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.
But, without the social conservatives the Republicans (and defacto, the Tea Party) will again move into the background, and be minimally effective in directing policy directions.
The evangelicals are an important group, and they will have a lot of say in the near term direction of the Republicans.
Evangelicals are treated as important, but they are no more important than far left Liberals are to the Democrats. Reason, they have no place else where to place their votes and even if they don't much care for a particular crop of Republicans, they are still going to place their votes there.
I recall the heady days for social conservatives in the mid 90's and during the first term of GW Bush, when both houses of Congress were heavy Republican, yet there was almost no legislation passed that was agenda specific to social conservatives.
Right now the wave is spending spending and spending, oh and did I mention spending? Granted it is going to be hard for these folks to actually cut spending because as much as Americans claim to want this, it means they are going to have to cut their bennies and when this happens, we shall see how loving the public is then.
This is one of the things I was referring to in my thread "I think I need to clear up some things about Rational Conservatives"
While I respect the religious input and firmly know that they have as much right to be heard as any other American. They keep trying to idea-jack people that have good ideas that don't include a religious agenda then claim them as there own. Cause and Effect of that is they alienate the undecideds that would like to apply good ideas but fear religious narrow mindedness.
The Tea party came about to force our government representatives to realize that they work for the people and to push the people to take back the idea of We the People of the United States of America. When that idea gets twisted into an agenda of any kind a huge crack forms between the Tea party and people who are looking for real solutions.
DeMint's statement that you can not be a fiscal conservative with out being social conservative is a bunch of malarkey. It simply is not true and it's a very narrow minded statement.
The core of Classical Conservatism is that we need to be more responsible with our money that we give to our government while still remembering that there are human beings that are America and if we destroy and don't encourage peoples desire to succeed then there is no US of A.
I worry about society when the religious right of any discipline tries to take control. While I believe in God and go to a christian church the man or woman next to me may not and he or she is just as much an American as I am and I will not disavow that, I respect the reasons that this country was founded to much to do that.
Demin't went on to add that that the country is dysfunctional because of social issues. Our problems with social issues is because people are all the time trying to tell others how to run their lives. Has anyone ever noticed that people that get offended are usually sticking there nose into places it doesn't belong. I have never heard the gay or lesbian movement ask for federal funding to promote there cause. That makes it a social issue and not a fiscal issue and hence it is none of my dam business who you marry.
I hope that the religious right dose not idea-jack the Tea party because simply, the best way to save this nation for everyone is from the original idea of the movement. Lose that and the Tea Party will become no more then a Jim Baker telethon.
If that happens I hope that rational conservatives who shire the same desired destiny as the founding fathers shout from the rooftops that this nation must be a place where all men can have there own ideas and thoughts and philosophies with out our government officials trying to dictate what deity we believe in or if we believe in one at all.
My impression was that the whole Tea Party thing was founded on an economic platform. Merging into social/culture war issues would be beside the point, wouldn't it?
You're too late, that train has already left the station. According to some recent polls I've seen the majority of Tea Party supporters are social conservatives.
Evangelicals are treated as important, but they are no more important than far left Liberals are to the Democrats. Reason, they have no place else where to place their votes and even if they don't much care for a particular crop of Republicans, they are still going to place their votes there.
I recall the heady days for social conservatives in the mid 90's and during the first term of GW Bush, when both houses of Congress were heavy Republican, yet there was almost no legislation passed that was agenda specific to social conservatives.
Right now the wave is spending spending and spending, oh and did I mention spending? Granted it is going to be hard for these folks to actually cut spending because as much as Americans claim to want this, it means they are going to have to cut their bennies and when this happens, we shall see how loving the public is then.
Republicans terminated the federal funding of abortions. This was done via the Hyde Amendment, and aside from being sponsored by a Republican it also had overwhelming Republican support.
Republicans also ended the marriage penalty that was long resident in our federal income tax code. They also expanded the child care credit, another issue that was supported by evangelicals.
Currently, the resistance to establishing federal approval for gay marriage comes from the Republican Party. There are few Democrats who also oppose the establishment of gay marriage at the federal level.
Also, the improved support for alternative education processes, such as charter schools or home schooling, was initially provided by Republicans.
So, though you may view them as being humored, they have gotten some significant legislative issues done with the sponsorship and support of Republicans.
This is one of the things I was referring to in my thread "I think I need to clear up some things about Rational Conservatives"
While I respect the religious input and firmly know that they have as much right to be heard as any other American. They keep trying to idea-jack people that have good ideas that don't include a religious agenda then claim them as there own. Cause and Effect of that is they alienate the undecideds that would like to apply good ideas but fear religious narrow mindedness.
The Tea party came about to force our government representatives to realize that they work for the people and to push the people to take back the idea of We the People of the United States of America. When that idea gets twisted into an agenda of any kind a huge crack forms between the Tea party and people who are looking for real solutions.
DeMint's statement that you can not be a fiscal conservative with out being social conservative is a bunch of malarkey. It simply is not true and it's a very narrow minded statement.
The core of Classical Conservatism is that we need to be more responsible with our money that we give to our government while still remembering that there are human beings that are America and if we destroy and don't encourage peoples desire to succeed then there is no US of A.
I worry about society when the religious right of any discipline tries to take control. While I believe in God and go to a christian church the man or woman next to me may not and he or she is just as much an American as I am and I will not disavow that, I respect the reasons that this country was founded to much to do that.
