Is the GOP imploding?

[JoeChalupa]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/steve-schmidt-mccain-camp_n_188354.html

"Speaking publicly for one of the first times since the end of the presidential campaign, John McCain's campaign manager Steve Schmidt painted a dire portrait of the state of the Republican Party, arguing that the GOP has largely been co-opted by its religious elements."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/rush-limbaugh-begins-slap_n_188388.html


"Rush Limbaugh read the torture memos and got inspired to perform a brief act of self-torture and strenuous exercise, just like the old-timey radio pornographers used to do back in the Roaring Twenties! It sounded exactly as dirty as this:"

LIMBAUGH: *SLAP* I just slapped myself! *SLAP* *SLAP* *SLAP* I'm torturing myself, right now! That's torture! *SLAP* According to these people. *SLAP* If there is another hit...ahhhhh - ahhhh - *sigh*...welllll *SLAP* *sigh* UHHHHHHB....wooooofff.

OK, so I'm definitely taking that whole section out of context. But, hey, at least I'm aware that the approved torture techniques went way beyond slapping.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/tea-party-fallout-indepen_n_188235.html


"It's been two days now since angry conservatives hosted a series of tea parties across the country, and the fallout has some Republicans nervous.

While the anti-tax sentiment of the protests may have been sincere, the images pulled from the events have often been offensive, embarrassing, or politically problematic."



I guess Sarah may be their best bet.

[DarrinS]

I think the GOP would be smart to listen to the advice of McCain's campaign manager. He did such a great job.


(Note: If it's not blatantly obvious, I'm being extremely sarcastic.)

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Someone should point out lots of folks didn't vote for McCain because he's a RINO. The Republican party is stumbling because so many of the folks in D.C., like McCain, Kay Bailey, Cornyn, etc. all have an (R) next to their name but spend like liberals. And let's not even touch on W's free spending...

The Republican party will be just fine if it gets back to fiscal conservativism.

[JoeChalupa]

Someone should point out lots of folks didn't vote for McCain because he's a RINO. The Republican party is stumbling because so many of the folks in D.C., like McCain, Kay Bailey, Cornyn, etc. all have an (R) next to their name but spend like liberals. And let's not even touch on W's free spending...

The Republican party will be just fine if it gets back to fiscal conservativism.

That's Sarah Palin!! You betcha!!

[redskinfan]

The Republican party will be just fine if it gets back to fiscal conservativism.

:lmao
you conservatives are hilarious!! when were they ever fiscally conservative??

[Winehole23]

After the conservatives converted to Cold War liberalism, they kinda lost their way. They had a real Taft-style Republican last year, but they didn't vote for him.

[FaithInOne]

I've seen McDonalds managers run a better campaign than these bafoons.

I don't entirely blame them though, their candidate was a loser too.

[Nbadan]

...and I guess Hutchinson got the message that she would never be V.P.....

[JoeChalupa]

I've seen McDonalds managers run a better campaign than these bafoons.

I don't entirely blame them though, their candidate was a loser too.

It didn't matter since the people were ready for a change from the republican way of doing things.

[Nbadan]

It didn't matter since the people were ready for a change from the republican way of doing things.

What part did they change Joe? remind me again?

[JoeChalupa]

What part did they change Joe? remind me again?

From the war in Iraq to the economy to healthcare and World leadership.

[Nbadan]

From the war in Iraq to the economy to healthcare and World leadership.

McCain supported to continue Dubya's War in Iraq.....Dubya was a worse spender than McCain, despite the RINO rhetoric from the right, McCain supported the expansion of the largest gov'ment 'socialist' program since FDR...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why won't Rush run for office? He'd be great for the base.

[FaithInOne]

It'd be a paycut.

[hope4dopes]

From the war in Iraq to the economy to healthcare and World leadership.
Hey I gotta this bridge in brooklyn, you could make a killing with this thing I tell you what I'm kinda down on my luck right now I'd be willing to sell it to you cheap.Whatta ya say.

