« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Conservatives need Rockefeller Republicans

By: steve_b25 (Diary)  |  April 5th, 2009 at 08:08 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Crossposted at The Rockefeller Republican

*Note to my hardcore conservative friends….please stay with me until the end before you decide to throw things at your computer screen.
If Republicans, and conservatives ever hope to regain their position of power in Washington they are going to have to come to terms with Rockefeller Republicans, RINOS, moderates, centrists etc. While they may not agree on everything, if they take a serious look, issue by issue, most will find that the so-called moderates are on board with conservatives on the weightiest topics of the day. In a nation essentially split between two competing ideologies, it makes no sense to crowd out all but the truest of true believers. If the GOP wants to become a majority party it needs to embrace all factions, even if only as the lesser of two evils.

The United States is always being pulled in two divergent directions. On the one hand there is a committed base of true conservatives who believe in a very limited federal government, low taxes and muscular foreign policy. On the other hand there is a base, no less committed, of liberals who believe that government offers the best hope for a just society and therefore a large federal government, complete with all that entails, is an objective good. These two sides are never going to “convert” each other. That would be like an atheist convincing an evangelical that there is no god- the two sides will never agree. (While I am sure there will be fringe cases of conversion, these are the exceptions that prove the rule.) Now neither side is unAmerican, evil, or stupid- they simply have drastically different ideas for what America should be. I for one am solidly in the conservative’s camp, but that does not mean I think every word that leaves a liberal’s mouth is inherently wrong; and therein lies the problem. I belong to that vast swath of citizens in the middle who are not “true believers” on either side, but who must find their way through the wilderness that is centrist America. Thankfully, the country is still “center right” so there is real opportunity there.

If you talk to a large number of average, everyday people you will find they do not fit into the ideological boxes that many political activists like to put them in. There are such things as pro-life liberals and environmentalist conservatives. Talk to enough people and you will see evangelicals who think the government should offer universal health care, and left-leaning teachers who think school choice is the best option to fix schools. This is where the political fight is. How can Republicans make a convincing case to this vast and fertile middle ground in America?

Let’s take New England as a case study. There used to be a vibrant Republican base and community there. However over the past half century the Republican message has narrowed to the point where the traditionally moderate branch of the party that had thrived there is all but gone. In the vacuum left by the conservatives, liberals were more than happy to step in. In its place Democrats have been allowed to virtually indoctrinate citizens of the North East in liberal philosophy. So much so that now instead of a moderate Republican like Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., Massachusetts is represented by the ultra-left Teddy Kennedy. Over the years voters have gotten comfortable with the Democratic party, to the point where a Republican has a hard time getting airtime each election cycle.

Today New England is left with only Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to represent the Republicans. I know there are plenty of conservatives who consider these two women to be Republicans in name only (RINOS). However, if they were to be defeated, who would be most likely to take their place? A Glenn Beck or an Al Franken? After 50 years of liberal indoctrination New England isn’t going to turn into Sean Hannity’s key demographic over night. However, the North East is an area that tends to be sympathetic to fiscally conservative candidates (Mitt Romney, Bill Weld) even though it is socially liberal. There is some common ground with the overall conservative movement there- if the GOP is willing to have a bigger tent.

So what should conservatives and the GOP do with this region? They should look for the lowest hanging fruit and try to install some moderate “Rockefeller Republicans” in New England. Over time people will get used to voting Republican, and the overall image of conservatives will change. In a region such as this, prejudices have built up over decades and it will take time to reverse the damage culturally. Right now there is a great opportunity to start this process with the implosion of CT Senator Chris Dodd. One can easily see a moderate winning this seat in two years. And four years after that maybe Lieberman retires and the chance of gaining another seat will open up. Over time the party can rebuild its image to the point where there is once again a vibrant moderate wing of the party with its base in New England.

Conservatives need to ask themselves. Do they want a minority party of ultra conservatives to act as a gadfly to the liberal left? Or, do they want to be a majority party that has some moderates on the wings that need to occasionally be placated? Both choices can be seen as valid, but only one will help America chart a more conservative course in the years ahead.

For more center-right news & views see  The Rockefeller Republican

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • youthgrunt

    work out for McCain? It would seem to me that we sent forward a candidate that should have been one of the best candidates for a middle of the road/center-right Republican. That didn’t turn into much electoral success, particularly in New England.

