http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/ (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/)
Quote
The party of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan has now lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The marketplace of ideas will render us irrelevant, and soon, if we are not honest about our time and place in history. Unfortunately, much of the discussion has focused on cosmetic solutions to, say, our underperformance among ethnic and young voters. This is a mistake: we cannot cross this river by feeling for stones. Instead, we need to take a hard look at what today's conservatism stands for.
Conservatives can start by examining how Republicans working with Democrats have governed in several successful states, including Utah; free-market-based healthcare reform, tax reform that eliminated deductions and closed loopholes to bring down rates, and practical education reforms that spoke to 21st-century realities.
Instead of using immigration reform as a wedge issue, like many leaders in Washington, Utah passed legislation to help manage immigration based on our real economic needs. If conservatives come to the table with solutions that put our communities first, it will go a long way toward winning elections.
But it's difficult to get people even to consider your reform ideas if they think, with good reason, you don't like or respect them. Building a winning coalition to tackle the looming fiscal and trust deficits will be impossible if we continue to alienate broad segments of the population. We must be happy warriors who refuse to tolerate those who want Hispanic votes but not Hispanic neighbors. We should applaud states that lead on reforming drug policy. And, consistent with the Republican Party's origins, we must demand equality under the law for all Americans.
While serving as governor of Utah, I pushed for civil unions and expanded reciprocal benefits for gay citizens. I did so not because of political pressure—indeed, at the time 70 percent of Utahns were opposed—but because as governor my role was to work for everybody, even those who didn't have access to a powerful lobby. Civil unions, I believed, were a practical step that would bring all citizens more fully into the fabric of a state they already were—and always had been—a part of.
That was four years ago. Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I've been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.
All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.
Marriage is not an issue that people rationalize through the abstract lens of the law; rather it is something understood emotionally through one's own experience with family, neighbors, and friends. The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans.
This is both the right thing to do and will better allow us to confront the real choice our country is facing: a choice between the Founders' vision of a limited government that empowers free markets, with a level playing field giving opportunity to all, and a world of crony capitalism and rent-seeking by the most powerful economic interests.
Adam Smith was not only an architect of the modern world of extraordinary economic opportunity, he was a moralist whose first book was The Theory of Moral Sentiments (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=192). The foundation of his thought was his insight that free markets and open commerce strengthened our moral fiber by reinforcing the community of shared and reciprocal economic interests. Government, he thought, had to be limited lest it be captured and corrupted by special business interests who wanted protection from competition and the reciprocal requirements of community.
We are at a crossroads. I believe the American people will vote for free markets under equal rules of the game—because there is no opportunity or job growth any other way. But the American people will not hear us out if we stand against their friends, family, and individual liberty.
I simply do not understand how Huntsman was never a serious candidate, when teakazoids like Gingrich were.
Maybe I am just that disconnected from the modern Republican Party - and Huntsman is as well.
I would have voted for Huntsman. :yes: :(
Malt, what happens when Berk starts a pointless "gay" thread?
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2013, 02:38:05 PM
Malt, what happens when Berk starts a pointless "gay" thread?
It's not a gay thread. It's a "GOP out of touch" thread.
Quote from: Caliga on February 21, 2013, 02:36:23 PM
I would have voted for Huntsman. :yes: :(
He was also the guy who had the right positions on global warming and evolution (both are happening and are real)
What's weird to me is that many conservative Christians I've spoken with actually believe in evolution (though inevitably they say God guided it) and global warming. So I'm not sure why GOP politicians trying to shore up the hardcore fundamentalist base are REQUIRED to pretend that they don't believe in either one of them. :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 02:34:59 PM
I simply do not understand how Huntsman was never a serious candidate, when teakazoids like Gingrich were.
I do. The GOP electorate has been continuously whipped into insanity for close to two decades now. It's not surprising that after that extensive conditioning they choose to go for crazy candidates with crazy ideas.
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 02:34:59 PM
I simply do not understand how Huntsman was never a serious candidate, when teakazoids like Gingrich were.
Maybe I am just that disconnected from the modern Republican Party - and Huntsman is as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Huntsman hadn't raised any significant amount of money, which of course is the mothers milk of politics...
You are correct.
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2013, 02:52:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 02:34:59 PM
I simply do not understand how Huntsman was never a serious candidate, when teakazoids like Gingrich were.
Maybe I am just that disconnected from the modern Republican Party - and Huntsman is as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Huntsman hadn't raised any significant amount of money, which of course is the mothers milk of politics...
Along with the fact that he didn't resonate with the GOP base.
Quote from: Viking on February 21, 2013, 02:42:40 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 21, 2013, 02:36:23 PM
I would have voted for Huntsman. :yes: :(
He was also the guy who had the right positions on global warming and evolution (both are happening and are real)
Why the fuck would it matter what someone's position on evolution is? :wacko:
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
Along with the fact that he didn't resonate with the GOP base.
I already said that. :mad:
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2013, 02:52:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 02:34:59 PM
I simply do not understand how Huntsman was never a serious candidate, when teakazoids like Gingrich were.
