Wakeup call to modern conservatives: To win elections, you must provide a credible social justice agenda

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
It certainly wasn't perfect, there is some pork, but most of it was necessary - I wouldn't call it reckless... Reckless would be to stand by and do nothing, allowing us to slide into a depression. You think its bad at 8% unemployment? Imagine 25-30%.

Once the economy improves, he damn well better get the budget under control though. I am cautiously optimistic that he will.

How can you call it necessary when the new official talking point is that the economy is not as bad as we thought. And this is before the stimulus does one thing to help the economy.

They could have passed a bill half the size and accomplished everything they wanted to and saved the American people a LOT of money in the long term.

 

[First]

^ rofl.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: retrospooty
It certainly wasn't perfect, there is some pork, but most of it was necessary - I wouldn't call it reckless... Reckless would be to stand by and do nothing, allowing us to slide into a depression. You think its bad at 8% unemployment? Imagine 25-30%.

Once the economy improves, he damn well better get the budget under control though. I am cautiously optimistic that he will.

How can you call it necessary when the new official talking point is that the economy is not as bad as we thought. And this is before the stimulus does one thing to help the economy.

They could have passed a bill half the size and accomplished everything they wanted to and saved the American people a LOT of money in the long term.

Did the Democrats hire you as their official spokesman now?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

Thats a nice liberal talking point, but it is false. The GOP has never been as liberal as they are now. They've been sliding more towards the center every election.

Besides. If it were true, then the GOP is the party that represents the majority of the country. Afterall, 70% of the country calls themselves Christians.

70% of the country is Christian yes, but most of them aren't interested in putting their own views into other peoples lives like the republican base "evangelicals" or whatever they call themselves. Most Christians don't want evangelicals opinions, or influence anywhere in their lives. Evangelicals are a bunch of nutcases, and most Christians can see that. If you dont see that, you just might be an evangelical.

Christian = evangelical. No where did I equate the two. And youre wrong. Most Christians, whatever the flavor, want THIER view represented in government.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
There has been a Republican in the white house for about 20 of the past 30 years. Yet we keep hearing about how its dead and will never recover. Seems like they are doing SOMETHING right to keep getting elected. If Obama keeps going down the path he is, he will probably help push the Republicans back to the right. McCain was a moderate, and failed to get elected. If the party moves more to the left they will become democrats. I think a true fiscal conservative with moderate social leanings would be ideal.

But, it is always funny how the left always seems to want to give advice for how the Republicans need to act. Isn't that counter productive? Wouldn't you want the Republicans to be as unpopular as possible so democrats always win?

Mr McCain did not lose the election because he was a "moderate".
He lost because the economy tanked and he sold his soul to the Religious Right and the Neocons who run the GOP. He would have had a better chance of winning in the last election cycle if he had:

1. Distanced himself from GWB
2. Picked a "moderate" for VP and not a GWB clone.
3. Said that it was time to change the course of domestic and foreign policies to a more pragmatic course.

If Mr McCain had run as a true moderate he would have had gotten the support of more moderates and independent voters.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

And the Left doesn't do that? "Smoking is E-VIL, you can't do it in restaurants!" "You can't say that, that's hate speech!" "Trans-fats are bad, you can't eat them!" "You can't drive that car, you'll kill mother Earth!"

Both sides of the political spectrum have their own share of behavior nannies.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

And the Left doesn't do that? "Smoking is E-VIL, you can't do it in restaurants!" "You can't say that, that's hate speech!" "Trans-fats are bad, you can't eat them!" "You can't drive that car, you'll kill mother Earth!"

Both sides of the political spectrum have their own share of behavior nannies.

You confuse the party's values, with 'allying itself with problematic policies to get votes'.

Democrats values include wanting people to be healthy, faced with some of the worst threats like smokking and trans fats.

Democrats are against bigotry, so they criticize things like the 'N-word'.

Republicans, on the other hand, targetted the evangelicals like a rancher herds sheep.

They saw their number, and realized they were ripe to be pandered to with policies that didn't cost much money - social policies - and went for it, pandering away.

Read the book by Bush's first faith-based program director for some info on how they viewed the evangelicals - how they called them names like 'wackos' behind their backs.

Big difference between the two.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

Thats a nice liberal talking point, but it is false. The GOP has never been as liberal as they are now. They've been sliding more towards the center every election.

Besides. If it were true, then the GOP is the party that represents the majority of the country. Afterall, 70% of the country calls themselves Christians.

70% of the country is Christian yes, but most of them aren't interested in putting their own views into other peoples lives like the republican base "evangelicals" or whatever they call themselves. Most Christians don't want evangelicals opinions, or influence anywhere in their lives. Evangelicals are a bunch of nutcases, and most Christians can see that. If you dont see that, you just might be an evangelical.

Christian = evangelical. No where did I equate the two. And youre wrong. Most Christians, whatever the flavor, want THIER view represented in government.

No, absolutely not... Christian does not = Evangelical.