    I will not say that we do not need the Rockefeller Republicans. I would only say that we do NOT need them setting the agenda or establishing the platform.

    • Mike gamecock DeVine

      to try and hope no one notices that our 2006 and 2008 losses are directly attributable to their preferred policies and candidates, esp McCain.

      They are the architects of GOP losing

      • Doc Holliday

        socons such as bush, Delay, Frist et al DID play a major role in our defeats. The press, academia, and the left did not attack us because we were moderate, they called us religious fanatics that wanted to use the government for our own vices. The point is our leadership is conservative, at least they claim to be. We lost because we dropped the ball on small government, if anything we need to bring in libertarians because true conservatives are libertarian just like the Founders.

        • Mike gamecock DeVine

          That is my point. We lost our brand and voters, both conservative repubs that stayed home and dems that we used to own, due to that, not the social issues.

          Yes, you help make my point by pointing out McCain’s pro-life views, even though he did throw the pro-aborts a bone in 2000 with is pro-Roe statement.

          The life issue was a non-factor in 2008. Many pro-lifers voted for Obama.

          I agree with your statements as writen.

          • Doc Holliday

            abortion in particular was less an issue this time than any election in recent memory. If we are going to criticize McCain, I would say he was not up for the fight. But I am bemused by those that trash him after we elected him as our leader. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Those that think Fred would have run better should have convinced more people to vote for him.

    • SteveLA

      Nixon lost after eight years of Eisenhower

      Humfrey lost after 10 (?) years of LBJ

      Bush Senior won after 8 years of Reagan and only lasted one term.

      Gore lost after eight years of Clinton

      McCain lost after eight years of Bush II.

      At best it was very long odds in the modern era for a party to retain the White house after 8 years in power, especially so following a President with approval ratings as dismal as President Bush’s were at the end of his term.

      Point the fickle finger of fate and blame for McCain’s failure on what ever you choose, but history shows retaining power after 8 years of a party holding the White house is a very hard thing to do. I’ve yet to hear an argument for any R. that could have beat history and the approval ratings of President Bush.

      • Mike gamecock DeVine

        The fact that McCain was ahead after Palin and before the credit crisis shows how weak was Obama and the liberal message despite all you said, which I have emphasized in many columns.

        The real issue is why we had no better conservative in the Reagan mold that even ran, other than Thompson.

        And for that, I have to put the blame on how the Gingrich revolution died so soon after 1994; Bush’s redundant compassionate conservative construct; and the moderate gop behavior when in total majorities in the mid 2000s.

        We squadered a great opportunity.

        • SteveLA

          The squander as you put it was in my view the Clinton derangement syndrome at work and the last eight years of President Bush’s term in office.

          Clinton was and is pond scum with the morals of an alley cat, but being fixated on hating on Clinton got in the way of developing that next generation that you have noted is missing. If you think Mean Bob Dole was the height of what R’s stood for well we disagree.

          President Bush II came to office as the anti Clinton in so many ways, and beat Algore by appealing to Clinton fatigue and what I saw as an appeal to cultural conservatives.

          The eight years of Bush II was not exactly a shinning period where R’s took on a wartime President when they differed with his policies, matter of fact there was almost an institutional desire to not have much daylight between the President and politicians for the first 6 years of his time in office. The last two years, not so much, and it showed in the weak domestic polices of President Bush who I tend to beleive spent his limited political capital with Congress on keeping support going for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

          So to say the Republican bull pen was not stocked over the last 8 years, you have a point and the 8 years before that were focused on being the Anti Clinton. Hard to stay in the game when you have no bull pen.

          And yes, just watched Atlanta beat up on the Phillies, Dodgers are going to miss Derrick Lowe.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            and thanks man, that was a great performance by the Braves, and one of the best things about having Lowe, besides the fact that he is one of the best is that he always owned the Braves as an opponent for the past two decades!

            I suspect that your points are significant, but let me give you my take based on my weird perspective as a Clinton fan in the 90s (though decreasingly so throughout and esp after 1995 and esp more so after 1998 after the African embassies fell and Clinton did nothing and as I saw him as frontman for the leftist kooks who spewed the PC Bull even when he did the right things on welfare and the economy):

            I knew all along that the GOP had the upper hand on policy and even secretly cheered them and was astounded at two things after 1994:

            That they weren’t more bold in their agenda

            and, and I think this goes to your point

            That they were so mute on Clinton’s OC Bull and real sins re China, etc

            and that they were so focused on Whitewater and Impeachment.