Maybe I am just that disconnected from the modern Republican Party - and Huntsman is as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Huntsman hadn't raised any significant amount of money, which of course is the mothers milk of politics...
Along with the fact that he didn't resonate with the GOP base.
He never had a chance to resonate with anyone if he had no money.
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2013, 03:01:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
Along with the fact that he didn't resonate with the GOP base.
I already said that. :mad:
Not exactly. Was worth saying again in any case.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
Along with the fact that he didn't resonate with the GOP base.
Isn't the issue that the GOP base is insufficient?
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2013, 03:02:10 PM
He never had a chance to resonate with anyone if he had no money.
He arguably raised little money because he was such a lousy candidate that wasn't liked very much by the GOP base.
Quote from: Maximus on February 21, 2013, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
Along with the fact that he didn't resonate with the GOP base.
Isn't the issue that the GOP base is insufficient?
To what? Win the primary? :huh:
Quote from: Maximus on February 21, 2013, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
Along with the fact that he didn't resonate with the GOP base.
Isn't the issue that the GOP base is insufficient?
Are you using 'insufficient' as a synonym for 'bat-shit-crazy'?
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:12:10 PM
To what? Win the primary? :huh:
No, the election.
Specifically that the party needs to appeal to a wider base in order to remain relevant.
Quote from: sbr on February 21, 2013, 03:12:19 PM
Are you using 'insufficient' as a synonym for 'bat-shit-crazy'?
Not a synonym, but they may both be effects of the same cause.
Problem is they've got too many old people who don't "get it" that the party needs to shift on gay marriage and immigration to stay relevant.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2013, 03:20:31 PM
Problem is they've got too many old people who don't "get it" that the party needs to shift on gay marriage and immigration to stay relevant.
Yes. Though I question even how successful that will be (the subtext being courting latino voters). Of the Mexican parties, PRI and PRD are both in the International and that's 60% of the popular support there. I don't think appealing to immigration issues while staying against abortion and stuff is enough of a winning formula with hispanics, frankly.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2013, 03:20:31 PM
Problem is they've got too many old people who don't "get it" that the party needs to shift on gay marriage and immigration to stay relevant.
Disagree on the 2nd.
Mainly because I don't buy into the narrative that the GOP position on immigration is driven by nativism and xenophobia. Any more than I buy into the counternarrative that the Democratic position is driven by lust for more Democratic voters.
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 02:34:59 PM
I simply do not understand how Huntsman was never a serious candidate, when teakazoids like Gingrich were.
He colluded with That Black Guy. And yes, it's actually that simple of an explanation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 02:34:59 PM
I simply do not understand how Huntsman was never a serious candidate, when teakazoids like Gingrich were.
He colluded with That Black Guy. And yes, it's actually that simple of an explanation.
You always make everything about race.
I'd have voted Huntsman. Good foreign policy chops, level-headed, refuses to maintain ignorant positions on evolution and climate change just to get elected.
He's absolutely right about marriage equality, too.
Oh well.
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2013, 03:02:10 PM
He never had a chance to resonate with anyone if he had no money.
Didn't stop most of the other candidates, many of whom spent zilch in the early primaries. So you don't need money to resonate with the base, when batshit stupid will do.
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2013, 03:33:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 02:34:59 PM
I simply do not understand how Huntsman was never a serious candidate, when teakazoids like Gingrich were.
He colluded with That Black Guy. And yes, it's actually that simple of an explanation.
You always make everything about race.
So do Republicans. So we're even.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:11:37 PM
He arguably raised little money because he was such a lousy candidate that wasn't liked very much by the GOP base.
The way the GOP base has been going the last 20 years or so, I'd be honored to be considered a "lousy", "unlikeable" candidate.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 03:25:34 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2013, 03:20:31 PM
Problem is they've got too many old people who don't "get it" that the party needs to shift on gay marriage and immigration to stay relevant.
Yes. Though I question even how successful that will be (the subtext being courting latino voters). Of the Mexican parties, PRI and PRD are both in the International and that's 60% of the popular support there. I don't think appealing to immigration issues while staying against abortion and stuff is enough of a winning formula with hispanics, frankly.
They don't need a majority of hispanics. They do need to be competitive and not write them off as a lost cause like blacks. And I don't think Mexicans are significantly more in favor of abortion than white Americans are.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 21, 2013, 03:34:08 PM
I'd have voted Huntsman. Good foreign policy chops, level-headed, refuses to maintain ignorant positions on evolution and climate change just to get elected.
He's absolutely right about marriage equality, too.
Oh well.
You would have & that's great. But I doubt he would have done even as well as Romney did in the general.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:40:14 PM
You would have & that's great. But I doubt he would have done even as well as Romney did in the general.
In the end, neither Romney nor Huntsman got to be President.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 21, 2013, 03:42:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:40:14 PM
You would have & that's great. But I doubt he would have done even as well as Romney did in the general.
In the end, neither Romney nor Huntsman got to be President.