Like I said.. - Evangelicals are a bunch of nutcases, and most Christians can see that. If you don't see that, you just might be an evangelical. I guess we know where you are on that scale.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: retrospooty
It certainly wasn't perfect, there is some pork, but most of it was necessary - I wouldn't call it reckless... Reckless would be to stand by and do nothing, allowing us to slide into a depression. You think its bad at 8% unemployment? Imagine 25-30%.

Once the economy improves, he damn well better get the budget under control though. I am cautiously optimistic that he will.

How can you call it necessary when the new official talking point is that the economy is not as bad as we thought. And this is before the stimulus does one thing to help the economy.

They could have passed a bill half the size and accomplished everything they wanted to and saved the American people a LOT of money in the long term.

Money had to get flowing, banks and AIG had to be saved... That had to happen. The rest is consumer confidence. Coming out and saying re-assuring things about the economy is a well talked about necessity. When the pres. comes out and says the sky is falling like Bush and Obama both did prior to inauguration and in the first few months after - people stop spending, and the economy worsens. What you see now is the confidence building game.

Like pointed out earlier - it doesn't matter what Obama does - you will sit here and bitch about every move. If he did nothing at all, you would be calling him a lame duck and be bitching that he did'nt make any moves to save the economy, and you know it. You really arent bitching about the things he does, you are just bitter that he won at all, and will make anything and everythng he does into a negative. You are too transparent my friend.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: retrospooty
It certainly wasn't perfect, there is some pork, but most of it was necessary - I wouldn't call it reckless... Reckless would be to stand by and do nothing, allowing us to slide into a depression. You think its bad at 8% unemployment? Imagine 25-30%.

Once the economy improves, he damn well better get the budget under control though. I am cautiously optimistic that he will.

How can you call it necessary when the new official talking point is that the economy is not as bad as we thought. And this is before the stimulus does one thing to help the economy.

They could have passed a bill half the size and accomplished everything they wanted to and saved the American people a LOT of money in the long term.

Money had to get flowing, banks and AIG had to be saved... That had to happen. The rest is consumer confidence. Coming out and saying re-assuring things about the economy is a well talked about necessity. When the pres. comes out and says the sky is falling like Bush and Obama both did prior to inauguration and in the first few months after - people stop spending, and the economy worsens. What you see now is the confidence building game.

Like pointed out earlier - it doesn't matter what Obama does - you will sit here and bitch about every move. If he did nothing at all, you would be calling him a lame duck and be bitching that he did'nt make any moves to save the economy, and you know it. You really arent bitching about the things he does, you are just bitter that he won at all, and will make anything and everythng he does into a negative. You are too transparent my friend.

If he wants to cut taxes and reduce the size of government then I will support him. The problem is Obama is the opposite he believes that government is the solution to all our problems.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

And the Left doesn't do that? "Smoking is E-VIL, you can't do it in restaurants!" "You can't say that, that's hate speech!" "Trans-fats are bad, you can't eat them!" "You can't drive that car, you'll kill mother Earth!"

Both sides of the political spectrum have their own share of behavior nannies.

You confuse the party's values, with 'allying itself with problematic policies to get votes'.

Democrats values include wanting people to be healthy, faced with some of the worst threats like smokking and trans fats.

Democrats are against bigotry, so they criticize things like the 'N-word'.

Republicans, on the other hand, targetted the evangelicals like a rancher herds sheep.

They saw their number, and realized they were ripe to be pandered to with policies that didn't cost much money - social policies - and went for it, pandering away.

Read the book by Bush's first faith-based program director for some info on how they viewed the evangelicals - how they called them names like 'wackos' behind their backs.

Big difference between the two.

Oh, please. Smoking is regarded as a cash cow. Which is fine, admittedly, because banning it wouldn't likely work. But don't proselytize about how taxing the crap out of it helps people be healthy. Cigarette taxes make a huge impact on the largest share of the population who consume them - IE, the poor.

In a free society, you should have the right to choose to smoke, drink, or eat trans-fats, or drive whatever you want / can afford. Ironically enough the party of "choice" doesn't seem to feel that way.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

And the Left doesn't do that? "Smoking is E-VIL, you can't do it in restaurants!" "You can't say that, that's hate speech!" "Trans-fats are bad, you can't eat them!" "You can't drive that car, you'll kill mother Earth!"

Both sides of the political spectrum have their own share of behavior nannies.

Can't argue with that. Trying to legislate common sense never works.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: retrospooty
It certainly wasn't perfect, there is some pork, but most of it was necessary - I wouldn't call it reckless... Reckless would be to stand by and do nothing, allowing us to slide into a depression. You think its bad at 8% unemployment? Imagine 25-30%.

Once the economy improves, he damn well better get the budget under control though. I am cautiously optimistic that he will.

How can you call it necessary when the new official talking point is that the economy is not as bad as we thought. And this is before the stimulus does one thing to help the economy.

They could have passed a bill half the size and accomplished everything they wanted to and saved the American people a LOT of money in the long term.

We did that in the stim#1 and it didn't help. Most econimists agree we had to have a stim at least this large if not larger.