            I was against Impeachment and wish that Monica was never reported, but did think, even at the time that he should have resigned.

            But I guess i must say that your point is strong.

            But also, I think Newt just lost it in 1995. He was drunk with power and will never forget his daily televised roundtables with the press in which he acted like a President.

            Talk about overexposure.

          • SteveLA

            game

            Back in the day Newt seemed to view himself as some sort of Prime Minister to Clinton’s presidency. I recall reading about his views on this topic at the time.

            Newt’s downfall was his hubris, and for that matter his private life goings on.

            Flash forward to the mid part of this decade and the hubris of Tom Delay and his fall, history does have a way of repeating itself. I shed few tears when Delay left Congress due to his arrogance on spending and other matters, which I am sure is not a popular point of view around some parts.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • pilgrim

            There were minor things that were concerning shrinking the size and expenses in Congress by making the reducing the number of persons and their staff for committees in the CWA. Gingrich and Army just flat out told the new House members it wasn’t going to happen. There were Committee Chairmens’ egos that needed to be stroked.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • SteveLA

            Animal house behavior in Washington where the cry is “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others” tends to make people fans of term limits.

            I like term limits.

        • Achance

          First, I agree that we kicked Newt to the curb unnecessarily, even precipitously and we did nothing to develop new conservative leadership or even keep the ones we had. That’s part of the problem.

          The real problem is that when we got the Presidency AND Congress, we were country boys come to town. We wanted our hands on all that lobbyist money, all those PYTs, those jobs for our ex-staffers and our relatives, the whole gamut of decadent privilege and graft and corruption that comes with power. Trouble is, the Ds had fifty years to make most of their corruption perfectly legal. If we want some off the books money or some ill-gotten gain, or just a little strange, we have to get it the old fashioned way and we get caught.

          I saw it on a small scale here in Alaska when we took the government away from the Democrats. From the git-go the new people coming in were talking about their lobbying contracts, not how to run a program that would get us re-elected. Making money and getting laid were the prime directives. And, guess what, we didn’t get re-elected. Hell, I was so disgusted with both myself and the people around me that I just decided one day I wasn’t going back the next day. Called the boss and said, “see ya’”

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            You really echo much of what Bork speaks of in Slouching towards Gomorrah, though on a more molecular level. I think you define why it is so hard to stop leftward drift in affluent western democracies, Bork is more into the human nature aspects of affluence causing weakness over time.

        • Doc Holliday

          he was a leader, but not the leader of a party. usually we blame people for being more politicians than statesmen, but in the modern age you must be both. I really don’t think bush cared about how he left the party. The Boy Scouts always say leave a campground better than you found it. Bush left our party dead in the water and ran back to Texas.

          Of course Bush faced the structural changes in our country that make it hard to be a conservative, but that is simply the hand we were dealt. Sure we need to face up to this and try to fix it, but conservatives still get elected in this adverse environment.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            and while I don’t diminish his transgressions, i do admire Bush as a man of character and as president given his defense of America after 911, his vision on the tax cuts that prevented a bad recession and his judicial nominees.

          • Doc Holliday

            :) I also completely agree with your comment. Heck, I took my McCain sticker off November 5th, yet I still have my Bush sticker on my vehicle. I just could not take it down, because I respect the man and want to annoy liberals.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            My Bush/Cheney sticker is still on!

          • Achance

            right beside my “Don’t Blame Me, My Ancestors Voted for Jefferson Davis” sticker. Not really, but it’s a thought. Do have the McP/Palin sticker, but I think I’m going to get one of those One Big Ass Mistake America stickers. Juneau’s a very left wing town but the guns on the rack in my back window do a pretty good job of suppressing freedom of speech.

          • mom2oneson

            except at the health food store and college parking lots!

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            Rush is Right!