2012 was just another in a string of bad fields for the GOP primary. Oddly, I'm pretty upbeat about the potential options for 2016: Rubio, Jeb Bush, Christie, Ryan, Jindal, and a couple others that don't immediately come to mind. Could be the best field since 1988.
If Huntsman could have gotten out of the primary without saying stupid things to appeal to the Republican base/donors he definitely would have done better. Romney was a decent candidate before the primary started and it became a right wing stupid-off. For whatever support Huntsman would have lost on the right he would gain from the center, which in terms of winning the general election is a lot more valuable.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:46:13 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 21, 2013, 03:42:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:40:14 PM
You would have & that's great. But I doubt he would have done even as well as Romney did in the general.
In the end, neither Romney nor Huntsman got to be President.
2012 was just another in a string of bad fields for the GOP primary. Oddly, I'm pretty upbeat about the potential options for 2016: Rubio, Jeb Bush, Christie, Ryan, Jindal, and a couple others that don't immediately come to mind. Could be the best field since 1988.
Won't matter.
So then what issues would Huntsman have run on in the general election to differentiate himself from Obama? Anyway I don't think it's possible for any candidate to win in this day & age without solid support from his base.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:46:13 PM
2012 was just another in a string of bad fields for the GOP primary. Oddly, I'm pretty upbeat about the potential options for 2016: Rubio, Jeb Bush, Christie, Ryan, Jindal, and a couple others that don't immediately come to mind. Could be the best field since 1988.
The thing is: a bad platform acquires bad candidates to field it.
GOP lost the popular vote in five out of the last six presidential elections, man, as Huntsman points out in that article. That's not so much five bad fields as it is one truly ridiculous platform.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 21, 2013, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:46:13 PM
2012 was just another in a string of bad fields for the GOP primary. Oddly, I'm pretty upbeat about the potential options for 2016: Rubio, Jeb Bush, Christie, Ryan, Jindal, and a couple others that don't immediately come to mind. Could be the best field since 1988.
The thing is: a bad platform acquires bad candidates to field it.
GOP lost the popular vote in five out of the last six presidential elections, man, as Huntsman points out in that article. That's not so much five bad fields as it is one truly ridiculous platform.
Are most voters that aware of their party's official platform? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2013, 03:55:53 PM
Won't matter.
Bit early to say that.
You're right; some of those people you named may actually have the time to get something accomplished by 2016--unlike the 1988 candidates, who were already accomplished individuals.
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2013, 03:58:10 PM
Are most voters that aware of their party's official platform? :unsure:
In a general sense? Yes, I would imagine so.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 21, 2013, 03:57:01 PM
The thing is: a bad platform acquires bad candidates to field it.
GOP lost the popular vote in five out of the last six presidential elections, man, as Huntsman points out in that article. That's not so much five bad fields as it is one truly ridiculous platform.
I'm pretty comfortable in saying the fields were pretty bad. Echoing what grabon said, I don't think party platforms are really of much direct importance (Languish excluded) in presidential elections.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 03:59:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2013, 03:55:53 PM
Won't matter.
Bit early to say that.
You're right; some of those people you named may actually have the time to get something accomplished by 2016--unlike the 1988 candidates, who were already accomplished individuals.
If not, then it's all Haig's fault :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2013, 03:02:10 PM
He never had a chance to resonate with anyone if he had no money.
You have that backwards. If he didn't resonate, that's why no one gave him any money...
fahdiz: I assume by party platforms you mean positions articulated on important issues of the day rather than party platforms per se. Nobody pays attention to that shit.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:55:54 PM
So then what issues would Huntsman have run on in the general election to differentiate himself from Obama? A
All the exact same issues Romney ran on that he used to differentiate himself from Obama?
Hell, the GOP has been saying that Obama is a radical left wing socialist - surely a moderate Conservative is still a long, long way away from the pinko Obama...right?
You can't have it both ways - Obama cannot be so radical that his re-election likely spells the doom of The American Way of Life while at the same time a Republican who is moderate is hard to tell apart from him.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 04:02:26 PM
If not, then it's all Haig's fault :contract:
Enjoy your Jindal-Rubio Amateur Hour ticket in 2016.
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 04:08:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:55:54 PM
So then what issues would Huntsman have run on in the general election to differentiate himself from Obama? A
All the exact same issues Romney ran on that he used to differentiate himself from Obama?
Hell, the GOP has been saying that Obama is a radical left wing socialist - surely a moderate Conservative is still a long, long way away from the pinko Obama...right?
You can't have it both ways - Obama cannot be so radical that his re-election likely spells the doom of The American Way of Life while at the same time a Republican who is moderate is hard to tell apart from him.
Huntsman is a moderate Republican. He's not a "moderate Conservative". I'm not convinced he would have run on the same issues as Romney. I mean, all I ever hear in praise of Huntsman is on issues where he's not very distinguishable from Obama.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 04:10:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 04:02:26 PM
If not, then it's all Haig's fault :contract:
Enjoy your Jindal-Rubio Amateur Hour ticket in 2016.
