Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you talk to the GOP grassroots, they are really pretty far to the right. If you listen to conservative talk radio, there are few moderates calling in. Callers are either solidly right Republicans, or indys and Democrats who call in to argue with the host. If you read publications like National Review, the IBD editorial page, or American Spectator, they too are well to the right.
Yet one after another GOP presidential candidate turns out to be a moderate, 'big government' conservative. IMO we really haven't even had a conservative candidate since Reagan. HW Bush, Dole, W Bush, and McCain were all big-government guys.
Ronald Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." George W Bush said, “When someone is hurting, government has got to move.”
Why do so few true conservatives seem able to climb the political ladder when? Why do we always wind up with candidates who are to the left of base? Any theories out there?
Why do so few true conservatives seem able to climb the political ladder when? Why do we always wind up with candidates who are to the left of base? Any theories out there?
Because people with money buy the moderate that will give them/bring them more money (not someone who says no to subsidies/bailouts/earmarks) and the print and TV Republican media go along with it because their personal power is derived from who they have access to over their rivals.
Let's take two GOP candidates, a libertarian and a conservative governor (Ron Paul and Rick Perry).
Perry is on the campaign trail telling anyone who will listen to him that he's pushing for a citizen Congress that will only meet part time and with a pay cut. Like his legislature in Texas, he expects them to only meet a set number of days per year and then they have to go back and work as private citizens under the laws they've passed and with a big cut in pay. Consider how many elected officials have come by wealth as a result of serving on Capitol Hill. That practically guarantees no endorsements from anyone on Capitol Hill but it also guarantees no endorsements from lobbyists and the people they lobby for who make their living off of the people on Capitol Hill who they influence.
He's also pushing for a flat tax. Who gains by having gobbledygook tax laws? I'll tell you. Lawyers. That's why we've never had an inch of tax simplification even though Presidential candidates have been promising it for decades. Take a look at who sits on top of the campaign donor lists as a group. Lawyers. They don't want tort reform. They don't want to see regulations go away. They don't want simplified tax forms. They make their living/their wealth off of it.
Since he's a current Texas governor, none of the national news media (and their regular TV guests) in NY or DC has rubbed elbows with him at luncheons, parties, or in interviews before he decided to run. A President Perry means they don't have an automatic "in" when he arrives at the White House. They'd have to suck up for it. There is not a foregone conclusion they'd have influence. Those "analysts" you see sitting on Fox News panels, for example, have no power except as it relates to who they know in power and have access to. With a President Perry they'd be back to zero.
The Republican Machine courted Paul Ryan to run. Now why would they court someone with ZERO executive experience, a person associated with pushing granny off a cliff? Answer: Because he works in DC. They see him and rub elbows with him. They'd have an "in" from the get-go. Chris Christie is also in the NY to DC corridor. They see him a lot, too. Why in the world was George Pataki (former NY governor) and of all people, Nanny Bloomberg's name floated? Because they were/are in NY. Donald Trump, too. Both the media and Wall Street are used to dealing with them. It's not like it's some governor from Texas. Remember, before he ran, they knew George Bush as President HW Bush's son. He didn't arrive out of the blue. That's why Florida Bush also intrigues them.
Now let's take Ron Paul who does work in DC but wants to audit the Fed and is the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to monetary policy. He can't thrill Wall Street and he wouldn't be bamboozled by them, either. He might be their worst nightmare. An isolationist President means much less Defense Industry contracts, too. The defense lobbyists would be unemployed for lack of work. He doesn't dance to the National News Media's tune, either. When he's not running for President, they only talk to him on the business news channels. They ALL want to take him down, marginalize him.
You may recall, they "settled" for moderate Mitt Romney only after all the pretty girls they courted to run, said "no." He is a dream for Wall Street even with his flip flops because he's one of them. Expect Obama to point that out...a lot...if the Republican media can persuade you that only Mitt Romney is electable.
The GOP is suffering from an identity crisis....When Clinton moved the Dems to the center the Republicans in order to differentiate themselves moved to the far right...The GOP "Neocons" of today are not the same as they were 10 years ago and are definetly not the same people who elected Reagan.