          • tnjim

            But my Club Gitmo “When America Was Safe” T-shirt, the one with the diving board and pool of water, tweaks the libs pretty good.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            all our local GOP HQ had were Vets for Mccain and I am not a vet

      • Doc Holliday

        yet I still say “things are different this time” even that I know that statement has almost always been wrong. Structural changes, destructive changes in our society have placed conservatism in the minority. It is possible this will change but the headwinds we face from societal institutions, out of control immigration, and poor education leave me wondering if conservatives will come back in the future simply because it is their turn.

        • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • redware

    centrists et al agree with conservative positions on the weightiest issues of the day is absurd.I strongly doubt that the conservative base would be as angry with the likes of Specter,Snowe,Collins,McCain,and Graham because they desert their party on procedural votes.Rather it is their abandonment of the conservative position on big ticket items like the Stimulus bill,the budget,amnesty for illegal aliens,conservative judicial nominees,campaign finance,etc.,that has us up in arms.

    Second,you posit that only by placating the “centrists”can the GOP win elections.It is impossible to placate centrists unless you become one.And becoming one requires the abandonment of any “grounding” principles that govern the basis for taking positions on the “weightiest” topics of the day.Given the fact they are not grounded by political philosophy they are more likely to pick sides based upon the popularity of a position as dictated by the mainstream media and the damage that media can do to their electoral chances.

    Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 because they abandoned conservative principles.The electorate equated the GOP with hypocrisy,corruption,and ineptitude.Obama used this discontent and by campaigning as one of you centrists won the Presidency.John McCain had no desire to evangelize the conservative message-his selection of Palin was a recognition that his candidacy was in serious trouble of losing a significant portion of the conservative base.In the wake of the savage media attack upon Palin by a suddenly fearful left,McCain not only failed to adequately defend her,but also chose to effectively mute her message.Our nation is now suffering from the election of a false moderate because of the lack of political principles of a real one.

    You say the GOP needs your kind.I say we need the votes of every American who upon hearing the clear and eloquent articulation of our conservative principles chooses life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness promulgated and defended by a limited government which seeks to grow our economic prosperity,secures our borders,and keeps us safe.You imply that the GOP is beholding to the small percentage of centrists that like to think they hold the balance of power.Not so.Our tent should be large enough to shelter our principles,boldly colored in the advertisement of our principles,and strongly staked so the vagaries of instant public opinion,and the groundless wanderings of misguided centrists cannot bring it down.You are the ones who must make your choice-stand with us or go with them!

    • Mike gamecock DeVine

      their contrary votes on substantive issues could reflect votes on conscious.

      So that I decry their procedural votes more in many ways.

      • Achance

        with the caucus on procedural votes. You can’ t realistically ask a Member to commit electoral suicide on a substantive vote, but if they bolt on procedure, and maybe budget votes, you throw them out of the caucus.

      • redware
  • Martin Knight

    All the arguments that have been raised on this topic seem to start from the same unchallenged premise; that the GOP has to move to the “center” to placate Rockefeller (“moderate”/”centrist”) Republicans.

    I’m of the opinion that it’s supposed to be the other way round. The so-called “moderates” need to acquire some principles and move to the Right, and even more importantly, they need to stop being such sniveling quislings and actually start being proud of being Republicans.

    While they may not agree on everything, if they take a serious look, issue by issue, most will find that the so-called moderates are on board with conservatives on the weightiest topics of the day.

    This is patently untrue – it is exactly on the weighty issues that our “moderates” repeatedly fail. We had 55 Senators in 2005. Yet we couldn’t pass legislation or get nominees confirmed because time and again, our “moderates” preemptively surrendered and handed victory over to the other side in exchange for TV interviews and complimentary headlines.

    Let me be perfectly honest – at the moment Rockefeller Republicans have made themselves more of a liability than an asset. If you want to know why Republicans were purged by the voters in New England, look at the people they ejected from their seats.

    People (Shays, Chafee, Johnson, etc.), who routinely pounded on their own party, called fellow Republicans names, questioned their motives, sabotaged their leadership, repeated Democratic talking points on policy, all in a bid to appeal to the “center.”

    After a while, the people in their districts asked themselves; “if Republicans suck so much – as you say – why should I vote for you?”

    Have you noticed how much more disciplined the GOP Caucus in the House is now that so many of the so-called “moderates”, the ringleaders, who seemed to live for providing bipartisan cover for Democratic policy are gone?

