Political Crossfire Forums

[goblue]

The party's base is showing signs of wear-the result of decades of tension between red-state masses of social conservatives, who are the front line in America's culture war, and secular conservatives, who are those drawn to traditional GOP principles. The 2008 election will test the political skills of those seeking the party's presidential nomination in ways not seen since Ronald Reagan invited the religious right into the GOP tent of mostly probusiness, prodefense, antigovernment conservatives-a coalition that has dominated US politics for more than a quarter-century. But now, there appears to be some pushing back from the secular conservatives. The Republican platform, which once rested equally on the pillars of national security, fiscal integrity, personal freedom, and responsibility and limited government, has become a bit too wobbly for more traditional Republicans. Instead of debating abortion, gay marriage and other social hot buttons, traditional Republicans want to hear more about lean, efficient government. Still, since the Reagan landslide of 1980, the route to the Republican presidential primary has been through the religious right. Which philosophy will better serve the Republicans in the next election? :?

[garyd]

A nice Question. But you left out a third group and the one ost inclined to what I call balance sheet conservatism and that is the country club Republicans who by the way haven't won anything since Eisenhower and under whose guidance From 1952 to 1976 the Republican party was on the way to oblivion. The chief problem with them and a great many have decamped to the right side of the Democratic party is simply put that the only difference they have with the extreme left of the Democratic party is that they think you should do socialism on a pay as you go basis (you can't but thats another argument)

The Republicans can't win an election without the Social conservatives but a great many of their other beliefs tend to be quite populist and are founded on an almost unbelievable amount of ignorance especially as regards economic issues Listen to Bill O'Reilly's diatribes against Oil Company profits if you think I'm kidding.

What will likely cost the Republicans the election is the price of Oil never mind the fact that the price of oil is largely the fault of America's left Green alliance.

[goblue]

garyd wrote: A nice Question. But you left out a third group and the one ost inclined to what I call balance sheet conservatism and that is the country club Republicans who by the way haven't won anything since Eisenhower and under whose guidance From 1952 to 1976 the Republican party was on the way to oblivion. The chief problem with them and a great many have decamped to the right side of the Democratic party is simply put that the only difference they have with the extreme left of the Democratic party is that they think you should do socialism on a pay as you go basis (you can't but thats another argument)

The Republicans can't win an election without the Social conservatives but a great many of their other beliefs tend to be quite populist and are founded on an almost unbelievable amount of ignorance especially as regards economic issues Listen to Bill O'Reilly's diatribes against Oil Company profits if you think I'm kidding.

What will likely cost the Republicans the election is the price of Oil never mind the fact that the price of oil is largely the fault of America's left Green alliance. It's amazing to me how many people voted for Bush strictly for the social issues. Especially the senior citizens who believe in good morals. Karl Rove was a genius for being able to keep the social issues at the top of the list when it seemed like a lot of other issues usually would have been more important. I mean at the time gay marriage was a bigger issue than immigration, health care, the economy and so on. Morals was probably the number two issue after the war on terror in 2004. The problem with that is I'm not sure that will carry near as much weight in 2008 as Iraq, immigration, energy prices, the deficit and health care. I mean you had the Christian groups going after Ford Motor company for putting their products in gay magazines. By all means I'm not for gay marriage. But if gays want to buy a car cause it's advertised in their magazines by all means let them buy the cars to help our economy. Who cares if they're gay if it's putting bread on the table for Ford workers. This is where I think the social conservatives have crossed the line.

[Preechr]

goblue wrote: I mean you had the Christian groups going after Ford Motor company for putting their products in gay magazines. By all means I'm not for gay marriage. But if gays want to buy a car cause it's advertised in their magazines by all means let them buy the cars to help our economy. Who cares if they're gay if it's putting bread on the table for Ford workers. This is where I think the social conservatives have crossed the line.
There is group of animal activists that are going after Aflac because of the duck in their commercials. That the duck is actually animatronic or animated rather than being an actual animal doesn’t seem to matter to them. The point is that there are always going to be people who take causes to ridiculous lengths.

As for the rest of your question, I fear the social conservatives are far stronger than the financial ones.

[NeedsREALfreedom]

I agree that the republican party would be crippled if not for the religious "values" voters, however, I wonder if they can hang on to this constituency. The republican party is simply corrupt. It is run like the mafia. Lying about the entire war, leaking classified intelligence, destroying the world we live in, installing a plutocracy into our republic, racketeering, etc., might not be as bad as, say, putting a cigar where it wasn't meant to go, but it still may open the eye of some people who believe they are voting for "morals".

goblue wrote: By all means I'm not for gay marriage. But if gays want to buy a car cause it's advertised in their magazines by all means let them buy the cars to help our economy. Who cares if they're gay if it's putting bread on the table for Ford workers.

Ok, so you care what they are doing in their personal lives that in no way involves you, but you still think they are a valuable resource to exploit? How opportunistic of you.

[goblue]

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: I agree that the republican party would be crippled if not for the religious "values" voters, however, I wonder if they can hang on to this constituency. The republican party is simply corrupt. It is run like the mafia. Lying about the entire war, leaking classified intelligence, destroying the world we live in, installing a plutocracy into our republic, racketeering, etc., might not be as bad as, say, putting a cigar where it wasn't meant to go, but it still may open the eye of some people who believe they are voting for "morals".

goblue wrote: By all means I'm not for gay marriage. But if gays want to buy a car cause it's advertised in their magazines by all means let them buy the cars to help our economy. Who cares if they're gay if it's putting bread on the table for Ford workers.

Ok, so you care what they are doing in their personal lives that in no way involves you, but you still think they are a valuable resource to exploit? How opportunistic of you. But the traditional, or Reagan conservatives, I believe, wouldn't have put much emphasis on attacking a car company for selling cars to gays. That is where Bush is throwing a loop at traditional conservatives. I believe Reagan would have cracked down on illegals. Reagan would have banned all illegals from coming into the country. I think Reagan would never have done the ports deal with the UAE. Reagan would have cut spending. I think a large part of why the traditionalists feel uncomfortable with the social conservative agenda as mainstream is cause they know they can't live up to those expectations. They know that they too like to go to strip clubs. They know that they too cheat on their wives and get divorces. They know that they too smoked pot when they were younger. They know that they too get drunk driving offenses. They know that they too don't go to church or have a strong relationship with God. They know that they too are sometimes gay or have a sibling who is gay. So it's more bearable for them to put more emphasis on a strong national defense and less government. That way they can still say they're a conservative without looking like a hypocrite.