[Winehole23]

Hey I gotta this bridge in brooklyn, you could make a killing with this thing I tell you what I'm kinda down on my luck right now I'd be willing to sell it to you cheap.Whatta ya say.Prosopopeia (http://www.odlt.org/ballast/prosopopeia.html).

Oxford English Dictionary - Its first citation is from 1561:

"We vnderstand these things to be spoken by a figure called Prosopopeia: that is, by the fayning of a person."
(J. Daus tr. Bullinger on Apoc. (1573) 91)

[PixelPusher]

It'd be a paycut.

natuarlly. He wouldn't be true conservative if he didn't value money over a brief stint serving his country.

[Winehole23]

Without the harness of power or an external enemy to unite them, conservatives never have been very congruous. Being out of power tends to accentuate the fault lines. The advantage in phony consensus being so greatly diminished in the minority, stifled grievances tend to come to the fore.

[ChumpDumper]

It has already imploded. They are trying to find a voice again. The Republican leaders will now try to find a way to capitalize on the fiscal conservatism expressed in the tea parties without actually becoming fiscally conservative.

[sabar]

It has already imploded. They are trying to find a voice again. The Republican leaders will now try to find a way to capitalize on the fiscal conservatism expressed in the tea parties without actually becoming fiscally conservative.

What needs to happen is libertarianism needs to fill the hole so neo-conservatism can die.

The GOP isn't the opposite of the left. Right now it is just a religious platform. Both the right and left spend us into deeper debt.

What is more likely to happen is the above... the GOP will claim to embrace libertarian ideals but just stay the same.

[Winehole23]

You coopt the ideology in order to screw the voter.

[Cry Havoc]

It'd be a paycut.

Translation: "He wouldn't be able to be a complete idiot and get away with it."

[Jacob1983]

If you're a liberal and/or Democrat, then you should be jizzing in your pants over the state of the GOP. Besides, be happy and don't bitch. Your guy won. No one likes a sore winner.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't really take the time to read the posts her, however, by title...

The need to implode, dammit!

They have deviated from the idea of "The Republic." They have become a lite version of democrats and their socialism. If we are going to have socialism, then say lets have democrats and have it done quickly, and die quickly, rather than a slow death by having the same policies implemented slower.

I actually think that the current process will make political Republicans take a and look, and become what they once were. Conservatives. If that doesn't happen, then I say screw them and let the republican party die.

[hope4dopes]

Without the harness of power or an external enemy to unite them, conservatives never have been very congruous. Being out of power tends to accentuate the fault lines. The advantage in phony consensus being so greatly diminished in the minority, stifled grievances tend to come to the fore.

Where as democrats tend to look for an internal enemy and pit American against American.

[hope4dopes]

I didn't really take the time to read the posts her, however, by title...

The need to implode, dammit!

They have deviated from the idea of "The Republic." They have become a lite version of democrats and their socialism. If we are going to have socialism, then say lets have democrats and have it done quickly, and die quickly, rather than a slow death by having the same policies implemented slower.

I actually think that the current process will make political Republicans take a and look, and become what they once were. Conservatives. If that doesn't happen, then I say screw them and let the republican party die.




I actually think that the current process will make political Republicans take a and look, and become what they once were. Conservatives. If that doesn't happen, then I say screw them and let the republican party die.


Alright Cobra. There are conservatives and conservative ideals I really like. There are Libreals and libreal ideals I really like. That being said it is only conservatives on this thread who've actually said "Fuck the republicans if they don't stand by their principles let them die" Libreals say for good or bad the "PARTY" must survive.oh sure they'll say both parties suck but they won't abandon THE PARTY that's abandoned them. That's why I find conservatives more intresting, they're willing to burn bridges, try real change, entertain new ideas and not just fall into lockstep with the PARTY and the machine the party's built, suckeling themselves from a rotting corpse. Nader supporters will actually say fuck the democrats but they don't seem to be represented here.