    Kinda makes mincemeat of the idea that “moderates” are with us on the weighty issues, doesn’t it?

    • Mike gamecock DeVine
      • EzOnTheEyez

        Great post.

  • reddog53

    You say that liberals are those “…who believe that government offers the best hope for a just society and therefore a large federal government, complete with all that entails, is an objective good.” And you seem to suggest that the Rockefeller branch is a shade closer to the center than the liberals, so we shouldn’t try to toss them over the side. I have to take issue with that. The establishment Republicans that you respect had pretty much kept the Republican party in the minority for over 20 years. Their effort to work in a ‘bipartisan’ way, enabled some really stupid things to come to pass, because of the hope for a ‘just society.’ We spent trillions on the War on Poverty and got nowhere and we kept expanding Social Security and Medicare to morph them both into the uncontrollable programs they are today. Not a great track record.

    After comparing conservatives and liberals, you then say “Now neither side is unAmerican, evil, or stupid- they simply have drastically different ideas for what America should be.”

    This is absolutely the crux of the issue. There’s no ‘middle’ to this one–they are in fact unAmerican, or stupid or both. Allowing liberals or ‘statists’ to cripple capitalism and absorb power at the speed they’re doing isn’t a slight disagreement about ‘what America should be’–it’s a full scale attempt to change America into something completely different, and departing completely from the Constitution along the way.

    How much drastically different do they have to go to get you to say “uh-oh” and realize that they aren’t just slightly misguided, but well intentioned people??

  • Doc Holliday

    it is not “moderate” Republicans who are socially liberal versus Socons. Those two groups both believe in big government, they just want to use it for different ends. Our failure and our opportunity is to bring in libertarians. The problem with this party is that it has joined the Demonrats in believing government has the answers to our ills, even though empirical evidence shows otherwise.

    I do not agree we need to bend or placate anyone. We need to look to our Founders, to their written words, to the Constitution, there you will find the answers. If we do not do this, then we do not deserve to win because we are a party with no soul, just a group of people that want to beat the other team. Are we simply going to be the Red Sox and they the Yankees? or do we stand for a core, the law and foundation of our land? Men have bled for that document, can we not take the time to read it again?

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    percentage are than non-social cons.This was in several polls last year.

    Yes, we need more libertarians that are for a strong national defense, but the rift in the GOP chattering classes is due to the attacks from anti-so cons that seek to blame the 2006 and 2008 losses on so-cons in order to cover for the fact that we lost due to repubs not being fiscal cons. They claim that it is due to our so con positions, and that is bull.

    And, just as in 1968, 1972 ans 1980 when so cons were brought into politics as a defensive measure due to attacks on them (see Roe, etc), so now, the moderates are attacking so-cons that have proven to be the most loyal of republicans.

    The fact is also that many of these moderates are the classic Rockefeller repubs that are neither fi-cons or so-cons. Rather, they are big guv repubs. and they are secular, not religious

  • Doc Holliday

    but I still think many modern socons do not even know their own roots. Traditionally the socons were among the most libertarian because they feared a big government would infringe on their religious rights. Now we have many who think government is a way to create a Heaven on earth, something the Bible illiustrates is impossible and not in keeping with Christian beliefs.

    Understand, friend, that we use these group names simply to illustrate a point. In no way am I condemning all social conservatives, just those that have warped the conservative philosophy. Let’s also remember that many Democrats, paticularly blacks and hispanics are highly religious, so social conservatism does not equal Republican conservatism.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    is small.

  • Doc Holliday

    but even a small group can influence elections. Also, what if that tiny group were considered leaders of many, for example the Focus on the Family guy. I don’t want to stir things up with conservative Christians, since I am one. I am just saying we all need to regroup and refocus. Mark Levin’s new book claims that it offers no new ideas, but it is a way to refocus conservatives, and it is a best seller. I am hoping what I think we need is the same as many others in our movement.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    on this matter of social conservatives, I am convinced that the attacks on them as in any way to blame or as any significant factor in out 2006-2008 defeats are without merit. And that the attacks on them are a tactic by those that are mostly to blame.