It seems that being an amateur is a positive thing these days.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2013, 04:04:54 PM
fahdiz: I assume by party platforms you mean positions articulated on important issues of the day rather than party platforms per se. Nobody pays attention to that shit.
I think the actual party platforms do serve to curtail the options of a presidential candidate. They can't stray too far from them or else they'll get called on it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2013, 04:04:54 PM
fahdiz: I assume by party platforms you mean positions articulated on important issues of the day rather than party platforms per se.
Correct.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 04:10:25 PM
Enjoy your Jindal-Rubio Amateur Hour ticket in 2016.
Jindal's a fruitcake.
Jindal is pretty fruity. Fat Boy is a man though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2013, 04:20:40 PM
Fat Boy is a man though.
I just don't see Hungry Heart getting past someone like Santorum by Super Tuesday, though.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 04:20:08 PM
How's that?
Even discounting his immoderate positions on social issues, he's stated that he wants to abolish Louisiana state corporate and personal income tax without raising sales taxes by the same amount :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 04:27:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2013, 04:20:40 PM
Fat Boy is a man though.
I just don't see Hungry Heart getting past someone like Santorum by Super Tuesday, though.
Who will be the 2016 Santorum?
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 04:32:50 PM
Who will be the 2016 Santorum?
Jindal. He's even got the conservative Catholic thing down.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:55:54 PM
Anyway I don't think it's possible for any candidate to win in this day & age without solid support from his base.
Isn't that somewhat tautological?
Quote from: fahdiz on February 21, 2013, 04:28:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 04:20:08 PM
How's that?
Even discounting his immoderate positions on social issues, he's stated that he wants to abolish Louisiana state corporate and personal income tax without raising sales taxes by the same amount :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
I'm sure that will evolve.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 04:35:50 PM
I'm sure that will evolve.
I would hope so, but the fact that he'd even float such a thing publicly says to me: fruitcake. It's not like Louisiana's got a lot of money in the bank. :blink:
It's kind of like he decided one day he really likes the Road Warrior movies and said "what's the quickest way I can get Louisiana to be just like that?"
Quote from: Maximus on February 21, 2013, 04:35:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 03:55:54 PM
Anyway I don't think it's possible for any candidate to win in this day & age without solid support from his base.
Isn't that somewhat tautological?
I don't think so. Why?
It would depend on your definition of "base" which I would think that would be something to the effect of "the people who support you solidly".
Quote from: Maximus on February 21, 2013, 04:44:23 PM
It would depend on your definition of "base" which I would think that would be something to the effect of "the people who support you solidly".
Okay, I see where I was vague. I meant the party's base.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2013, 04:20:40 PM
Jindal is pretty fruity. Fat Boy is a man though.
My money is on either Rubio or Christie. Rubio will be the conservative canidate and Christie will be the moderate.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2013, 04:32:50 PM
Who will be the 2016 Santorum?
Santorum will. The War on Whore Pills isn't going away anytime soon.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 05:20:01 PM
My money is on either Rubio or Christie. Rubio will be the conservative canidate and Christie will be the moderate.
Rubio is in the process of trying to outflank Obama on the left on immigration. I don't think he works as a conservatibe candidate.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 03:25:34 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2013, 03:20:31 PM
Problem is they've got too many old people who don't "get it" that the party needs to shift on gay marriage and immigration to stay relevant.
Yes. Though I question even how successful that will be (the subtext being courting latino voters). Of the Mexican parties, PRI and PRD are both in the International and that's 60% of the popular support there. I don't think appealing to immigration issues while staying against abortion and stuff is enough of a winning formula with hispanics, frankly.
I think that might be flawed thinking as the Latino immigrants are unlikely to be members of a party in a country they no longer live in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2013, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 05:20:01 PM
My money is on either Rubio or Christie. Rubio will be the conservative canidate and Christie will be the moderate.
Rubio is in the process of trying to outflank Obama on the left on immigration. I don't think he works as a conservatibe candidate.
Yeah, but the whole GOP is moving on the immigration thing. I don't think this is going to make him an extreme leftist. I mean Bush was of the same opinion on Immigration and the party regarded him as a conservative. A lot of the base rebelled and so the GOP fucked itself over, but I'm not sure they'll do that again.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 05:26:05 PM
Yeah, but the whole GOP is moving on the immigration thing. I don't think this is going to make him an extreme leftist. I mean Bush was of the same opinion on Immigration and the party regarded him as a conservative. A lot of the base rebelled and so the GOP fucked itself over, but I'm not sure they'll do that again.
I think Bush sold himself as a conservative primarily because he knew how to schmooze televangelists.
And also because significant portions of he press were happy to label him conservative as an epithet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2013, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 05:20:01 PM
My money is on either Rubio or Christie. Rubio will be the conservative canidate and Christie will be the moderate.
Rubio is in the process of trying to outflank Obama on the left on immigration. I don't think he works as a conservatibe candidate.
Rubio certainly can. He's a Tea Party guy, FFS.
