Arlen Specter changes party

[Embar Angylwrath]

Oh I'd LOVE to hear you explain how smaller government, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY and lower taxes are based in ignorance. What's so ignorant about fiscal responsibility?

[Lurker]

Fiscal responsibility is a platitude. Some might say that a spending freeze during our current economic crisis is fiscally responsible when we all know that it is pure insanity.

[Kulaf]

Careful Lurker.....you are treading down the road to "tax and spend" status for your party again. Don't let history repeat itself by abandoning fiscal responsibility as a "platitude" or all of those Independents that got your candidate elected will look for greener pastures.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Fiscal responsibility isn't a platitude, Lurker, its an obligation of the government (one which we haven't seen in some time, and one we aren't seeing now). If you think fiscal responsibility is a platitude, then you must think fiscal irresponisbility is the enlightened (as opposed to ignorant) approach?

It didn't take you very long after Obama's election to show your true colors.

[Lurker]

To both of you...

The term "fiscal responsibility" as used by the Republicans is a platitude. When you look at their actual policy proposals there is nothing fiscally responsible about them. Lowering taxes across the board when we have massive debt isn't fiscally responsible. A spending freeze during a demand recession isn't fiscally responsible.

Obviously I'm not against policies that are actually fiscally responsible, I'm just pointing out that there aren't any coming from the Republicans.

[Harlowe]

I understood what you were saying Lurker and agree, it's a platitude if it's just words and not actions that actually promote it. There has been nothing fiscally responsible nor did they accomplish anything towards that end - they in fact grew government and entitlements since Bush took office.

So that "smaller gov't - fiscal responsibility" song and dance holds nothing of value. It's meaningless coming from them. They had many years to promote their agenda and did the opposite. Now it's the Dems chance and we'll see if they can possible screw up as badly as the Bush administration did. I doubt that is possible.

[Trollbait]

As far as some of you saying you aren't seeing or hearing of core changes in the Republican Party it could be that you are not looking for it or paying attention to it.

This is from October 2008. I know I have seen some of you say you read talking points memo.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/ta ... the-re.php

Change of Direction for the Republicans
October 23, 2008, 3:08AM

There is a disturbance in the force. The National Republican Congressional Committee has pulled the plug on two of the party faithful, two Zom-Bushes, the unblinking, not thinking, kool-aid junkies. While John McCain went all mavericky in picking Sarah Palin, his failing campaign has opened the eyes of the party leadership. Religious zealots can no longer get them to the top. Sarah Palin's fervor alienated more people then it attracted. Sure, there is now great zeal at the rallies, but the homogeneity is not bringing them victory in the diverse states of America.

The recognition of this is clear in the decisions to terminate funding of the campaigns of Representative Marilyn Musgrave (CO - R) and Michele Bachmann (MN - R). These lwomen are part of that segment of blind believers who see half the country as American and the rest as opposition. The Republicans are already reforming their party to resemble soemthing more palatable to the American people. A more approachable Republican will be good for the country, as a whole. While this author has always favored the Dems, he is not blind to the moments of wisdom that have come from the Right.

This from the Republican Policy Committee

http://republicanhousepolicy.com/note-r ... atism-asap

The Republicans made it easy for Democrats to demonize those on the right simply because they supported their neoconservative president, or in the case of the House and Senate races, simply because they had an '-R' after their names. In 2010 and 2112, the Republican Party should seek to understand what damage neoconservative thinking has done to their party and to the nation and then unapologetically excise it from their voting records, speeches, and future republican nominees.

The Republican Liberty Caucus is actively searching out new candidates and gaining influence. http://www.rlc.org/

Google "change of direction for Republicans" and you will find TONS of imformation.

[Partha]

mmmhmm. Googling 'Republican sex scandals' gets you over 300k hits, too.

Anyways, the point still stands - the ultraconservatives and nutjobs hold the elected offices and the key state positions.

This is why Charlie Crist is in trouble in Florida.

[Torakus]

I think the problem is you don't see the republican party members who are actually holding office marching in lock step to this new drum beat of fiscal conservatism and social responsibility that you see the republican party leadership (who by and large are NOT in elected office) are espousing and the arm chair republicans at home are supporting. So really both sides of this argument are "right", except the "right" are not yet "right" (sorry couldn't help myself).

Tora

[Lurker]

Torakus,
I don't follow what you are saying. The messages from the RNC match perfectly with what the members of Congress do, and the members of Congress vote in lock step on nearly everything. Where are these fiscally conservative messages hiding? I haven't seen them in the policy proposals from the RNC or from members of Congress or from the talking heads on radio and TV. Just the same fiscal insanity the party has been trying for decades.

Or is this the different direction Jecks is talking about?

The most urgent question is the meaning of economic conservatism. Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a conservative who keeps a bust of Reagan on his desk, surprised me by declaring that the Reagan era is over. "Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in generations, and all we can talk about is tax cuts," he said. "The people's desires have changed, but we're still stuck in our old issue set."

Cause if Republicans are going to stop the constant whining about taxes and get down to tackling actual issues I'm all for it!