That being said , as something of a libertarian, it would take a near act of God to get me to vote for or trust someone the RNC approves of.

[PixelPusher]

Alright Cobra. There are conservatives and conservative ideals I really like. There are Libreals and libreal ideals I really like. That being said it is only conservatives on this thread who've actually said "Fuck the republicans if they don't stand by their principles let them die" Libreals say for good or bad the "PARTY" must survive.oh sure they'll say both parties suck but they won't abandon THE PARTY that's abandoned them. That's why I find conservatives more intresting, they're willing to burn bridges, try real change, entertain new ideas and not just fall into lockstep with the PARTY and the machine the party's built, suckeling themselves from a rotting corpse.

You just described all the board conservatives for the last 8 years to a tee. They were "lockstep" up until the writing was on the wall after '06 that the Republican party was done for, and they collectively gave themselves permission to criticized Bush.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Conservatives are boring. They have a pat answer for everything and only really want to try one thing when it comes to government.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It'd be a paycut.

it's been a paycut for the last 10 presidents. serving your country is worth the paycut.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I actually think that the current process will make political Republicans take a and look, and become what they once were. Conservatives. If that doesn't happen, then I say screw them and let the republican party die.


Alright Cobra. There are conservatives and conservative ideals I really like. There are Libreals and libreal ideals I really like. That being said it is only conservatives on this thread who've actually said "Fuck the republicans if they don't stand by their principles let them die" Libreals say for good or bad the "PARTY" must survive.oh sure they'll say both parties suck but they won't abandon THE PARTY that's abandoned them. That's why I find conservatives more intresting, they're willing to burn bridges, try real change, entertain new ideas and not just fall into lockstep with the PARTY and the machine the party's built, suckeling themselves from a rotting corpse. Nader supporters will actually say fuck the democrats but they don't seem to be represented here.

That being said , as something of a libertarian, it would take a near act of God to get me to vote for or trust someone the RNC approves of.



Libreals say for good or bad the "PARTY" must survive.

I must have missed something,which liberal said this? Please provide us with an example.

[Winehole23]

Where as democrats tend to look for an internal enemy and pit American against American.Diabolical.

Are you a white knight, micca?

[LnGrrrR]

That being said it is only conservatives on this thread who've actually said "Fuck the republicans if they don't stand by their principles let them die" Libreals say for good or bad the "PARTY" must survive.oh sure they'll say both parties suck but they won't abandon THE PARTY that's abandoned them. That's why I find conservatives more intresting, they're willing to burn bridges, try real change, entertain new ideas and not just fall into lockstep with the PARTY and the machine the party's built, suckeling themselves from a rotting corpse. Nader supporters will actually say fuck the democrats but they don't seem to be represented here.

Could you show me where board members have said that? Any of them?

[Wild Cobra]

Could you show me where board members have said that? Any of them?
I have said very similar. I only like the republican party as the lesser of two evils. The democrats will destroy the heart of America at a fast pace. The republicans will do it also, but a slower death. The republicans use to be fiscal conservatives, but fell into the trap of buying votes with taxpayer dollars.

Fuck them if they don't return to conservative values. Let a new party rise.

Post #24 of this thread:


If that doesn't happen, then I say screw them and let the republican party die.

[LnGrrrR]

I have said very similar. I only like the republican party as the lesser of two evils. The democrats will destroy the heart of America at a fast pace. The republicans will do it also, but a slower death. The republicans use to be fiscal conservatives, but fell into the trap of buying votes with taxpayer dollars.

Fuck them if they don't return to conservative values. Let a new party rise.

Post #24 of this thread:

Hey, I'm down for a libertarian party! Just maybe not as extreme as the current one.

I side with the Dems because they are the lesser of two evils in my mind. I don't think Republicans will actually spend less, plus they are more authoritarian, and I'm not a big fan of their righteous religious base.