Today he is. By 2016, Tea Party may wind up being the liberal wing of the party.
Bush II was part of the short-lived "compassionate conservative" movement, which was anchored around concepts like lots of Republican-flavored handouts to old people and the poor along with being nice to Mexicans and such. It lacked any real direction on foreign policy, so when foreign policy became the issue of the first term of the Bush Presidency the neo-cons ensconced in DoD positions and other parts of his administration teamed up with the corporatists like Cheney and ran away with the football.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2013, 05:28:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 05:26:05 PM
Yeah, but the whole GOP is moving on the immigration thing. I don't think this is going to make him an extreme leftist. I mean Bush was of the same opinion on Immigration and the party regarded him as a conservative. A lot of the base rebelled and so the GOP fucked itself over, but I'm not sure they'll do that again.
I think Bush sold himself as a conservative primarily because he knew how to schmooze televangelists.
And also because significant portions of he press were happy to label him conservative as an epithet.
And this will be different for Rubio how?
I don't think the party ever regarded Bush as a conservative within the framework of the party's ideological spectrum.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 06:19:29 PM
I don't think the party ever regarded Bush as a conservative within the framework of the party's ideological spectrum.
I bet I can look at videos GOP conventions were they say he is in fact a conservative.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 06:13:53 PM
And this will be different for Rubio how?
For one we're talking about a primary dynamic, in which being labeled a far right conservative by the New York Times is not necessarily a handicap.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 06:19:29 PM
I don't think the party ever regarded Bush as a conservative within the framework of the party's ideological spectrum.
I bet I can look at videos GOP conventions were they say he is in fact a conservative.
Of course they said that. He had to win a GOP primary. :lol:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 21, 2013, 05:55:44 PM
Bush II was part of the short-lived "compassionate conservative" movement, which was anchored around concepts like lots of Republican-flavored handouts to old people and the poor along with being nice to Mexicans and such. It lacked any real direction on foreign policy, so when foreign policy became the issue of the first term of the Bush Presidency the neo-cons ensconced in DoD positions and other parts of his administration teamed up with the corporatists like Cheney and ran away with the football.
That's an interesting way of putting it.
I read an article the other day from the Washington Post about how Bush was actually one of the best humanitarian presidents the US ever had due to an anti-aids bill and various whatnot.
Quote from: Caliga on February 21, 2013, 02:44:30 PM
What's weird to me is that many conservative Christians I've spoken with actually believe in evolution (though inevitably they say God guided it) and global warming. So I'm not sure why GOP politicians trying to shore up the hardcore fundamentalist base are REQUIRED to pretend that they don't believe in either one of them. :hmm:
Global warming isn't a religious issue, or even a social issue--it's an economic issue.
Quote from: dps on February 21, 2013, 07:09:43 PM
Global warming isn't a religious issue, or even a social issue--it's an economic issue.
It has an economic piece to it, certainly, but really it's an ecological issue.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 21, 2013, 07:13:24 PM
Quote from: dps on February 21, 2013, 07:09:43 PM
Global warming isn't a religious issue, or even a social issue--it's an economic issue.
It has an economic piece to it, certainly, but really it's an ecological issue.
So are you suggesting that people who are Christians are less likely to be in favor of protecting the environment, or more likely, or are you getting at something else entirely?
Quote from: mongers on February 21, 2013, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 21, 2013, 05:55:44 PM
Bush II was part of the short-lived "compassionate conservative" movement, which was anchored around concepts like lots of Republican-flavored handouts to old people and the poor along with being nice to Mexicans and such. It lacked any real direction on foreign policy, so when foreign policy became the issue of the first term of the Bush Presidency the neo-cons ensconced in DoD positions and other parts of his administration teamed up with the corporatists like Cheney and ran away with the football.
That's an interesting way of putting it.
I think it was pretty much on the mark.
I can sort of see that. Conservatism is the politics of assimilation, so it makes sense that they would want to turn disgusting, freakish, worthless fags into more stable, proper, decent people. Creating a kind of normalcy for their relationships might help.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2013, 06:27:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 06:13:53 PM
And this will be different for Rubio how?
For one we're talking about a primary dynamic, in which being labeled a far right conservative by the New York Times is not necessarily a handicap.
Oh those evil New Yorkers! I seem to recall Bush running for a primary as well.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 06:19:29 PM
I don't think the party ever regarded Bush as a conservative within the framework of the party's ideological spectrum.
I bet I can look at videos GOP conventions were they say he is in fact a conservative.
Of course they said that. He had to win a GOP primary. :lol:
There must be something really obvious that I'm missing here. Why don't you spell it out for me.
Quote from: dps on February 21, 2013, 07:19:33 PM
So are you suggesting that people who are Christians are less likely to be in favor of protecting the environment, or more likely, or are you getting at something else entirely?
I'd say self-identifying evangelical Christians are less likely to be in favor of protecting the environment than other groups. I freely acknowledge that assertion is based on anecdotal evidence rather than rigorous statistical evidence.