Demin't went on to add that that the country is dysfunctional because of social issues. Our problems with social issues is because people are all the time trying to tell others how to run their lives. Has anyone ever noticed that people that get offended are usually sticking there nose into places it doesn't belong. I have never heard the gay or lesbian movement ask for federal funding to promote there cause. That makes it a social issue and not a fiscal issue and hence it is none of my dam business who you marry.
I hope that the religious right dose not idea-jack the Tea party because simply, the best way to save this nation for everyone is from the original idea of the movement. Lose that and the Tea Party will become no more then a Jim Baker telethon.
If that happens I hope that rational conservatives who shire the same desired destiny as the founding fathers shout from the rooftops that this nation must be a place where all men can have there own ideas and thoughts and philosophies with out our government officials trying to dictate what deity we believe in or if we believe in one at all.
See, we disagree about things such as what I have highlighted in your posting.
If gay marriage were allowed, what would be the impact on such things as tax revenue (married, filing joint when only one has income) and Social Security (spousal Social Security) payouts?
I think the financial implications could be very substantial.
See, we disagree about things such as what I have highlighted in your posting.
If gay marriage were allowed, what would be the impact on such things as tax revenue (married, filing joint when only one has income) and Social Security (spousal Social Security) payouts?
I think the financial implications could be very substantial.
Why is the Government in control of Marriage at all. What business is it of there's who I doink. I was married to a great woman for 20 years we filed taxes and bought cars. We never filed for marriage but she was my wife. If it causes financial discourse that is people getting into others business.
Republicans terminated the federal funding of abortions. This was done via the Hyde Amendment, and aside from being sponsored by a Republican it also had overwhelming Republican support.
Republicans also ended the marriage penalty that was long resident in our federal income tax code. They also expanded the child care credit, another issue that was supported by evangelicals.
Currently, the resistance to establishing federal approval for gay marriage comes from the Republican Party. There are few Democrats who also oppose the establishment of gay marriage at the federal level.
Also, the improved support for alternative education processes, such as charter schools or home schooling, was initially provided by Republicans.
So, though you may view them as being humored, they have gotten some significant legislative issues done with the sponsorship and support of Republicans.
Yet the Hyde Amendment (which is not a law but a rider) was established in 1976 as a response to Roe V Wade, and was a bit before the silent majority and the rise of social conservatism in 80's and 90's but a victory none the less.
The expansion of the child credit is not something that I see is specific to social conservatives, especially since in Jan 2010, the Obama administration wishes to double the child tax credit. It seems to be more of a middle class issue than one of purely social conservative making.
I can dig the charter schools, but home schooling is something I'm rather conflicted on, much in the same sentiment as Winston Churchill's argument against democracy. I'm not opposed to it as much as I fear the consequences of letting only marginally educated people to teach their own children.
The gay marriage issue is much like the legalization of marijuana, as one day it will happen. Maybe not next year, maybe not in 5 but within the next 10 years, both will be legalized in some fashion. Each year the trends move more and more in their favor.
As far as the war between the GOP and the Tea Party and the Tea Party with the Tea Party, I can only see this as a healthy thing, in fact it happens from time to time, so I don't know what all the fuss is about.
"Ronald Reagan (bless his sense of humor) loved to say that the problem with his administration was that the right hand didn't know what the far right hand was doing."
Bush doubled the child credit as part of his tax cut package.
As far as the Tea Party issue goes, the whole point is that it won't have an agenda that will exclude the issues important to the evangelicals.
If they try to marginalize evangelicals, they will sit on the sideline and not vote, just as they significantly did in 2008. Though they may not have anywhere else to turn for support, they can choose to not be active in the political process, clearly sending a message that their issues need to be part of the larger Republican agenda.
The Democrats go through this stuff too, this past cycle with the "Netroots" and "Blue Dogs" marginalizing each other.
I think folks like the OP are licking their wounds from this last election, and instead of looking at the flaws in their own party they would rather hope for a battle within the opposition.
Shall we line up a bunch of old time ships in Boston Harbor? This could be interesting to watch. Maybe put it on TLC, following Palin's Alaska, which is not so interesting to watch.
"But libertarian-minded Tea Party activists have been warning freshmen whom the movement helped elect that if they stray from a laserlike focus on fiscal issues, they'll face a primary challenge in two years and harm Republican chances in the coming presidential race."
Jim DeMint assumes the in order to be a functional as opposed to a dysfunctional family, one has to be a social conservative, or has some on this forum have even asserted, "A non-theist is incapable of morality".
Calling David Vitter to the white phone, calling Jimmy Baker to the Blue phone, etc... etc...
Social Conservationism espouses a higher standard that everyone else but you should live at, while at the same time embracing big government intervention into legislating moral ambiguity and vagueness.
Evangelicals are today what they always were, a voting bloc that is used like so many pawns by Republicans holding a carrot in front of their faces while it fleeces their wallets.
Don't forget Jim Haggard!
What's with this evangelical clap-trap about morality anyway? They have a high divorce rate, and a high out-of-wedlock birth rate (all that abstinence only education doesn't work so well in the heat of passion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
"But libertarian-minded Tea Party activists have been warning freshmen whom the movement helped elect that if they stray from a laserlike focus on fiscal issues, they'll face a primary challenge in two years and harm Republican chances in the coming presidential race."
The Tea Party movement owns Republican primaries.
And we saw how well that worked for Dan Maes, Ken Buck, Christine O'Donnell and a few others. Hint: try to focus on electables!
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.