[Winehole23]

Hey, I'm down for a libertarian party! Just maybe not as extreme as the current one.If you mean the LP-USA, I insist on adding the qualifiers kooky and moronic.

[Wild Cobra]

Ever listen to Neal Boortz (http://boortz.com/)? He's a libertarian.

[Winehole23]

Ever listen to Neal Boortz (http://boortz.com/)? He's a libertarian.That designation no longer hoists my joist. Looking him up online ought not to pollute my gentle soul excessively...

[Winehole23]

Ugh.

The icky finger. It just touched me.

[Winehole23]

Are you kidding WC? You love this guy?

[Wild Cobra]

Are you kidding WC? You love this guy?
I wouldn't say love, but he has a great deal of good information. Libertarians come in all mixes of left and right. They are anti-authoritarian. You should find the radio station and time he's on in your area and give him a chance.

[PixelPusher]

I must have missed something,which liberal said this? Please provide us with an example.

Oh come on GGA, you know how liberals are always in lockstep agreement, how they always maintain message discipline, tow the line and never, never, never criticize their own.

for example:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=7836

...I mean, you can practically feel the vibrations from the goosestepping uniformity.

[Winehole23]

I wouldn't say love, but he has a great deal of good information. Libertarians come in all mixes of left and right. They are anti-authoritarian. You should find the radio station and time he's on in your area and give him a chance.Don't worry, I'll probably be subjected to him against my will in the car. Probably, I have already been subjected to Boortz and repressed the memory.

Nothing personal, WC, but I do not look forward to the next time.

[jman3000]

Ever listen to Neal Boortz (http://boortz.com/)? He's a libertarian.

He comes on at around 8-10 down here I believe... I dont remember if he's on KLUP or 550.

meh. he just fits into the mold of all the other 3rd tier conservative talk radio hosts.

[SnakeBoy]

Ever listen to Neal Boortz (http://boortz.com/)? He's a libertarian.

He's not a libertarian, hell even Sean Hannity claims to be a libertarian now. Neocons never like to admit what they are. Besides pure libertarianism is a stupid ideology that americans will never accept. Do you think americans will accept that the way to protect the environement is to sell it? Do you think americans will accept the idea that if a hurricane is approaching it's okay to sell a sheet of plywood for $200 because that's what people are "willing" to pay at that time? That libertarianism.

As mentioned imploded (not imploding) is the correct tense when talking about the GOP. Now they are in rebuilding mode much like the spurs will soon be. I don't think they will regain power until they reject neoconservatism and get back to the ideology of Reagan (not a neocons despite what the board liberals would have you believe). It will be tough though because neocons have done such a good job of hijacking reaganism. It's hard to trust anyone who claims to be a reagan conservative, just look at W's 2000 campaign for proof. I think any conservative who fails to admit invading Iraq was a mistake will fail my "are you a neocon" test. Basically I'll be looking for conservatives who are a little less libertarian leaning than Ron Paul and have a much better personality than Ron Paul.

The other option might be that neocons flock back to the Democratic party since power is what they are most interested in. Then they can fuck up that party like they did the GOP.

[Wild Cobra]

He's not a libertarian, hell even Sean Hannity claims to be a libertarian now.
Sure he is. As for Hannity changing? I don't know. Maybe. I do know he's been talking more and more like a conservative libertarian.

Neocons never like to admit what they are.
He's not a neocon. That's what much of the republican party has become, and the likes of Boortz, Hannity, Limbaugh and other do talk bad about them.

Fuck neocons. They are no better than democrats on fiscal policies.

Besides pure libertarianism is a stupid ideology that americans will never accept.
Who is talking about pure libertarianism? Please... Who said that? Why do you take it to the extreme? Few people accept the extreme left or right as well!

Do you think americans will accept that the way to protect the environement is to sell it?
The idea is you protect your property. Sure, some will not take care of it, but common sense tells us more property would be protected better that way. The Ivory business is a perfect example. In countries it is illegal in, elephant poaching is out of control. In countries it is legal in, the herds are cared for and in no danger of extinction.