[Ddrak]

I suspect the GOP is internally going through a wringer at the moment. If the best they have right now on policy is some publicity wank about "Keep Terrorists Out Of America" bills that are basically retarded and unnecessary bullshit (Gitmo detainees are already returned to foreign nations) then they're going to be in the wilderness for quite some time.

Lurker and Partha are right that there's still a lot of neocons in powerful positions and you can be sure they won't be giving up those positions very easily. There's going to be a lot of fearmongering, divisive language and other neocon bullshit coming from the GOP while those people kick and scream at their waning influence.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

I can edit my post 2 seconds after I submit it, but I can't delete it?

So I just realize I completely get someone's comment backwards and replied to what I thought they said. I want to delete the post and hide my shame. But Noooo. I can only edit it.

For what it's worth: Sorry Embar. I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet and completely misunderstood your post until I read it a second time.

P.S. This post was edited 3 times in a row. Each time I put it up I caught another bizarre typo. My dyslexia is in high gear today.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Klast...

I have no idea what you're talking about man. I don't see you responding to my post.

[Torakus]

Lurker,

I wasn't talking about the actual policy coming out of the republican leadership, just the talk. There is a great deal of talk, just like what Jecks is saying, but it never gets translated into official party policy, nor is any of it acted upon by those republicans that remain in office. But I can see where what I wrote didn't really say that exactly. I blame the beer. I think Jecks point is, the rank and file republican wants to move in the direction of the talk but the party leadership won't walk, hence his argument that a minority have hijacked the party. The only way to break the neo-con strangle hold on the party is to stop voting republican completely, forcing the neo-cons out of leadership positions and allowing the party as a whole to move on and do what the voting republicans really want it to.

[Kulaf]

There is just as much infighting among the Dems as there is the Reps. The Dems are just so relieved to be back in power that they are all singing and dancing. But once the dust settles it will be business as usual.

[Harlowe]

I don't think there was ever an argument that the Dem party is free of infighting. All parties have it and maybe if the GOP had more of it over the past 8 years, they wouldn't have been so "hijacked" (as they call like to call it) by the neo-con faction of the party.

And I agree Torakus

The only way to break the neo-con strangle hold on the party is to stop voting republican completely, forcing the neo-cons out of leadership positions

But I don't think you can honestly believe they are going to find a home in the Democratic party like Jecks was alluding to.

[Klast Brell]

Klast...

I have no idea what you're talking about man. I don't see you responding to my post.

Good!

You would have ripped me a new one.

[Torakus]

But I don't think you can honestly believe they are going to find a home in the Democratic party like Jecks was alluding to.

No. But I think we will probably see more moderate republicans switch camps to the Democrat party for the same reason Specter did. I think the last two years has shown that the average republican voter doesn't want the neo-cons in power of the party, but I would also suggest that the last couple decades have shown that they really are a bad judge as to who is and is not a neo-con. Smart moderate republicans are likely to switch rather than try to fight the bottom up purges that are sure to come in the next few years. I can see a few under the radar neo-cons slipping in to the Democratic Party, but I don't see the Democrats welcoming neo-cons with open arms. It just doesn't serve their interest to do so, since they already hold majorities in both houses and are likely to continue getting defections from folks like Specter who they know they can work with on most issues. I see most neo-cons hanging on for dear life until the last minute and then trying to reform as a new party down the road.

Tora

[Trollbait]

I am seeing posts by conservatives like the following:

http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59772

Take religion out of the Party.

Now ... before everyone begins their counter rant ... I said take religion out of the PARTY - not the people or the Party members as individuals.

Currently the Republican party is so strongly identified with the Religious Right, and frankly the extreme Religious Right, that the media and the Democratic Party has an easy time painting us all as crazy extremists. The primary reason they have such an easy time doing that is that the Party has adopted as part of it's plank issues that are so closely identified with the Religious Right - and if we are honest almost totally supported by arguments that require adherence to a Christian faith - that any objective person is left with no other conclusion. That provides more than enough ammunition to associate the Party with extremists, trivialize those positions that require adherence to a Christian faith and by association all the positions held by the Party and party members.

Now personally all other things being equal I am going to vote for someone who manifestly holds to a positive faith because I have a better idea of what actions they will take in office BUT if they are the sort of person who would act to require everyone to follow their religion (or philosophy for that matter) under penalty of law they are WRONG! They do not belong in government because the government should never be in the business of requiring any particular religious viewpoint.

By virtue of some of its plank positions the Republican party (a political party seeking to govern) is requiring its members to support religious viewpoints and stating that they would force those viewpoints into law and thereby require all of the population to hold to those viewpoints. That is WRONG as well. I, personally, agree with some of those plank positions - but it is still absolutely wrong for a government to hold to them.

So those are four suggestions:
1. Stop the emotional hyperbole. (I.e., stop treating us like Democrats)
2. Stop incessantly begging for money.
3. Start offering objective educational facts. (The media isn't doing it and someone needs to.)
4. Take the requirement for adherence to a religion out of the Party plank.

And feel free to tell me I am wrong - so long as you are willing to debate the points.