No. That can't be.
inorite
interesting since some retrogressive deep pockets was funding Sarvis
libertarians ensure another democrat win in VA
- Thread starter itsbob
- Start date
inorite
interesting since some retrogressive deep pockets was funding Sarvis
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Historically, the GOP was the party that said 'big government makes things worse'. When we want to help the poor, we cripple them with government dependency. When we want to help the economy, we distort it and make it worse. When we want to help education, we end up lowering standards. When we want to help with health care, we make that worse.
The GOP, properly understood, was the party that said the way to make things better is by having the federal government do the big things it does well, things only it can do, the military, infrastructure, regulation as referee, not as deciding winners and losers and stay out of everything else. That's the way the Constitution was set up. That's sound ideological thinking in terms of human behavior and, of nothing else, it's the proper course of action if we merely look at the enormous failures of progressive/socialist policies when implemented.
Public housing. Welfare as hand out instead of helping hand. The aforementioned problems with healthcare and education. On and on and on. MOST issues will be made worse by federal government involvement. We know that intellectually and factually. Hell, even things like Sandy and Katrina were worse than need be BECAUSE, over the years, there was the sense that in fact and in understanding, same as Wall Street, ultimately, the federal government will make poor decisions it help encourage everyones problem.
So, send me to Vegas. Heads I win, tails, you lose.
In any event, ALL of that became crystallized in 1994 when the GOP, for the first time in FORTY years, 20 congressional election cycles, took over the House of Representatives, the house of the purse strings.
Finally! A chance to effect some real changes AT the funding level! And things went fairly well with Clinton and a GOP House.
Then, in 2001, the whole ball of wax, House, Senate, White House, plus a favorable court. Never mind ideology, here was THE chance to act, to walk the walk. To reign in entitlements. To cut wasteful, hurtful programs. To bring market competition to health care and education. To relieve industry and states of the weight and waste of unfunded mandates. To get government back within the constraints of the Constitution.
And look what happened.
So, the GOP was the party of limited government...when they had no power to make it so.
It is impossible to understate the damage done under George W. Bush be it expanding entitlements with Med Part D or No Child Left behind (more federal intervention in education) or ignoring the coming housing crisis HE warned was coming in April of '01 or the massive over reaction to 9/11, DHS, TSA, The Patriot Act (which, with a name like that is a lot like selling 'Clean' poo) the conduct of the wars as social experiments instead of war winning. A GOP president actually bailing out the UAW and then the piece de resistance, TARP.
Ultimately, you are correct; the GOP is NOT a small government party. Not when it matters. But, we had a chance. We had a shot. And the American people put us in charge of the House in '94 and the Senate and White House in '01 SPECIFICALLY to reign in government. And look what we did. We can't name ONE thing past tax cuts we did, when we had the chance, that would remotely be considered small government or conservative.
People like Chris Christie, McCain, etc, are not Republicans in name only. They ARE Republicans.
dude - you cannot claim the GOP had total control, with Republicans like McSame and Snow[job] would take away the majority time and again because they side with Progressives on the very issues you mention ....
IIRC neither side has had a solid enough majority to be able to skip the weaklings in their party
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That's a total crap excuse. If you don't get it done with THAT much power, you NEVER will.
Bush has destroyed conservatism in this nation because he governed LEFT of Obama, as I have listed time and time again, and we, conservatism, gets the blame for it. We get blamed because the GOP isn't going to lift a finger to deny it because it does not serve the parties interest, big gummint interest.
You watch any of the Dubbya v. Gore debates. Man, I'd vote for THAT guy right now. THAT guy didn't say "Hey, don't hold me to any of this UNLESS I get super majorities...". That guy LEAD the charge to the left. Issue after issue after issue.
Toxick
Splat
mamatutu
mama to two
do you NOT understand - McSame or Snow are NOT Conservatives and do not vote conservatively in Congress
you can not say their votes on Truly Conservative Issues can be counted on
that be like expecting
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
I don't get how some people keep saying the Republicans keep losing because they don't nominate conservative candidates. If a conservative candidate can't win the primary, how on earth can they win the general election?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
This is to miss the point. The D's do not get purity. The R's do not get purity. All things being relatively equal, the D's are OK if the ball is moving forward. Maybe not touchdowns every play but...progress. As they define it, ie, more gummint.