Do you think americans will accept the idea that if a hurricane is approaching it's okay to sell a sheet of plywood for $200 because that's what people are "willing" to pay at that time? That libertarianism.

Does it matter? Sell it for less, the product still runs out, and some people are still left without. If a person isn't smart enough to prepare in advance, then I don't give a rats ass what they have to pay. You live in hurricane country, you buy, cut it to size, and store it until needed. To do otherwise is piss poor planning.


As mentioned imploded (not imploding) is the correct tense when talking about the GOP. Now they are in rebuilding mode much like the spurs will soon be. I don't think they will regain power until they reject neoconservatism and get back to the ideology of Reagan (not a neocons despite what the board liberals would have you believe).
I agree. they lost their path, and will never recover if they leave behind the liberal traits they gained.

It will be tough though because neocons have done such a good job of hijacking reaganism.
I disagree. The people see through that.

It's hard to trust anyone who claims to be a reagan conservative, just look at W's 2000 campaign for proof.
When did he claim that? I know he referenced it, but I don't recall he ever said he was a Reagan conservative. If I'm wrong, please show me.

I think any conservative who fails to admit invading Iraq was a mistake will fail my "are you a neocon" test. Basically I'll be looking for conservatives who are a little less libertarian leaning than Ron Paul and have a much better personality than Ron Paul.
We are not talking about Ron Paul, and I specifically stated there are different types of libertarians. I am a conservative leaning libertarian. I have no idea what your test entails, but the term neocon has been changes in meaning too many times to trust it anyway.


The other option might be that neocons flock back to the Democratic party since power is what they are most interested in. Then they can fuck up that party like they did the GOP.

That is where they belong, or another party yet. Let them leave. We need a fiscal conservative republican party again, or the party will die.

[hope4dopes]

Hey, I'm down for a libertarian party! Just maybe not as extreme as the current one.

I side with the Dems because they are the lesser of two evils in my mind. I don't think Republicans will actually spend less, plus they are more authoritarian, and I'm not a big fan of their righteous religious base.

understandable.

[hope4dopes]

If you mean the LP-USA, I insist on adding the qualifiers kooky and moronic.

If the sane folks are the ones that have got us into this ungodly mess it" might be time for us to get aliitle crazy"

[hope4dopes]

Oh come on GGA, you know how liberals are always in lockstep agreement, how they always maintain message discipline, tow the line and never, never, never criticize their own.

for example:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=7836

...I mean, you can practically feel the vibrations from the goosestepping uniformity. Yes they, do popular culture has even coined the term "political correctness" to express it.... has a nice ring sort of like idelogically pure or good party member

[hope4dopes]

He's not a libertarian, hell even Sean Hannity claims to be a libertarian now. Neocons never like to admit what they are. Besides pure libertarianism is a stupid ideology that americans will never accept. Do you think americans will accept that the way to protect the environement is to sell it? Do you think americans will accept the idea that if a hurricane is approaching it's okay to sell a sheet of plywood for $200 because that's what people are "willing" to pay at that time? That libertarianism.

As mentioned imploded (not imploding) is the correct tense when talking about the GOP. Now they are in rebuilding mode much like the spurs will soon be. I don't think they will regain power until they reject neoconservatism and get back to the ideology of Reagan (not a neocons despite what the board liberals would have you believe). It will be tough though because neocons have done such a good job of hijacking reaganism. It's hard to trust anyone who claims to be a reagan conservative, just look at W's 2000 campaign for proof. I think any conservative who fails to admit invading Iraq was a mistake will fail my "are you a neocon" test. Basically I'll be looking for conservatives who are a little less libertarian leaning than Ron Paul and have a much better personality than Ron Paul.

The other option might be that neocons flock back to the Democratic party since power is what they are most interested in. Then they can fuck up that party like they did the GOP.