  • AKSteveB

    I don’t exactly understand what else separates fiscons and socons. Were I a socon the most important thing I’d want is the freedom to live and raise my family in accordance to my values. I’d want school choice and vouchers. I’d want to know that homeschooling is protected. I’d want local control of the public space. I’m not a socon (at least I don’t think I am) and I want everything that I just mentioned. I can’t imagine anyone really thinks the sexual revolution/porn/gender roles etc. can be changed by the political process. Things are way too far gone for that. SoCon issues at heart seem to be secular vs. religious and beyond the freedom to live according to traditional values, are a “hearts and minds” thing. What am I missing?

  • Ninetales

    But what do Rockefeller Republicans actually stand for in the way of principles.
    Why are they in the Republican party to begin with ? For that matter, why aren’t they independents or democrats. Republicans stood for conservative principles, all THREE of them. So I will ask, why Republican ?

  • tcgeol

    A true fiscon should be pro-Second Amendment, but a lot of those who have been called fiscons aren’t. Socons are pretty solidly pro-gun, at least all of those that I have been around.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    “I can

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    One category of fiscal cons today (and which most resemble the classic rock-repubs) are blue dog dems that have no problem with big government and no problem with high tax rates to pay for it.

    So, to be a fi-con is only the beginning of the inquiry. The essence of the Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan conservative movement is smaller government.

    One of the problems that fi-cons have is the difficulty of weaning addicts off the big guv drug with specific policies that don’t scare them of too much pain in the transition.

    more later

  • redware

    socons embrace the concepts of limited government,low taxes and responsible spending.But they do not believe that a majority of fiscons care about the issues most important to them-the right to life,gay marriage,prayer in schools,etc.Hence the popularity of Huckabee among the religious right.I doubt many socons knew or especially cared about his populist,big government Arkansas governorship.He was their standard bearer,true to their agenda.As a conservative Christian I am also fiscally conservative.But many of my friends and neighbors felt abandonded by the GOP,and denigrated by the elitist pseudo-conservative intelligentsia.I guess I am old school- all conservatives were socons,fiscons and for a muscular national defense.I supported Fred Thompson as the three-legged stool great hope,and only voted for McCain in the general because of Palin,and my increasingly tweaked conscience the closer we got to November.

    The fact that you cannot imagine socons believing their issues can be addressed by the political process is at the root of the problem.Socons are frustrated with a political process that doesn’t work for them.These are issues that cannot be compromised for them.And it would be good for the GOP to remember it cannot win without strong socon support.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    Essentially they were advocates for corporate welfare.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    rock-repubs never won a majority. They were accomodationists of the big guv welfare state, essentially being defined by their insistence that big business get its share of govt largesse and more recently, that they get monopoly power in exchange for accepting liberal policies.

    Today, Rocke-repubs are known as liberal democrats.

    or, pro-abortion republicans

  • AKSteveB

    That what the socons wish for is “hands off” in terrms of their communities/familys? I realize Social Conservatism is a defensive reaction not an offensive one (I’ve read Bork too) :) I’m either still not seeing something or I worded my original posting in a confusing way or maybe I’m less socially libertarian than I think.

    As to the RTBA, wow, I can’t imagine any more basic liberty than that. How could one be an anything-con and opposte that?

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    When I read this: “I can

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    Its not that so-cons have launched a war against moderates. No. It is the moderates that have launched the attack.

    That is the truth.

    The problem is that media can’t ever acknowledge truth.

    Fox News is a slave to this as well, with the assumption behind fair and balanced being that on all matters there are two equally credible sides.

    That is bull.

  • AKSteveB

    Argue it out on the state level to have it fit with local mores and stop acting like the religious folks are idiots. Not bad, just distilled most of the breakdown in one long sentence.

  • AKSteveB
  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Kyle-MI

    If the Rockefeller Rep really care about the Party, they should be adjusting their arguments to bring in Soc Cons instead of trying to push Soc Cons completely out of the Party.

  • Ninetales

    I ask again, why are they in the Republican party ? That sounds like something a democrat would do, axing more or less the budget balance part.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    so the Rock-repubs made an accomodation to get their constituents welfare like the Dems gave their po folks and unions the same. Now Dems have mostly co-opted the big biz corp welfare vote

    The GOP is the champion of the middle class and small business now and has been for 20 years.

  • dld1717

    I get very nervous when I hear a lot talk against Republicans who don’t agree 100% on all issues on this site.