The R's, as generally defined as being center/right, with progress being defined as even a little less government, have nothing, NOTHING to show for 6 years of one party rule and 8 years of the presidency.
NOTHING.
Blaming this on our center is an absurd waste of time. We all approach politics from the view point of compromise, of not getting all you want. However, the general idea is to get SOMETHING and that did NOT happen under George W. Bush and it is ALL on him. Not the media. Not McCain. Not the weather. Not 9/11. Not the mortgage issue.
We elect a leader to lead and Bush was elected to lead to the RIGHT, at least a little. That did NOT happen. At all.
Obama has nearly doubled the national debt. Bush doubled it. Obama is expanding entitlements. Bush expanded them more. Obama is trying to grow government. With the TSA, Patriot Act, TARP and the DHS, Obama can only piss and moan that he can't come close to that level of government expansion in scope, power, size and cost.
Unless and until we, the right, come to grips with that, unless and until we STOP blaming everyone but ourselves, this is all a waste of time because the FIRST step in things getting better is admitting we have a problem and figuring out what it is. There are STILL folks, to this day, in the GOP who think Dubbya did a decent job. That is stunning.
That is denial.
Unless the GOP is the party of BIG government. Then, he did a fine job. Obama, however, privately, probably thanks him every night because he couldn't do a 10th of what he does absent the bed George Bush, we, on the right, made for the guy.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Name one conservative we've nominated since Reagan?
Bush 41? Hardly. Bob Dole? Nope. Bush 43? He sounded great in the Gore debates. Governing was a tad different. McCain? Romney?????
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
Larry that is my point, they can't win a primary election how in the hell are they going to win a general election? Why is that logic so hard to understand?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I suppose you haven't much been paying attention to the process over the years? The GOP does not want a conservative and makes it so they don't have the support necessary including control over the debates and so forth, not to mention money.
Is that hard to understand?
I'm not arguing the GOP is the party of limited government. It's not. I'm just arguing that it ought to stop claiming to be. Again, if you watch the Bush/Gore debates, Dubbya did a fabulous job on all the key points, true reserved, conservative arguments. And then governed to the left of Obama. :shrug:
the won't, it still gets them some votes ..
... . look at Grahanesty ... Wash Times article on drudge
runs as a 'conservative' with the folks back home, sucks up to the democrats while in Washington ... well his goose might finally get cooked
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
The GOP primary debates that I have seen all seemed pretty fair to me, are you suggesting the party promote someone that loses a primary by 30 percentage points?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
So you thought allowing Gary Johnson to only participate in 1 debate was fair?
I think he could have been the republican candidate, the Republican Party wanted no part of actual conservatism though.
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
He was polling at 2%, the line has to be drawn somewhere. JPC could declare himself a candidate and probably poll at 1%. People did not know who he was and that was his curse. If he was not your favorite candidate would you care if he was excluded because he was only polling at 2%?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
He was the only conservative in the first debate. There were exactly zero in the rest of the debates. If the Republican Party wants to be conservative they have to choose a conservative to back.
Look at the idiots we got to see in the debates (and as candidates) because they were popular.
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
The problem is you have to be at least mildly popular to be considered a candidate, this isn't just a GOP thing.
I hate the entire primary system to begin with, states like Iowa and New Hampshire have way too much pull in who gets nominated.
I think a bigger sin of Johnsons was being from New Mexico, I can't think of a single other (real) person from there. When I think of New Mexico all I can think of is Walter White.
Charisma and good looks get you much farther than your views in a primary in my opinion.
I hate the entire primary system to begin with, states like Iowa and New Hampshire have way too much pull in who gets nominated.
I think a bigger sin of Johnsons was being from New Mexico, I can't think of a single other (real) person from there. When I think of New Mexico all I can think of is Walter White.
Charisma and good looks get you much farther than your views in a primary in my opinion.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
As long as that is accepted by the party the party will continue to get crappy candidates. The last presidential election was a great example. The party jumped from one shinny object to another despite them All being flashes in the pan.
I don't have as much problem with the primary system. It's flawed, but it doesn't preclude the party from putting up a decent candidate. A good candidate could ride it out.