Yeah, alot of that is true,talk radio has been a godsend as a source of alternative information but most of the hosts when the rubber meets the road are water boys for the RNC. and knukle their fucking forelocks. As for Ron Paul's personality fuck that shit. we have been spoon fed some dip shit image of what intellignece looks like.... mid atlantic preepy smooth big smile cool and collected confident .... it's all a fucking image like models and actors play at.I mean look at how the media as twisted and preverted and wieghed and balanced and abused and degraded what it is to be a woman.The dolts we elect are being baised on their ability to pull of an image that's out of a fucking comic book.

[hope4dopes]

You just described all the board conservatives for the last 8 years to a tee. They were "lockstep" up until the writing was on the wall after '06 that the Republican party was done for, and they collectively gave themselves permission to criticized Bush.


bullshit there is a lively discussion going on with consevatives discussing the implosion of the RNC because it's not meeting our needs,our general mistrust and possible alternatives. I don't see any liberals doing the same here, about the DNC, or commenting about how their party may be imploding as well, but please direct me to the thread or discussion about liberals dissatisfaction with the democrat party I must have missed it somehow.Yes the DNC won the election but honestly can you say that rank and file democrats or Americans won anything.

[PixelPusher]

Yes they, do popular culture has even coined the term "political correctness" to express it.... has a nice ring sort of like idelogically pure or good party member

Political Correctness these days is more of a cloak for assholes to excuse their behavior than anything else.


bullshit there is a lively discussion going on with consevatives discussing the implosion of the RNC because it's not meeting our needs,our general mistrust and possible alternatives. I don't see any liberals doing the same here, about the DNC, or commenting about how their party may be imploding as well, but please direct me to the thread or discussion about liberals dissatisfaction with the democrat party I must have missed it somehow.Yes the DNC won the election but honestly can you say that rank and file democrats or Americans won anything.


Where the fuck were you during the Democratic Primaries? Obama vs. Hillary doesn't ring a bell? Have you participated in any of the discussion on this board for the past, what, 4 years? If you can find evidence of a Conservative civil war on this board prior to November of 2006, bring it out.

Meanwhile, Obama's been in office for 3 fucking months and we already have some issues. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115140&highlight=Obama+surveillance) Granted, we're not going apeshit and calling for his head, but then again the mere thought of Obama in the Oval Office doesn't drive us batshit insane the way it does some of you guys.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3444736449_a55b5c6067.jpg?v=0

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20115_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20075_large.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/5642942.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1240115921&Signature=CKoK0844SSPRmBE4wTNFzyMIz2k%3D

...but these guys are just being "politically incorrect" right?

[Jacob1983]

So you see 4 pictures and make the assumption that all conservatives and Republicans are like the people with the signs in the pictures posted above?

[PixelPusher]

So you see 4 pictures and make the assumption that all conservatives and Republicans are like the people with the signs in the pictures posted above?


...the way it does some of you guys.

[SnakeBoy]

Sure he is. As for Hannity changing? I don't know. Maybe. I do know he's been talking more and more like a conservative libertarian.

He (and Hannity) have consistently defended the decision to premptively invade Iraq even after it was undeniable that there was no threat to the US from Iraq on the basis of spreading freedom and democracy. I'm sure you'll find some way to try and argue but anyone who supports the idea that america must spread freedom with bombs and military force cannot be a libertarian. Now if he instead had taken the position that, although it was a mistake to invade, this country had the responsibilty of correcting the mistake by leaving Iraq in a stable state (as opposed to the cut & run strategy offered up by the dems at the time) then maybe I would believe he might be a libertarian. I've never heard him take that postion.



Who is talking about pure libertarianism? Please... Who said that? Why do you take it to the extreme? Few people accept the extreme left or right as well!


The idea is you protect your property. Sure, some will not take care of it, but common sense tells us more property would be protected better that way. The Ivory business is a perfect example. In countries it is illegal in, elephant poaching is out of control. In countries it is legal in, the herds are cared for and in no danger of extinction.