But that wasn't really my point - my point was that climate change isn't so much an economic issue as it is an ecological issue - it has economic impact, but that isn't really the same thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 07:43:02 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 06:19:29 PM
I don't think the party ever regarded Bush as a conservative within the framework of the party's ideological spectrum.
I bet I can look at videos GOP conventions were they say he is in fact a conservative.
Of course they said that. He had to win a GOP primary. :lol:
There must be something really obvious that I'm missing here. Why don't you spell it out for me.
Even if you're not a conservative, you have to say you are if you're going to be elected as a republican.
Quote from: mongers on February 21, 2013, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 21, 2013, 05:55:44 PM
Bush II was part of the short-lived "compassionate conservative" movement, which was anchored around concepts like lots of Republican-flavored handouts to old people and the poor along with being nice to Mexicans and such. It lacked any real direction on foreign policy, so when foreign policy became the issue of the first term of the Bush Presidency the neo-cons ensconced in DoD positions and other parts of his administration teamed up with the corporatists like Cheney and ran away with the football.
That's an interesting way of putting it.
I don't know how much you really paid attention to Bush before he was President or before 9/11, but this is pretty much an obvious truth. Even throughout his Presidency he pressed for a lot of "handout" type programs that really weren't part of traditional Republicanism. I don't think Bush was the imbecile he was portrayed as at all, but I do think he was a sort of a hands-off guy who preferred to select from a small set of decisions aides had prepared for him versus having strong active policy positions of his own. The only area he seemed to really take the lead on was humanitarian stuff. Since the Wolfowitz/Cheney group was far more powerful than anyone else in the executive branch in terms of having Bush's ear, it was their vision on how to respond to 9/11 that took precedence. If you followed Bush during the 2000 Presidential campaign I'd describe his positions on foreign policy to be simplistic and naive, basically a mild isolationism mixed with basic ignorance of most major foreign policy issues. Bush was more or less a blank slate on foreign policy, and a powerful faction existed in his administration that was able to shape his administration to their ends on that issue.
I don't think Bush thought of himself like some Presidents do, as the "Imperial" President, I think he saw himself as CEO of the White House and thus viewed his role as more hands off. Like a CEO of a company, when a top VP or other executive cooks up a plan you agree with, you'll implement it vigorously, but he was the sort of CEO that liked to relax in the executive suite and not be bothering himself with coming up with his own plans. So yeah, Bush was a vigorous advocate of stuff once it was administration policy, but on many issues I think his role in shaping administration policy was in reviewing the proposals of aides and saying "yea/nay" and on some issues we have basically clear cut proof Cheney and to a lesser degree other big names had such strong influence that theirs was the only voice heard on a given issue. In one important incident, Cheney's staff drafted an executive order without informing anyone else in the executive branch. Cheney had an understanding with the President that they'd have a regular lunch privately, and also that Cheney would always be the "last man in the room" with Bush. Basically, that anytime a debate was happening between staff, once Bush was ready to make a decision it was just him and Cheney in the room at the end. This obvously put Cheney in a very powerful position. Anyway, in this case Cheney meets for lunch privately with Bush with a drafted executive order that no one else in the White House had seen outside of Cheney's people. When they come back from lunch Bush had signed the executive order--basically an unprecedented level of influence for
any Presisdential advisor (and especially a man holding the office most likely to be irrelevant in any given administration.)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 08:06:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 07:43:02 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 06:19:29 PM
I don't think the party ever regarded Bush as a conservative within the framework of the party's ideological spectrum.
I bet I can look at videos GOP conventions were they say he is in fact a conservative.
Of course they said that. He had to win a GOP primary. :lol:
There must be something really obvious that I'm missing here. Why don't you spell it out for me.
Even if you're not a conservative, you have to say you are if you're going to be elected as a republican.
Other people at the convention were saying as well. You know, the guys in the Republican party.
Quote from: dps on February 21, 2013, 07:19:33 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 21, 2013, 07:13:24 PM
Quote from: dps on February 21, 2013, 07:09:43 PM
Global warming isn't a religious issue, or even a social issue--it's an economic issue.
It has an economic piece to it, certainly, but really it's an ecological issue.
So are you suggesting that people who are Christians are less likely to be in favor of protecting the environment, or more likely, or are you getting at something else entirely?
Well, if you think you are going to get raptured up within your life time, long term environmental issues aren't a big priority.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 08:49:59 PM
Other people at the convention were saying as well. You know, the guys in the Republican party.
Sure, especially the ones in his campaign.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 21, 2013, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 21, 2013, 06:34:21 PM
That's an interesting way of putting it.
