What is Digg?Sponsored by Virgin America
Virgin America. Fly in style from $49. view!
virginamerica.com - Fly fabulous with WiFi, movies, on demand food and drinks, and more.
24 Comments
- helzapoppn, on 11/19/2008, -1/+29Just wait 'til this filters down to the rank-and-file...oh, wait.
That would require them to READ something vaguely critical about themselves.
But it's so very true -- nothing has been worse for the Republican brand overall than its decades-long public kowtowing to the likes of Hagee, Robertson, Dobson, Reed, Parsley and Falwell. - scottknick, on 11/19/2008, -1/+22I believe there were millions of Republicans who would have loved to have vote Republican this year but couldn't bring themselves to support a ticket hopelessly wedded to bigotry, racism, ignorance and character assassination.
But the Taliban wing is very firmly entrenched, and they have shown time and again that they're unafraid to tell the most vile lies about you if you get in their way. Thinking Republicans who want to reclaim the GOP from the Religious Right had better be prepared for some heavy swiftboating. - JenniferInMO, on 11/19/2008, -1/+21I agree with the Republican "brand" being a problem, but in listening to all the talk after the Rep.Governors' convention it sounds like they just think a new marketing strategy is needed. No one is coming up with any new ideas. I am happy if the Republicans flounder for a few years, but we need at least 2 competitive parties. We DON'T need to completely split ideologies which are polar opposites, that just divides the country. If I were the Republicans I would sit down with whatever party leaders they have and put on paper all of the things that make make up conservatism then come up with written approaches to accomplishing them THEN figure out a way to market those ideas to their base who will be unable to understand them without being distilled into sound bites. The Republican party has been ONLY sound bites for too long and no substance.
- katiedogg, on 11/19/2008, -2/+19It was hilarious to watch Jonah Goldberg flip his ***** over that one.
- niradg, on 11/19/2008, -1/+18Aren't fundies the only Republicans left? The GOP has surrendered the mantle of fiscal responsibility and their all-war-all-the-time approach to national security has been a complete failure.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -1/+17The problem I have always had is: What does conservative mean? Politically? A return to the 1930s? 1950s? 1960s? No thanks!
Managing finances within the constraints of funds and cash flow is not conservative, but prudent. There are times, however, when a society must spend more than it collects just to keep the ship afloat and then return to prudent management fundamentals. There are no "trademark rights" specific to either party for fundamental fiscal management. - Anomaly100, on 11/20/2008, -1/+16There is just too much to "air" out with the Republican Party. It's gotten so thick with extremists and racists. When a middle of the road Republican comes along and reads the comments, some of them will get upset as if they are being called xenophobic or racists for no reason. There is a reason. I wouldn't be involved with any party that tramples on other's rights to obtain votes, or creates division where another party is trying to create hope. If someone else is trying to do something good and beneficial, is it worth it to smolder this hope just to get votes? The Republican Party have shown that they would do anything to win this election. They stooped to an all time low. They would have to start completely over.
- inactive, on 11/19/2008, -1/+12This is exactly how Republicans win elections. Rural folks (I grew up in Illinois so I'm not just speaking out of my butt here) are often fiscal liberals, but social conservatives.
You put tell 'em, "hey, I'm like 20 times more socially conservative than you are!" and voila - you get a Strom Thurmond or a Ted Stevens or Sarah Palin or a Larry Craig or...
(that last one was for my own amusement :) ). - inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+9I'm not sure if the Republican party is taking advantage of the Evangelicals or if it's the other way around. Either way, someone is being used.