Does it matter? Sell it for less, the product still runs out, and some people are still left without. If a person isn't smart enough to prepare in advance, then I don't give a rats ass what they have to pay. You live in hurricane country, you buy, cut it to size, and store it until needed. To do otherwise is piss poor planning.

I picked two extreme positions from the libertarian party and you are defending them. So I think you answered your own question.




When did he claim that? I know he referenced it, but I don't recall he ever said he was a Reagan conservative. If I'm wrong, please show me.

To be honest, I don't know if he ever said "I am a Reagan conservative". He did spend alot of time referencing & quoting Reagan. Which in my opinion is the same thing. Arguable I suppose.



I am not a conservative leaning libertarian.


I know you're not. Depending on the thread I generally view you as either a neocon or just a dickish talk radio listener with no real sense of your own ideology. More and more I'm thinking it's the latter. When Obama makes some cuts to the Dept. of Homeland Security I'm pretty sure you'll be against them since I know Bortz, Hannity etc. will be railing about it. I on the other hand (although I listen to conservative radio) will be thinking good but it would be better if he just cut the Dept. of Homeland Security and Dept. of Energy and Dept. of Education...all unnecessary.

[Winehole23]

He's not a libertarian, hell even Sean Hannity claims to be a libertarian now. Neocons never like to admit what they are. Besides pure libertarianism is a stupid ideology that americans will never accept. Do you think americans will accept that the way to protect the environement is to sell it? Do you think americans will accept the idea that if a hurricane is approaching it's okay to sell a sheet of plywood for $200 because that's what people are "willing" to pay at that time? That libertarianism.There's a healthy variety of libertarianisms out there, but they aren't very well known yet. Maybe the vogue of political independence among erstwhile partisans will lead them to actually read the libertarianism they putatively expouse, but I doubt it. Instead it will be adopted as an off the rack rebranding of a myth they already believe in. Libertarianism is a word that accompanies navel-gazing, like liberalism and conservatism.


As mentioned imploded (not imploding) is the correct tense when talking about the GOP. Now they are in rebuilding mode much like the spurs will soon be. I don't think they will regain power until they reject neoconservatism and get back to the ideology of Reagan (not a neocons despite what the board liberals would have you believe). It will be tough though because neocons have done such a good job of hijacking reaganism. It's hard to trust anyone who claims to be a reagan conservative, just look at W's 2000 campaign for proof. I think any conservative who fails to admit invading Iraq was a mistake will fail my "are you a neocon" test. Basically I'll be looking for conservatives who are a little less libertarian leaning than Ron Paul and have a much better personality than Ron Paul.The neocons started out as anti-communist libs who voted for Nixon because their own party got *corrupted* by the anti-war left.

On Reagan, I part with you. The Reagan Administration represents the triumph of neocon policy in the GOP: military keynesianism (deficit spending) plus wars of democratic or humanitarian intervention. Reagan represents the proximate triumph of Cold War liberalism in national politics, and is the beginning of traditional conservatisms' long walk in the wilderness IMO.


The other option might be that neocons flock back to the Democratic party since power is what they are most interested in. Then they can fuck up that party like they did the GOP.What makes you think they ever left?

Seriously, Afghanistan?

Neocons could fuck it up for Obama, too.





As for the possible emergence of third parties, without a regional base, political parties can't really thrive.

The last electorally significant third-party Presidential candidate was George Wallace.

[SnakeBoy]

On Reagan, I part with you. The Reagan Administration represents the triumph of neocon policy in the GOP: military keynesianism (deficit spending) plus wars of democratic or humanitarian intervention. Reagan represents the proximate triumph of Cold War liberalism in national politics, and is the beginning of traditional conservatisms' long walk in the wilderness IMO.


Well, whether or not we disagree depends on if you're saying Reagan was a neocon or if your saying neocons used the success of Reagan to take over the GOP. Reagan rejected detente and used the military buildup to put pressure on the soviets, not to engage them militarily. Yes he had neocons in his administration but he rejected their advice much like Bush treated Colin Powell. Here's a nice little article on Reagan and Neocons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/how-reagan-beat-the-neocons.html

[Jacob1983]

Seriously, why does the left care so much about what Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck have to say?