I don't know how much you really paid attention to Bush before he was President or before 9/11, but this is pretty much an obvious truth. Even throughout his Presidency he pressed for a lot of "handout" type programs that really weren't part of traditional Republicanism. I don't think Bush was the imbecile he was portrayed as at all, but I do think he was a sort of a hands-off guy who preferred to select from a small set of decisions aides had prepared for him versus having strong active policy positions of his own. The only area he seemed to really take the lead on was humanitarian stuff. Since the Wolfowitz/Cheney group was far more powerful than anyone else in the executive branch in terms of having Bush's ear, it was their vision on how to respond to 9/11 that took precedence. If you followed Bush during the 2000 Presidential campaign I'd describe his positions on foreign policy to be simplistic and naive, basically a mild isolationism mixed with basic ignorance of most major foreign policy issues. Bush was more or less a blank slate on foreign policy, and a powerful faction existed in his administration that was able to shape his administration to their ends on that issue.
I don't think Bush thought of himself like some Presidents do, as the "Imperial" President, I think he saw himself as CEO of the White House and thus viewed his role as more hands off. Like a CEO of a company, when a top VP or other executive cooks up a plan you agree with, you'll implement it vigorously, but he was the sort of CEO that liked to relax in the executive suite and not be bothering himself with coming up with his own plans. So yeah, Bush was a vigorous advocate of stuff once it was administration policy, but on many issues I think his role in shaping administration policy was in reviewing the proposals of aides and saying "yea/nay" and on some issues we have basically clear cut proof Cheney and to a lesser degree other big names had such strong influence that theirs was the only voice heard on a given issue. In one important incident, Cheney's staff drafted an executive order without informing anyone else in the executive branch. Cheney had an understanding with the President that they'd have a regular lunch privately, and also that Cheney would always be the "last man in the room" with Bush. Basically, that anytime a debate was happening between staff, once Bush was ready to make a decision it was just him and Cheney in the room at the end. This obvously put Cheney in a very powerful position. Anyway, in this case Cheney meets for lunch privately with Bush with a drafted executive order that no one else in the White House had seen outside of Cheney's people. When they come back from lunch Bush had signed the executive order--basically an unprecedented level of influence for any Presisdential advisor (and especially a man holding the office most likely to be irrelevant in any given administration.)
Thanks for the effort involved in elaborating on you observation, appreciated. :cheers:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 08:51:56 PM
Quote from: dps on February 21, 2013, 07:19:33 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 21, 2013, 07:13:24 PM
Quote from: dps on February 21, 2013, 07:09:43 PM
Global warming isn't a religious issue, or even a social issue--it's an economic issue.
It has an economic piece to it, certainly, but really it's an ecological issue.
So are you suggesting that people who are Christians are less likely to be in favor of protecting the environment, or more likely, or are you getting at something else entirely?
Well, if you think you are going to get raptured up within your life time, long term environmental issues aren't a big priority.
Most Christians don't think that the rapture is going to happen within their lifetime.
No, but there may be a feeling that God rather than humans is controlling what happens to the environment.
So why is this locked?
This is the same attitude the Polish prime minister (he is a conservative with centrist/centre-right views) expressed recently.
He was originally against civil partnerships for gay couples, but over the last 6 or 7 years his views evolved. He is now saying this is not a matter of ideological or religious grandstanding - as this is not the government's job to make one - but about the most basic job of the government, which is to make lifes easier for people in response to their needs.
He is still against full marriage equality or adoptions, though, but I think we will get there - but it illustrates that, when one is a conservative (as opposed to a homophobe), this evolution is quite natural.
Quote from: Caliga on February 21, 2013, 02:44:30 PM
What's weird to me is that many conservative Christians I've spoken with actually believe in evolution (though inevitably they say God guided it) and global warming. So I'm not sure why GOP politicians trying to shore up the hardcore fundamentalist base are REQUIRED to pretend that they don't believe in either one of them. :hmm:
I think to us, non-USAians, the fact that so many conservative Christians in the US are actually creationist is the "weird" part.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2013, 03:00:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 21, 2013, 02:42:40 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 21, 2013, 02:36:23 PM
I would have voted for Huntsman. :yes: :(
He was also the guy who had the right positions on global warming and evolution (both are happening and are real)
Why the fuck would it matter what someone's position on evolution is? :wacko:
Blindly rejecting what pretty much is the universal scientific consensus on one aspect of reality may suggest one's connection to other aspects of reality is equally tenuous. ;)
Or to put it in other words - letting a batshit crazy person near nuclear codes can have bad consequences.
Quote from: Tyr on February 21, 2013, 06:59:26 PM
I read an article the other day from the Washington Post about how Bush was actually one of the best humanitarian presidents the US ever had due to an anti-aids bill and various whatnot.
Yeah, it's actually funny how these things go. For all his rhetoric, when it comes to various "gay interest" policies, Bush's only solid legacy was the increased anti-HIV funding, whereas Clinton's was DOMA and DADT. ;)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 09:28:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 08:49:59 PM
Other people at the convention were saying as well. You know, the guys in the Republican party.
Sure, especially the ones in his campaign.
And nearly all the ones at the GOP convention. In fact, I'm having a hard time seeing how you can back up your statement.
This is a strange one to latch onto. If the GOP wanted to get Michael Moore elected for some reason, they would likely tout him as a conservative of some sort.
Unless MiM has some secret in the cabal that run the GOP I'm going to have to take statements by GOP members at the time at face value.