    I grew up in RI and while I would of loved to see more Conservative Rep elected that is just not the case so perhaps that clouds my judgement. I remember volunteering as a kid and up on many Republican candidates campaigns ( and we lost more times) but when we won it was grand in my eyes and still is. I just like to see Republicans wins and in NE a Republican by their standards is not really a republican an eye in many on here standards.

    I will say this why do they call Snowe, Collins, Spectar moderates and yet they call someone like Landrieu, Nelson, Lincoln Conservative Democrats? Once again, its the media allowing Dems to molded into their fashion

  • EzOnTheEyez

    The GOP would be well-advised to expand its tent by appealing more to libertarians than to “Rockefeller Republicans.”

  • Achance

    and the Left defined them into the Fifties. As is very much the case today, the Rs lost their way in terms of having their own consistent, integrated agenda with FDR’s rise. They came to Congressional power again in the late ’40s in reaction to the excesses of the New Deal and wartime economic policies, and, especially, in reaction to union excesses, passing the Taft-Hartley Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act in ’48. This period cemented the GOP’s image as the party of business. Though Eisenhower was a two term Republican President, he had a dim view of big business and his dire warning about the “military-industrial complex” has been grist for the Left ever since. While Nelson Rockefeller’s name is given to the mostly Northern and liberal Republicans of that period, he was never able to be elected to national office; his VP slot was appointed. It is probably fair to say that Nixon was the ultimate Rockefeller Republican though his actions were shaped by the fact that he had an overwhelmingly liberal and Democrat Congress. The only Conservative Republican since the New Deal remains Reagan and his Congressional inheritor was Gingrich. The Bushes are much more in the Rockefeller/Nixon mold.

    The enigma today, is that the Ds have become the Party of Big Business, though big business in ’09 is very different from what it was in ’49, ’59, or even ’69. Republicans in The South and West have become the party of Main Street small business and individual social and fiscal conservatives. Those Rs remaining in The North and on the West Coast either represent conservative enclaves or hang on through incumbency and triangulation in districts or states that have become firmly Democrat.

    Others may assess it differently.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Martin Knight
  • redware

    our conservative agenda is no win at all!Nobody expects 100% agreement on everything.Butt the war for control of the Republican Party between conservatives and “moderates”,aka liberal-lites has been ongoing since the 50′s,and will most likely continue.Regionally,the Northeast grows progressively more liberal as conservatives flee for warmer climes and lower taxes.But I would rather see an articulate conservative run and lose than see the election of a RINO who will vote left on issues of critical importance to our cause.But,admittedly I am a conservative first and a Republican only because I currently have no feasible alternative.

    As for the MSM ,RINOS will be heroes when they support liberal positions,and Blue Dogs will be anathema to them when they desert the Democrat leadership.They are all the same to me-people who have little or no underlying political philosophy which guide their decision making.

  • Doc Holliday

    for the trees. We know SOMETHING is wrong because we keep getting our ass kicked. I think we need to drop all the prefixes and just let people decide if they are conservative or not. We say our beliefs are x, y, and z and if those our yours, then join us, if they are not, then go somewhere else. BTW, I am NOT talking about a litmus test on abortion, I am saying we as conservatives need to come together on a basic world view, again I say start with the Constitution.

    When we divide each other up we get internecine fighting and people get defensive as hell. For example, I KNOW men that call themselves Socons screwed up! Does that mean Socons are inherently in the wrong? No, it means Republicans have screwed up, and many of the recent leaders are self identified culture warriors. I think they screwed up by losing their libertarian values and letting the power of the government lure them in.

    We don’t need to tick off the big government list by our last president, we all know that. But the Congress also spent like drunken sailors, and they abused their powers in Schiavo, Internet Gambling, and many other “small” ways that gave many the impression that Republicans no longer cared about small government and maximum liberty. Also GC, I know you know that many Socons do not want Roe repealed they want abortion banned at the federal level, hence, they do not take a Federalist position.

    In summation, let’s drop the prefixes and just be conservatives. let’s admit that our party lost its way and let’s get about the job of fixing it.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    thru yesterday. Make no mistake: we did not lose in 2006 and 2008 due to social issues. We lost due to profligate spending and moderate policies that left Americans with a choice of McCain and Obama, McCain being the dream candidate of the moderates that have been the ones that have been on the attack since 2006.

