Republicans Begin To Defect

[hooky]

"Purity" at a national level doesn't exist. If it did we wouldn't have seen the series of liberal-lite clowns that have ran for president on that ticket in the past few decades.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I never left the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me over 20 years ago.

 

[armedindy]

hillary has the best chance of winning in 2016 in my opinion....leftists use benghazi against us saying we're paranoid...and noone really cares about any of her other faults.....if she wins and wins again in the second go around my entire voting life will have been in miserable defeat.....i had to watch the morning announcements at my highschool in 2008, where many black students were filmed stating who they would vote for and why...the answer as to why should tell you who they voted for....."because he's black" was said more than a few times

 

[Jerchap2]

How easily we forget. Reagan was the poster boy for moderate Republicans. He wouldn't be "pure" enough for today's GOP.

"As president, the conservative icon approved several tax increases to deal with a soaring budget deficit, repeatedly boosted the nation's debt limit, signed into law a bill granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and, despite his anti-Washington rhetoric, oversaw an increase in the size and spending of the federal government. Before that, as California governor, he enacted what at the time was the largest state tax increase in American history. He also signed into law one of the nation's most permissive abortion bills; any Republican who tried that today would be cast out of the party.

The fact that Reagan often took the actions grudgingly speaks to what, by modern Republican standards, may be one of the greatest heresies of all: At bottom, Reagan was a pragmatist, willing, when necessary, to cut a deal and compromise.

"He had a strong set of core values and operated off of those," said Stuart Spencer, a GOP strategist who stood by Reagan's side for virtually his entire political career, starting with his first run for governor. "But when push came to shove, he did various things he didn't like doing, because he knew it was in the best interests of the state or country at the time."

The real Ronald Reagan may not meet today's Republican standards - Los Angeles Times

Quoting the ultra-liberal LA Times is not convincing. Their bias and revisionist history reeks. I stand by may statement that "Reagan had to fight the establishment country club conservatives tooth and nail to get the nomination, and continued to fight once he got into office, only to be succeeded by Bush 41 who was an establishment Republican, who lurched left." Bush 41 tried to derail Reagan. He and his son were moderate Republicans, even liberal Republicans. Reagan was not as conservative as Goldwater, but conservative nonetheless, even by today's standards. Reagan never had both houses of Congress, and sure he had to cut some deals. The deficits were not what he wanted, but had to compromise, and they were paltry by today's standards in adjusted dollars. He also shut down the government several times during budget deals. But his policies ushered in two decades of prosperity. No candidate it perfect, but Reagan, IMHO, was the third best president we have had, after Washington and Lincoln.

 

[Jerchap2]

The Republican party was once a "third party". it wasn't formed until the 1850's.

We are talking about modern American history here, say since 1900. The Republican party was formed as an anti-slavery party, and given the state of the dumbed-down electorate these days, the Praetorian press, and the myriad of distractions and lies that have been fed to our young people, I see no issue that is polarizing enough as slavery was in the 1850s to pull enough people together to make an electoral majority.

 

[netsecurity]

All of the existing Republican establishment needs to go, and the new breed Tea Party / Linertarians need full control of the party. The baby boomer generation of politicians need to retire politely or be kicked out of office rudely. They are the generation who put us where we are, and we OBVIOUSLY need some fresh ideas.

 

[Jerchap2]

All of the existing Republican establishment needs to go, and the new breed Tea Party / Linertarians need full control of the party. The baby boomer generation of politicians need to retire politely or be kicked out of office rudely. They are the generation who put us where we are, and we OBVIOUSLY need some fresh ideas.

Agreed!

 

[EvilElmo]

The real problem, IMHO, is that a third party has never won a presidential election, and voting third party just siphons votes from the Republicans and ensures that Democrats continue to win.

When the establishment republicans who run the party act no different than the Democrats then what difference does it make which one wins?

 

[MCgrease08]

Quoting the ultra-liberal LA Times is not convincing. Their bias and revisionist history reeks.

Much of what you say about Reagan fighting to get the nomination is true. He still wasn't seen as a proven entity at the time. But discounting his record just because you don't agree with the source is to simply ignore the facts. His record of raising taxes is pretty clear. His willingness to compromise is well known. Many of his close advisors have come out and publicly said that there is no place for somone like Reagan in today's GOP.

I'm not calling him out for being a bad president, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the republican party. They worship the guy, yet continue to chastise others who hold similar moderate beliefs or a willingness to compromise. All in some sort of twisted purity test. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[jrogers]

How easily we forget. Reagan was the poster boy for moderate Republicans. He wouldn't be "pure" enough for today's GOP.