You guys are a hoot. If Reagan were running today, you would lump him with Huntsman and Romney as an Obama-clone lefty. The right has gone off the road. So has the left. The majority of Americans are not right wingers or left wingers; they are centrist with a right tilt here and a left tilt there. Gerrymandering and partisanship has taken away their voices in the primary process and the candidates pander to the extremists. But the moderate majority matters in the general election. They are the ones who decide elections and the ones the candidates must appeal to. Unfortunately, with all the pandering and flip-flopping that has to be done in the primary process, it is hard to tell where a candidate really stands anymore. It's time for a centrist third party.
You are wrong on Dumbya Bush, the Village Idiot from Texas.
He is the modern-day posterboy for conservatism: he ran and governed as a social, religious, economic, and national security conservative. He was a born-again Christian loony, was socially very conservative, implemented tax cuts for the rich, and spent $1 trillion invading countries that had nothing to do with 911. His conservatism is precisely why he was such a failure.
You are wrong on Dumbya Bush, the Village Idiot from Texas.
He is the modern-day posterboy for conservatism: he ran and governed as a social, religious, economic, and national security conservative. He was a born-again Christian loony, was socially very conservative, implemented tax cuts for the rich, and spent $1 trillion invading countries that had nothing to do with 911. His conservatism is precisely why he was such a failure.
Not only are you wrong, but you pull the rug from under yourself with the 4th grade namecalling. Any chance you might have had of being perceived as intelligent and having a point is lost.
Bush was a social conservative, no doubt, but that entered little into his decision making as president. 'Religious conservative'--I'm not even sure what that means. He definitely wasn't an economic conservative. He increased spending more than any prez since LBJ, even apart from defense/homeland security. George W Bush: the most liberal president of our times.
Again contrast the two quotes from Reagan and W Bush that I gave in the OP. The two philosphies could not have been much more different.
You are wrong on Dumbya Bush, the Village Idiot from Texas.
He is the modern-day posterboy for conservatism: he ran and governed as a social, religious, economic, and national security conservative. He was a born-again Christian loony, was socially very conservative, implemented tax cuts for the rich, and spent $1 trillion invading countries that had nothing to do with 911. His conservatism is precisely why he was such a failure.
he was a disappointment to conservatives because he signed practically every spending bill placed on his desk.
You are wrong in your assessment, and I am right. Period.
Dumbya Bush the Village Idiot spent $1 trillion to spread "Freedumbs" to Iraq, and the conservative base was behind him 1000%. Do you not remember the 2004 election, or were you living in a cave somewhere? Anyone who even remotely dared question Dumbya Bush on spending $1 trillion invading Iraq was automatically labeled a "traitorous liberal", "hater of our troops and Baby Jesus", "Al Qaeda sympathiser", and a "cowardly appeaser". Bush won in 2004 precisely because he had the firm support of social/religious conservatives (due to the fact that he was a born-again Christian loony tune), economic conservatives (they loved his tax cuts for the rich), and national security conservatives (they sure loved his invasion of Iraq).
And only someone delusional would think that championing tax cuts for the rich is a liberal position. LOL!
You are wrong in your assessment, and I am right. Period.
Dumbya Bush the Village Idiot spent $1 trillion to spread "Freedumbs" to Iraq, and the conservative base was behind him 1000%. Do you not remember the 2004 election, or were you living in a cave somewhere? !
Sorry but you're still off. Are you even old enough to remember 2004? Here's a quote from a 2004 interview of W Bush by Tim Russert that I posted in the other thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBC news
Russert: But your base conservatives -- and listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, they're all saying you are the biggest spender in American history.
President Bush: Well, they're wrong.
Now do you care to rephrase your claim that in 2004 "the conservative base was behind him 1000%?'
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Why do so few true conservatives seem able to climb the political ladder when? Why do we always wind up with candidates who are to the left of base? Any theories out there?
Because the majority chooses the candidate?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
