Rove Declares War on Tea Party

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

The more liberal candidate has won 5 of the last 6 presidential popular votes. The notion that the US is breathlessly awaiting an Allan West type to run for president is completely ludicrous.

As the GOP continues to use their primary process to move further and further to the right, the more they risk complete irrelevance in any non-gerrymandered scenarios.

It does strongly suggest that Americans are not averse to a party of wackos holding sway. Why not another wacko party ?

[wgbgator]

"True conservatives" never win because:

a) it takes a very skilled person to sell unpopular ideas that benefit a small # of people and get elected to national office

b) when those unpopular ideas fail to be achieved fully or coherently in practice due to the realities of politics, that person is no longer a "true conservative."*


*Unless you are Ronald Reagan.

[MichiGator2002]

How does the primary process move the GOP farther and farther right when the last two nominees have been two of the farthest left of their respective fields?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

How does the primary process move the GOP farther and farther right when the last two nominees have been two of the farthest left of their respective fields?

I think it was the notion that they had to play against type and take more "right" positions in order to secure the nomination. So, McCain was in the precarious position of having to reject the immigration reform he previously supported (and later Romney), while Romney had to distance himself from his formerly moderate record and positions to get the nod. But IMO, the primary process has been worse for the GOP in terms of Senate races, than the presidency. Its quite clear that it cost them control of the Senate in 2010, and possibly 2012. The presidential primaries theoretically picked the most electable candidates.

[mocgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

And would have lost two or three others in trade for it. Liberal Lite will never beat Liberal in a Presidential election. Romney's push toward the right was the only conceivable path to victory. Republicans being more worried about whether or not center and left vote for them than whether center and right does, always lose.

This

[mocgator]

Originally Posted by magnafides

IMO Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as VP was his death knell, but he started the slide when he started shifting right to win the Primary. I'm being 100% honest when I say that a moderate Republican could have absolutely gotten my vote in 2012.

Sorry... I call BS.

Romney was as moderate as you can get. You think he was the choice for fiscal conservatives?? I agree that compared to Obama and his socialist/ Marxists platform that Romney may look conservative... but to say Romney was a right wing conservative is laughable.

[magnafides]

Originally Posted by mocgator

Sorry... I call BS.

Romney was as moderate as you can get. You think he was the choice for fiscal conservatives?? I agree that compared to Obama and his socialist/ Marxists platform that Romney may look conservative... but to say Romney was a right wing conservative is laughable.

He was moderate until he started campaigning.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

How does the primary process move the GOP farther and farther right when the last two nominees have been two of the farthest left of their respective fields?

For the House and Senate, not prez. However, Romney was a moderate who tried to tack hard right before the debates and then he tacked back left at them.

[gatordowneast]

Note to all Republicans. Ignore all advice from lefty, libbie commies. They are not your friends and do not have the party's best interest at heart and their screwed up philosophies and policies are mucking up the entire country and our society. Igore them. They conned enough mooches, slackers, thieves, misfits and government crack dependents to join the usual coalition of granolas, gays and blacks who would vote for a frickin donkey if it was on the ballot. When the "gravy train" gets derailed the mooch element will revert back to not voting.

[rivergator]

I'm still trying to figure out why, if conservatives always win elections, that we haven't had any in the White House.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I'm still trying to figure out why, if conservatives always win elections, that we haven't had any in the White House.

Reagan and the Bushes were considered conservatives when elected. As time has passed, they are no longer considered such.

In the case of GWB, he is like a ghost in right wing world. It's like he never existed.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I'm still trying to figure out why, if conservatives always win elections, that we haven't had any in the White House.

"Conservatives" have won all the elections since 1976. None of them were "Movement Conservatives" (other than maybe Reagan and Bush II), but they all to some extent have taken predominantly conservative positions (or couched policies in conservative rhetoric), especially on economic matters in order to get elected. The problem is we're reaching the end of that cycle, and they can't see how much they have moved the country right in 30 years. They've mistaken winning for losing all this time because they have yet to achieve the impossible, and they've mostly lost the culture wars.