Hannity is a nut. I doubt that he really thinks the Hannah Montana movie was good. You should have heard him talk about Miley Cirus. It was like the guy was jizzing in his pants about her. Hannity is probably the most extreme out of that bunch. I would put Rush second, then Beck, and O'Reilly last. O'Reilly isn't extreme as people think he is.

[jman3000]

Hannity is just a whore for whoever is paying him or helping him get paid.

Billy Ray Cyrus is doing his freedom concerts... Hannah is his daughter.

GM is one of his major sponsors... so he's against all bailouts... but I've heard him say countless times that all GM needs is a "bridge loan"

[Jacob1983]

Impressive post!

[Winehole23]

Well, whether or not we disagree depends on if you're saying Reagan was a neocon or if your saying neocons used the success of Reagan to take over the GOP. Reagan rejected detente and used the military buildup to put pressure on the soviets, not to engage them militarily. Yes he had neocons in his administration but he rejected their advice much like Bush treated Colin Powell. Here's a nice little article on Reagan and Neocons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/how-reagan-beat-the-neocons.htmlYou're quite right right to stress that Reagan himself wasn't a neocon, but he did hold the door open for them.

[Marcus Bryant]

So many "libertarians" in the GOP, yet when one runs for the presidency only 3 out of a 100 vote for him.

[Winehole23]

So many "libertarians" in the GOP, yet when one runs for the presidency only 3 out of a 100 vote for him.Who and where, please? Bob Barr topped out around 0.40 percent....

[Marcus Bryant]

Who and where, please? Bob Barr topped out around 0.40 percent....

I was thinking of the congressman from Lake Jackson.

[Winehole23]

RP. Three points consistently in 2007.

[Marcus Bryant]

RP. Three points consistently in 2007.

Yeah, it looks (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_vote_count.html) like he did a little better. Still, for a party full of individualists suspicious of the scale and scope of the federal government, that wasn't that great, especially considering that he attracted a fair number of non-traditional GOP primary voters.

[Winehole23]

However you regard the outcome for RP, it's yet more evidence that the current vogue of *libertarianism* is more sloganeering than doctrinal.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure. Paul offered as close of an option within the GOP for a 'libertarian' candidate as there ever has been. 5.5%, I believe, was his share of the total popular/caucus vote (1.6% of delegates). Anecdotally, the objection to him was his view of the Iraq invasion and US military strategy, in general. The weird thing is that had it been a, say, President Clinton who ultimately ordered the invasion of Iraq, then the GOP would have resorted to a 'Democrat Wars' mentality and a candidate Paul would have been more acceptable (or cast off in favor of a more acceptable big government 'conservative'). Most of that is my conjecture, but does it not ring true?

[Winehole23]

Sure. Paul offered as close of an option within the GOP for a 'libertarian' candidate as there ever has been. 5.5%, I believe, was his share of the total popular/caucus vote (1.6% of delegates). Anecdotally, the objection to him was his view of the Iraq invasion and US military strategy, in general. The weird thing is that had it been a, say, President Clinton who ultimately ordered the invasion of Iraq, then the GOP would have resorted to a 'Democrat Wars' mentality and a candidate Paul would have been more acceptable (or cast off in favor of a more acceptable big government 'conservative'). Most of that is my conjecture, but does it not ring true?Absolutely. It happened in 1999 when we bombed Yugoslavia. Besides McCain, not many Republicans stood up for Clinton, but there was a temporary congruence with the libertarian right. Clinton was denounced for starry eyed internationalism and *nation-building.*

[Winehole23]

After making a "humbler" foreign policy a selling point, GWB gave us both liberal idealism and nation building with a vengeance.

The conservative faithful blessed that too in 2004.