No one really wants Ronnie back; they just want the deified version of him they've been worshipping for the past quarter century.

All of the existing Republican establishment needs to go, and the new breed Tea Party / Linertarians need full control of the party. The baby boomer generation of politicians need to retire politely or be kicked out of office rudely. They are the generation who put us where we are, and we OBVIOUSLY need some fresh ideas.

Virulent extremism doesn't qualify as a "new idea." Allowing the TP to further hijack the GOP is a surefire path to a stronger Democratic party. What the Republican party needs is a more moderate Republican party that takes a less hardline stance on losing social issues. The alternative is the alienation of young voters, which is ultimately a losing strategy.

 

[Racechase1]

No one really wants Ronnie back; they just want the deified version of him they've been worshipping for the past quarter century.





Virulent extremism doesn't qualify as a "new idea." Allowing the TP to further hijack the GOP is a surefire path to a stronger Democratic party. What the Republican party needs is a more moderate Republican party that takes a less hardline stance on losing social issues. The alternative is the alienation of young voters, which is ultimately a losing strategy.

We had a guy who was more moderate, and had a less hardline stance on social issues, but he wouldn't run. Mitch Daniels.

 

[navarre1095]

.

 

[bushcf]

We had a guy who was more moderate, and had a less hardline stance on social issues, but he wouldn't run. Mitch Daniels.

He rightly chose to not run in a race a republican wouldn't win. I'd have to say the majority of the "candidates" that we see right now will be dragged through the mud so much that they won't have a fighting chance to get the nomination. I haven't been around for a lot of elections that I would remember, but the ones that I am capable of remembering it seems that the candidates that hit it hard and heavy closer to the election is who we see get the nomination. I'm not even going to contemplate who in the GOP is the best candidate right now.

Third Party or not, the Libertarian Party is more likely to give back to the people what the people should have, even if what they should have is to make the wrong decisions for themselves.

 

[jrogers]

.

Well said!

Third Party or not, the Libertarian Party is more likely to give back to the people what the people should have, even if what they should have is to make the wrong decisions for themselves.

Not really. The LP isn't a contender outside of a few local elections. On a national level their only impact is to drain a few points from Republican candidates.

 

[Expat]

I love to read revisionist history posts about Ronald Reagan that were posted by what I suspect are kiddies too young to have any memories of that era.

 

[KLB]

No one really wants Ronnie back; they just want the deified version of him they've been worshipping for the past quarter century.





Virulent extremism doesn't qualify as a "new idea." Allowing the TP to further hijack the GOP is a surefire path to a stronger Democratic party. What the Republican party needs is a more moderate Republican party that takes a less hardline stance on losing social issues. The alternative is the alienation of young voters, which is ultimately a losing strategy.

When did a movement based on smaller government and fewer taxes become associated with being all about social issues?

 

[level0]

I love to read revisionist history posts about Ronald Reagan that were posted by what I suspect are kiddies too young to have any memories of that era.

Amen.

 

[hooky]

We are talking about modern American history here, say since 1900. The Republican party was formed as an anti-slavery party, and given the state of the dumbed-down electorate these days, the Praetorian press, and the myriad of distractions and lies that have been fed to our young people, I see no issue that is polarizing enough as slavery was in the 1850s to pull enough people together to make an electoral majority.

You said a third party has never won a presidential election. That's not the case. Lincoln ran and won as a Republican.

I think that the debt will be what coalesces enough people to vote for a third party candidate. In the early 90's Perot made a big impact in the election and pulled almost 19% of the popular vote. Balancing the budget was a major policy point for his candidacy.

When the Republican party apparatus slobbers all over the likes of Christie, McCain, Boehner, etc... as leaders instead of embracing agents of change who have grass roots following, a third party that will continue to gain strength is inevitable. The country needs an opposition party, not just two parties that are two sides of the same coin, each biding time until they can give enough stuff away to gain the necessary votes to be in power again. The Republican party is on life support and it will pull the plug on itself if it continues to act as it is.

 

[bushcf]

Well said!




Not really. The LP isn't a contender outside of a few local elections. On a national level their only impact is to drain a few points from Republican candidates.

Agreed, The LP IS NOT a major national contender right now and they do drain points from Republican candidates. If both of the major parties keep alienating enough of there base there is always room for a third party (not saying it is the LP, but they do seem to be evolving into a viable third party).

 

[Expat]

It looks like the conservatives are more likely to just stay home than go elsewhere. At least that is what has been happening in recent history.