[oragator1]

The problem is that there are multiple types of conservatives and people lump them all together. A fiscal conservative can still win with the right message, but the way the tea party has gone about it has turned the country off for the most part. All or nothing, debt ceiling wars and take no prisoners can't win. Additionally, being perceived as "pro rich" and anti poor hurts. A social conservative is becoming less and less in tune with the country and it's changing values, but that process was sped up by idiots like Akin, it's not quite as bad as the law election cycle made it out to be. A defense/foreign policy conservative can still win as evidenced by GWB in 2004, but again it needs to be seen as rational and not jingoistic or overly force/war based (Iraq and now Iran hurt them in that regard). Business conservatives are generally not hated, but the current down cycle has made them villains in many ways, should be temporary though. Religious conservatives (which overlap with social ones) are the biggest drain on the party right now, they are the ones most forcing the party out of the mainstream of a changing America, along with failing to adjust to changing racial demographics - immigration and loss of the hispanic vote being the prime example.
My point is that the ideology for being a conservative now requires an orthodoxy in so many areas that they have painted themselves in a corner. Run a sane fiscal conservative (a Chris Christy type) and they can win. Run a religious conservative type like Santorum and they would get destroyed, run a military figure like Powell and they win, run someone like Cain talking about electrified fences and they would be crushed. Yet for some reason the party holds all of these in equal standing, when not only do they not need them all in a general election, some hurt the party.
It's time to start the process of redefining what conservative means in today's America. Once they do that they will he fine, but if they let the tea party do it you will be consigned to the wilderness.

[JerseyGator01]

Fred,

Who was the 1 of the last 6 conservatives to win? You could not get further left than Kerry, other than Obama of course. The cult of personality and our epic level of media brainwashing trumps virtually any political positions in the Prez election given all of the money spent on ads with sound bytes these days. The vast majority of voters don't even know where a prez candidate stands on the issues anymore.

The house is much more telling as to where the country stands. Statistics 101.

BTW, Karl Rove has never really been a conservative. Just your typical campaign manager who floats with the wind.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by oragator1

The problem is that there are multiple types of conservatives and people lump them all together. A fiscal conservative can still win with the right message, but the way the tea party has gone about it has turned the country off for the most part. All or nothing, debt ceiling wars and take no prisoners can't win. Additionally, being perceived as "pro rich" and anti poor hurts. A social conservative is becoming less and less in tune with the country and it's changing values, but that process was sped up by idiots like Akin, it's not quite as bad as the law election cycle made it out to be. A defense/foreign policy conservative can still win as evidenced by GWB in 2004, but again it needs to be seen as rational and not jingoistic or overly force/war based (Iraq and now Iran hurt them in that regard). Business conservatives are generally not hated, but the current down cycle has made them villains in many ways, should be temporary though. Religious conservatives (which overlap with social ones) are the biggest drain on the party right now, they are the ones most forcing the party out of the mainstream of a changing America, along with failing to adjust to changing racial demographics - immigration and loss of the hispanic vote being the prime example.
My point is that the ideology for being a conservative now requires an orthodoxy in so many areas that they have painted themselves in a corner. Run a sane fiscal conservative (a Chris Christy type) and they can win. Run a religious conservative type like Santorum and they would get destroyed, run a military figure like Powell and they win, run someone like Cain talking about electrified fences and they would be crushed. Yet for some reason the party holds all of these in equal standing, when not only do they not need them all in a general election, some hurt the party.
It's time to start the process of redefining what conservative means in today's America. Once they do that they will he fine, but if they let the tea party do it you will be consigned to the wilderness.

Right. The majority of the country identify as "conservative," including many Democrats. But the Reagan coalition of ideological Conservatives is basically no longer in a good position to win a national election both demographically or ideologically, unless they find a once in a lifetime politician in the mold of Reagan.

[JerseyGator01]

Does "ideological conservative" mean neo-con? Which is the more elusive term?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

Does "ideological conservative" mean neo-con? Which is the more elusive term?

ideological conservative = movement conservative, policy oriented

self-identified conservative = non-exclusive descriptor, non-policy oriented

[JerseyGator01]

The pro-life movement is easily the largest grassroots movement out there. The tea party leaned on it HEAVILY to win elections. The Tea Party, a glorified PAC, may have lost steam, but in no shape or form has the pro-life movement done so. Anyone who was in DC on January 25th would have noticed this.

[G8trGr8t]

Need fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Out of my wallet and out of my bedroom. Disenfranchising 80% of women to preach pro life will never work on a national level. Pro life needs to realize their litmus test for primaries is resulting in candidates that will not win presidency.

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

Need fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Out of my wallet and out of my bedroom. Disenfranchising 80% of women to preach pro life will never work on a national level. Pro life needs to realize their litmus test for primaries is resulting in candidates that will not win presidency.

Agree wholeheartedly, problem is the primary. They have to run so far right in the primary on religious and social issues that they are damaged in the general.