    I am aware that a minority of so-cons prefer, as did Reagan, a pro life amendment, but this issue has not been significant for many years. The moderates that have brought the party down bring this up as a diversionary tactic to deflect attention from their losing ways.

    It simply is not the case that “both sides are at fault” either for the losses or the acrimony w/i the party.

  • Doc Holliday

    I said we need to come together and the first response is to cast stones. Well I can play too. I think many big gov socons are using “secularist” and “Rockefeller Repubs” as a bogeyman because they are such a small percentage of our party and an easy whipping boy. They do this as misdirection because they know the real problem is we lost liberatarian conservatives (a much larger group) because of our big governmnet leaders.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    is a moderate presenting a false premise and veiled threat, thusly:

    “Conservatives need to ask themselves. Do they want a minority party of ultra conservatives to act as a gadfly to the liberal left? Or, do they want to be a majority party that has some moderates on the wings that need to occasionally be placated? Both choices can be seen as valid, but only one will help America chart a more conservative course in the years ahead.”

    The premise behind this statement is that “ultra-conservatives” are responsible for our current minority status.

    That is false.

    And I am all for funding more moderate repubs in the liberal regions of the country, unlike a small minority that don’t, but what I won’t do is abide “ultra-” epithets from moderates and re-writing recent history, nor having moderates insist that we can only win by “moving to the center.”

    We lost majorities by moving to the center.

    Doc, we both lived thru and were quite attentive since 2005-today, so if you disagree with my view of who is responsible for our defeats, the relative number of extremists in the so-con group, and who is responsible for the intra-party squabbling, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

    Simply note that it is the moderates that initiate these arguments, not so-cons.

    I don’t doubt we lost some small guv libertarians, but that was not the fault of so-con issues.

  • AKSteveB

    Obama has pretty well killed the space for “moderation.” Radical leftism does concentrate the mind. Save the intraparty feuding for a time where we have such a luxury.

  • dld1717

    Then you close off the entire New England Republicans

  • Doc Holliday

    hyphenated conservative thing. Considering all of our discussions, the only time twe seem to disagree is when we start talking So-cons, Libertarian-cons etc. The issue is that our elected Republicans in the Executive and Legislative branches have lost their way or they are just not real conservatives.

    I do not blame So-cons, I blame Republicans for abandoning Goldwater/Reagan philosphy, the philosophy that has been a proven winner. You know me, you know I am anything but a moderate. If have a disagreement, it is over how we view the players. I have never defended moderates or moderate placation. I do welcome moderate R’s if that is all we can get because we need to control the Congress, but I don’t think we need to change our core values to make them happy.

  • Doc Holliday

    about the problem with hyphenated conservatism and internecine fighting in the party. In fact, in the 17th minute of the third hour of his show today he said, “Social-Conservatives are not conservatives”. Those were his exact words, not mine.

    Now I believe you and I agree, we just get mixed up with terms and labels. You like to frame the party as two groups, Social-Conservatives and Secularists. Rush and I look at the party as two groups two; Big Government Cons and Small Government Cons. The people to blame, if we need to blame, are big government Republicans.

    I have no problem with someone calling themselves a Social-Conservative. Some people ARE conservative but want to emphasize the social part. I wish we would all just be Conservatives full stop, but if we still must divide ourselves, I will continue to call myself a libertarian-conservative; but really I am just a conservative.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    all you said.

    bravo

    I fact, whenever you need to get DeVine’s mind right, quote Rush!

    But I always agreed with that proposition. My main gripe is the notion that the internal argument in the GOP has been driven by so-cons wanting to purge anyone.

    It has been the Brooks-C Buckly-Douthat types wanting to blame social issues for our recent losses.

    That’s all, and on that Rush also agrees! see his archives!

  • Doc Holliday

    to back me up :) I understand your point too. I don’t see social cons purging anyone. I think we were ALL pissed at Specter, Snowe, and Collins. It would be great if we got real conservatives to take their place. I would love to replace Specter, I am not so sure we can do much about the other two without handing the left two more seats.

  • Doc Holliday

    just fair weather Republicans. They don’t want to be out in the cold and fight back, they just want to seem superior and “reasonable” to the DC elite.