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2013, 07:16:11 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 21, 2013, 06:59:26 PM
I read an article the other day from the Washington Post about how Bush was actually one of the best humanitarian presidents the US ever had due to an anti-aids bill and various whatnot.
Yeah, it's actually funny how these things go. For all his rhetoric, when it comes to various "gay interest" policies, Bush's only solid legacy was the increased anti-HIV funding, whereas Clinton's was DOMA and DADT. ;)
Ugggh. This again.
DADT when enacted was a major coup for gay rights. It moved the military from an open ban on gays, to tolerating them as long as they kept it quiet. Holding it against Clinton as some kind of evidence of being anti-gay is simply ignorant, or would be if this had not been explained already.
News travels to Poland slowly.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 22, 2013, 09:35:22 AM
News travels to Poland slowly.
No, he's simply a dumb fuck.
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2013, 09:30:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2013, 07:16:11 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 21, 2013, 06:59:26 PM
I read an article the other day from the Washington Post about how Bush was actually one of the best humanitarian presidents the US ever had due to an anti-aids bill and various whatnot.
Yeah, it's actually funny how these things go. For all his rhetoric, when it comes to various "gay interest" policies, Bush's only solid legacy was the increased anti-HIV funding, whereas Clinton's was DOMA and DADT. ;)
Ugggh. This again.
DADT when enacted was a major coup for gay rights. It moved the military from an open ban on gays, to tolerating them as long as they kept it quiet. Holding it against Clinton as some kind of evidence of being anti-gay is simply ignorant, or would be if this had not been explained already.
What about DOMA?
And by the way, I was illustrating an irony/paradox that a President's apparent stance may actually end up being at odds with what is left after him, not calling Clinton a homophobe.
I think you can overegg Huntsman. He's making solid points, especially on developing policies to communicate but he's no reformist conservative hero.
His Presidential campaign mainly, sadly, consisted of bafflingly insulting the party base (which is different than arguing with it) and a lack of spine - remember he agreed that he'd veto a deal with a Democratic Congress that delivered $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of new revenue.
Also there's no reason the GOP should move on social issues in general. They're right to have the abortion policy they do, but they need to look at the way they communicate it. I think on gay rights they should move to a total federalist position rather than anything more severe.
He's also one of the few voices--and the only candidate on the right, IIRC--that endorsed breaking up the big banks after 2008. Gotta back that one.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 11:28:59 AM
Also there's no reason the GOP should move on social issues in general. They're right to have the abortion policy they do, but they need to look at the way they communicate it. I think on gay rights they should move to a total federalist position rather than anything more severe.
Well, that's just not gonna happen. The GOP has staked "family values" as their claim for over 30 years. The War on Fags and Whore Pills will always be their gig.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2013, 11:42:08 AM
He's also one of the few voices--and the only candidate on the right, IIRC--that endorsed breaking up the big banks after 2008. Gotta back that one.
Yeah. From a right wing perspective too. He also had a relatively coherent tax policy if a rather ambitious one.
He should have run as a reformist conservative. He had the most pro-life record of all the candidates and had cut lots of regulations in Utah, he was widely praised by business groups for being such a liberaliser. The saddest and weirdest thing about his campaign was that he could as credibly claim to be a conservative as anyone else on the stage. He just didn't try.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 11:47:20 AM
The saddest and weirdest thing about his campaign was that he could as credibly claim to be a conservative as anyone else on the stage. He just didn't try.
Sure he did, and the media routinely touted his credentials as the most conservative on record--hell, he was the only conservative the Lame Stream Media actually liked, from Time to MSNBC; unfortunately, the GOP primary system only saw his traitorous ambassadorial appointment in working with That Black Kenyan Muslim Secular Commie Nazi Guy, and they were more than satisfied with perpetuating only the most batshit candidates far too long in the process. And you'll only see more of the same in 2016.
One would think that, after acknowledging a primary system that's out of control, conservatives would want to gain greater control over the Teabagger yahoos pushing the primary process. So what do they do? Re-elect that fruity assfuck Reince Priebus as RNC chairman again. Unopposed.
I so look forward to more Bachmann, Santorum, Paul and Cruz happy fun time in the next GOP primary season, as everybody tries to out-goofball everyone else.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2013, 11:43:21 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 11:28:59 AM
Also there's no reason the GOP should move on social issues in general. They're right to have the abortion policy they do, but they need to look at the way they communicate it. I think on gay rights they should move to a total federalist position rather than anything more severe.
Well, that's just not gonna happen. The GOP has staked "family values" as their claim for over 30 years. The War on Fags and Whore Pills will always be their gig.
It'll only be their gig as long as they can convince themselves it works.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 25, 2013, 01:17:32 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2013, 11:43:21 AM
Well, that's just not gonna happen. The GOP has staked "family values" as their claim for over 30 years. The War on Fags and Whore Pills will always be their gig.
It'll only be their gig as long as they can convince themselves it works might work next time, if only Americans would wake up to what's really happening.
FYP
Six/half dozen