- inactive, on 11/19/2008, -0/+9I completely agree Jennifer. If either party becomes complacent with their ideologies, it is difficult for forward progress to be made. There are aspects of both party ideologies that could be worked on, but once the flow of ideas stops, we see the result: A party that doesn't know why or how it is wrong, and keeps trying to push old ideas through the mill using new packaging. This in the end will become a detriment to us, because we will eventually become complacent with the ideology of our party, never being forced to question the status-quo and progress because we have no one pushing us.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+8It's not just the religious right. Talk radio's love affair with all things Palin and its tendency to push lies from the likes of Berg and Corsi are making non-religious factions of the base dig in their heels. Some of the worst talk radio hosts have managed to form a narrative where all of the problems in the Republican party are from the moderates and none of the problems comes from any element of the base. Now I agree with much of what they are saying about McCain's problems and his failure to be a conservative, but much of the problem comes from the base as well with the religious right being arguably the most damaging element of the base. The hardcore "Republican or die" base (which I admittedly am pretty much a part of) are going overboard to the point where Republicans risk being labeled in the near future.as "fringe" in the same sense that individual candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have been.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+8That may be evident to Democrats and even some Moderate Republicans, but 2010 is going to be the litmus test.
- Depthfunction, on 11/20/2008, -0/+7In the Reagan era, the Christian right was recruited into the GOP as a new constituency, but somewhere along the way, the evangelicals stopped being a mere constituency and took over control of the party.
What I think is really interesting is the alliance that has formed between the evangelicals and the neo-cons (an alliance which has dominated the last eight years of Bush's term in office). Both sides think they are using the other. The evangelicals thing they are using the Jews and Israel as their ticket to heaven since, as we all know, we're living in the End of Days and Armeggedon is right around the corner. The neo-cons, on the other hand, are using the evangelicals so that the neo-cons can push forward their pro-zionist agenda. The neo-cons pay lip service to the evangelicals religious beliefs, but they don't believe any of this end-of-the-world crap. - inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+6Great googly moogly, was that ever a good comment. You said it!
Let's hear it for BILL CLINTON! - inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+6I don't know. Basically what I think is that this alliance has turned the Republican party into a party that stands for basically nothing but winning elections at all costs. It's just like JenniferinMO said to me in her shout - they got figured out what they stand for first, and then we can talk.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -1/+7They actually have Reagan to thank. He's the one who revitalized the Republican party, but in so doing he established his cardinal rule of never saying anything negative about another republican. The party has adhered to that by and large ever since, but now they can't identify deficiencies in their core principles. To do so would be to admit that they were ever wrong in the first place.
- uncajoe, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5http://digg.com/political_opinion/Republicans_get_ ...
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4Thanks for the compliment, Nina!
BTW: Nina just happens to be my favorite female name. Maybe one day I will get to use it. - JenniferInMO, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4Good point. They have become a party of apologists.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2I know lots of rural folks who are social liberals, even many in the older generations. I find rural people to tend more towards social libertarianism than lots of people who only live in suburbs or cities believe. They don't want people to give them trouble, and they won't give you any. But then again, I don't live in the Bible Belt.
- Depthfunction, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2It's true. When the faithful GOPers talk about purging the party of RINOs, what they usually refer to is anyone who isn't an evangelical Christian. The Republican party is quickly turning into a strictly theocratic party.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1You're right - I probably sort of characterization it a bit. In my hometown, it's just as you describe (Champaign-Urbana, where the University of Illinios is).
But you get out to Lincoln, or Loda, or Downstate, or even Savoy (which is just on the outskirts of C-U), and it's a different story.
I also have to say that in all my years growing up in Illinois, I experienced exactly one instance of actual Racism. I've experienced more racism in Northern California than there. - inactive, on 11/20/2008, -3/+1Their immature reaction to the one guy with substance, Dr. Ron Paul (who, as I keep having to say, was the ONLY ONE running for President to predict the current fiscal *****) bodes ill for the future of the Republican party. If the "choice" is between tax and spend welfare state or borrow and spend warfare state, the Democrats are destined to win. Republicans feared Dr. Paul because they all knew, from his decades of votes, that he takes the rhetoric about less spending seriously. They want ***** big spenders like Huckabee or Romney to represent "conservatives," even though both men are demonstrably fiscally irresponsible. Both parties are addicted to the Federal Reserve's fiscal heroin, and the good Doctor was saying to the addicts "perhaps this next dose ISN'T a good idea!"
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -3/+1Actually it's the Democrats who are openly cheering for a return of 1930s-style policy.
