throughout history. There are a lot of young people who support gay rights, for example, but are fiscally conservative. These people often get turned off by the socially conservative views of the GOP.

This is just my anecdotal experience, but I know a lot of young people (I live on a college campus) for whom the GOP's stance on certain social issues is a deal breaker.

[Guild-Sfire]

I'm sorry, did you overlook his voting record in the US Senate? I know his stay there was very brief, but he did get a chance to vote on tax cuts there.



When you said this:

a man who never voted for tax cuts once in his life,

I thought you meant it...

If it was just his time as a US Senator...you should have specified that.

[Kelzan]

The problem is the majority of Americans disagree with the views of those on the far right. That is why any attempt to remain pure will further reduce the amount of people in the party. Here's a hint: Charlie Christ is more electable than Sarah Palin.

A move to the center on certain issues is needed or the party will become extinct.

The far left owns the democratic party. Why not tell them to move to the center?
We haven't actually tried smaller government in a long time.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Of course you cant, I require thinking for communications. Something that humans often forget to do in this day and age. Which is why you need to be told what to do by lessers of this world.

Nothing has changed from the day this nation started until today. To comand a change of the rules for a new set of ideals is asking for milions to die in the horrors that will follow.
Only the tools we use in our lives have changed the human has not.

It has nothing to do with me thinking. It has everything to do with the way you write. I don't mean to be rude but you're ideas don't come off very well through your writing; its very hard to follow.

Human nature itself hasn't changed, but the way we interact with the world has.

[nebcon]

I don't get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that I should prove that the "core values," of America have been changing? Core values are different between every individual. We are talking about how to win elections here, and the future of a POLITICAL party.

You made the claim that the majority of Americans are in the center of the political spectrum. You weren't claiming that lately they have been voting that way, you made a claim about WHO THEY ARE.

Who you are is defined by your core values. Voting trends on the other hand are affected by other factors as i stated.

The problem Conservative voters are having with the leadership of their party is that they may talk (if they open their mouths at all) Conservatively, but govern to the left. Given that a political party is defined by the actions of it's leadership, the Republican party has drifted left.

Say you have two car salesmen trying to sell you two different cars. One salesman starts right in enthusiastically espousing the virtues of the car and how you will feel driving it. The other salesman spends the entire time complaining about how much of a crook the other salesman is, and never gets around to talking about the car. Which one do you suppose will sell a car? The GOP leadership hasn't even attempted to sell anyone on the concept of limited government for so long that an entire generation has grown up barely hearing a peep about the concept. Instead the leadership simply points at the opposition and yells "eeeeeevilllllll!!!!!!" and they know that all the good little Republicans will fall in line. That hopefully is changing.

In addition to that, many factions of social Conservatives (not all but a great deal of them) and Neoconservatives have adopted their own brand of big government that they refuse to back down on. Those two factors together do not make the GOP anywhere close to far right in terms of real government policy. I could not care less about the definition as used by the "center" and the left, that conjures visions of the sort of oppressive theocracy that the founders of this country rejected in order to form this republic as being "far right".

My view of far right is the theocratic evangelist, or the abuser of the state. The people that are against gay marriage because it "threatens their values" the people that would use the state to interfere in other peoples lives. The same people that use fear as a way to manipulate the public. The people who would rather we invade a country, rather than analyze the consequences of such an action: The interventionists. People who claim to be moral, but advocate torture. People who claim to be pro-life, but advocate the death penalty. I could go on and on.

Traditional Conservatives believe that many of those issues are best solved at the state level. Paint with a broad brush and you miss that difference.

[nebcon]

I love it when people say Palin cost McCain the election. I laugh hysterically.

McCain didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell to begin with and Palin is the only reason he got the votes he did.

Had he picked anyone else, the defeat would have been even more resounding.

TCUFan

As unfair as it was to Governor Palin, she was brought on as a shiny object of distraction for the faithful while party leaders mortgaged our children's future. We all know who McCain's first pick was, and what that meant to the party. You nearly had a man to the left of Ted Kennedy as the potential future leader of the party. All hinging on McCain's decision. This should have been blatantly obvious but unfortunately it didn't have that effect.

The party would have been better off having a contested convention, having a VERY public airing of the differences among factions, and living to fight another day, instead of pretending that everything was ok, because a second choice VP nominee appeared to be what the party leadership really wanted.

[nebcon]

That smacks of whistling past the graveyard. Second you're talking party affiliation, not philosophical bent. The GOP has drifted left, very much so. The people have not. Don't be surprised if a 3rd party does rise up in the next 4-12 years that supplants the GOP as both the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party will vie for it's replacement.

If that doesn't happen, I fear it all will be over.

[mboncher]

Tis a question of two parts: Leadership and exposure.

Right now there is a vested interest to stop a third and/or fourth party by both parties and hence, you will see pressure accordingly to stop any from rising. But as the GOP falters, half the pressure will go away, while gaining strength from the potential party. Then what matters is how fast the nation gets with the abuses of a one party system.

The nation will go on, and God help us in what happens in the interim.

[dad49er]

You also left out the NY Times, ABC/NBC/CBS in your selection of far left media outlets.

Silly.