"We are trying to stop the wanton destruction of the party, the wanton dilution of the party," said Limbaugh, whose daily show is syndicated on radio stations across the country.
"We are sick and tired of how the people who seem to be triumphing in our party are precisely the people who seem to be selling this party out in terms of its ideology," said Limbaugh, who criticized McCain for reaching out to Democrats.
While I certainly think McCain is very shifting in his ideologies, I certainly don't think someone who "reaches out to the Democrats" is necessarily a bad choice. How does that "United we stand" thing go again?
In my opinion, the sooner Limbaugh and his ilk are ignored by the mainstream the better off the US will be, and only then can the GOP actually get back to it's true roots.
Look at the country like a spectrum political beliefs. You have the most liberal liberals on one end and the most conservative conservatives on the other. The parties have always shifted their attitudes to try and keep their base happy while pulling in enough people from the middle to get elected.
Int he early 90's the nation was shifting to the right. Bill Clinton was the most conservative of the democrats running in 92. He may be your nightmare of a liberal boogieman, but remember that he brought us things that conservatives would have been proud to claim as their own. Balanced budgets are a conservative value. As is NAFTA, The DMCA, Telecommunications Act of 1996, Welfare Reform, etc.
Now the nation is shifting to the left and the republican party can either get behind McCain Or hang on to their extremist far right ideals as the country goes elsewhere. If the democrats had supported a true left wing candidate like Ton Harkin or Jerry Brown Bush 41 would have probably been re-elected. McCain represents more non base republicans than Romney or Hukabee. Are you willing to lose the election to keep People like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh happy with who they are voting for?
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan 1987
Klast Brell wrote:Look at the country like a spectrum political beliefs. You have the most liberal liberals on one end and the most conservative conservatives on the other. The parties have always shifted their attitudes to try and keep their base happy while pulling in enough people from the middle to get elected.
Int he early 90's the nation was shifting to the right. Bill Clinton was the most conservative of the democrats running in 92. He may be your nightmare of a liberal boogieman, but remember that he brought us things that conservatives would have been proud to claim as their own. Balanced budgets are a conservative value. As is NAFTA, The DMCA, Telecommunications Act of 1996, Welfare Reform, etc.
Now the nation is shifting to the left and the republican party can either get behind McCain Or hang on to their extremist far right ideals as the country goes elsewhere. If the democrats had supported a true left wing candidate like Ton Harkin or Jerry Brown Bush 41 would have probably been re-elected. McCain represents more non base republicans than Romney or Hukabee. Are you willing to lose the election to keep People like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh happy with who they are voting for?
I don't think balanced budgets, trade and welfare reform are hinge pins of either party......nor do they represent a shift one way or another. The way you get to a balanced budget, fair trade and welfare reform are what seperates the parties. If you ask most people if they want subsidized medical.....they might say yes. Now ask them if they want to see 40% federal taxes to pay for it.
The parties have always had differing views on how to accomplish goals......not necesarily the goals themselves.
And yet if Saint Reagan had brought you these things you would have added them to the list of his miracles.
I'm just saying. You better support your presumed nominee, because even a tepid republican is worlds apart from a gay lovin baby killin socialist
But what do i care. If you stay home that's one less republican vote not just for president, but also for governor, senator , congressman, and every other office on the entire ballot.
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan 1987
There's no way in hell I'd vote for a Dem in this election. There may be a future election that I would, depending on the circumstance, but this isn't one of them.
Because, of course, having Republicans everywhere was SO GOOD for the country.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
1) Christian conservatives - they hate abortion,etc -all vote for Huckabee,
2) Fiscal/social conservatives (want to cut social programs, oppose affirmative action, want to cut immigration, cut taxes, etc, favor strong military)-most went for Romney, but military types seem to like McCain
3) Moderates (care about the issues in #2 but more willing to compromise on some or all of them)--most go for McCain
George W. united groups 1 and 2 and so was able to win 2 elections with a motivated party. Sadly he is considered (with some justification) a failure as a president by most people, many of them in his party.
The Republicans are naturally weakened by George W.'s presidency and as a result many of them are looking for something different than the old ideas. This strengthened both the Democrats and McCain at the expense of Romney (perhaps the most promising Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan, or at least G.H.W. Bush).
Running a moderate like McCain, who is unacceptable to the conservative wing, runs the risk of creating a third party right-wing candidate at worst, or keeping all the conservatives at home at best.
It's too early to talk about a party split, but the future of the Republican party doesnt look particularly bright at the moment.
That would be like your side getting their own little Ralph Nader. Maybe liberal groups would donate to his campaign the way conservatives donated to Nader in 2000 and 2004.
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan 1987
Klast Brell wrote:That would be like your side getting their own little Ralph Nader. Maybe liberal groups would donate to his campaign the way conservatives donated to Nader in 2000 and 2004.
Ross Perot was a feaky little monkey. Chopped liver doesn't have ears like that.
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan 1987
I'm willing to bet that if you added up all of the votes Ralph Nader has ever recieved for President they don't come close to what Perot received in 92......probably won't even come close to what he received in 96. But continue on with the "woe is us, he cost us the election".
Even in 2000, I am not sure Nader pulled enough of a popular vote to trigger electoral swings out of Gore's favor. Nader appeared to empower people who did not intend to vote in the first place, rather than "take" votes from Gore, although I have no data to support that at the moment. While it's true Nader did pull a percentage and change out of Florida, I think ultimatley Gore (and Kerry's) failure comes from their lukewarm candidacies ("John Kerry has a plan....." Really? What is it?) and the statistical unlikelyhood of defeating a wartime incumbent in Kerry's case, rather than little old ladies in Miami-Dade and pregnant chads.
Nader historically never pulled anything close to what Perot had, most likely as a result of money and his supporters smelling really foul.
The key is not 'total of the popular vote'. The key is 'How many states could the number of Nader voters have flipped one way or the other?'
The answer would be seven. Florida, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Wisconsin were all within the range of Nader voters flipping them.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Is there any reliable polling data that suggest a "flippable" percentage of voters would have instead voted for a Democrat, or even voted at all if Nader had not appeared on the ballot?
I have not looked into the subject that deeply, although I still believe that the best strategy for the Democrats versus eight years of Bush should have been to run a decent candidate.
That 10 day survey suggested that 43% would have voted for Gore, 21% for Bush. That margin would have handily pushed Gore over the finish line in either Florida OR New Hampshire.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
