Rockefeller Republicans

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Unfortunately, probably not. Tea Baggers who control the Republican Party barely tolerate the so called "Republican Establishment" for not being Conservative enough, I highly doubt the party will return to a more liberal sort of Republicanism for at least a couple decades, when the Tea Party nonsense dispels.

Us 'teabaggers' have very little influence on the leadership, if we did McConnell, Steele, Graham, McCain, and all their ilk would have been primaried out long ago.

Seriously. Can you believe how deluded these people are? They think it was the "teabaggers" who ran the Republican Party (and the country) into the ground during eight years of Bush terror?

Rockafellers got booted from the party years ago. So many in fact that the moderation the GOP needs is no where near as liberal as they are.

The two major reasons they were booted are A) It couldn't produce the electoral success needed to command an electoral college majority except in a landslide, nor could it come close to controlling congress. B) The arrogance of them and Rockefeller himself only encouraged the the Western/Southern Conservative Alliance(Goldwater and Strom Thurmond)  to toss them overboard. But compared to today this coalition that booted the RR's is much more centrist then modern Conservatism even. Even the Conservatives of the late 70's and 80's(Reagan and Helms) were far more conservative.  Most people don't realise just what Rockefeller Republicans are and thus use it to broadly paint all moderates and thus all non-Christian right Republicans. Which is a false use of the term.

The Tea party people are revolting from the establishment of the party, that in many ways finds itself in the same place the Rockefellers found themselves in circa 1960's. The best approach for a moderate Republican would be to get astride this anger and run as Anti-Establishment, anti-Washington Independents.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The two major reasons they were booted are A) It couldn't produce the electoral success needed to command an electoral college majority except in a landslide, nor could it come close to controlling congress. B) The arrogance of them and Rockefeller himself only encouraged the the Western/Southern Conservative Alliance(Goldwater and Strom Thurmond)  to toss them overboard.

Why do you keep repeating this canard? I understand how popular it is with "movement" conservatives, who love to liken themselves to plucky, populistic Mr. Smith who went to Washington and ran the bastards out, but it's absolutely divorced from reality. The truth of the matter is that the conservatives have controlled the Republican Party since the 1920s (or do you really think that Calvin Coolidge was the nominee of choice of the mythological 'Eastern Establishment'?), and shifted only for a brief period of time between 1940 and 1960. Goldwater's nomination was nothing more than a re-assertion of power by the conservative majority over the Republican Party, not a radical invasion by foreign elements

What the hell are you talking about? The GOP had always had a moderate wing that had descended from the Federalists and Whigs. In the 1920's it was just as present in the party. True the Depression gave it temporary new life, but the "establishment" in the GOP had always been its Northeastern moderate wing from 1854-1964, which was Socially Liberal and economic Centrist or Conservative, usually centrist or protectionist.

Quit carving out out arguements over a tiny difference of interpretation of history long past to suit your hackisk idological rigidity. All politics is perception and I don't view it the same way you do. Now stop be a harrassing fool. The era of unchecked harassment by your gang is over, face it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The two major reasons they were booted are A) It couldn't produce the electoral success needed to command an electoral college majority except in a landslide, nor could it come close to controlling congress. B) The arrogance of them and Rockefeller himself only encouraged the the Western/Southern Conservative Alliance(Goldwater and Strom Thurmond)  to toss them overboard.

Why do you keep repeating this canard? I understand how popular it is with "movement" conservatives, who love to liken themselves to plucky, populistic Mr. Smith who went to Washington and ran the bastards out, but it's absolutely divorced from reality. The truth of the matter is that the conservatives have controlled the Republican Party since the 1920s (or do you really think that Calvin Coolidge was the nominee of choice of the mythological 'Eastern Establishment'?), and shifted only for a brief period of time between 1940 and 1960. Goldwater's nomination was nothing more than a re-assertion of power by the conservative majority over the Republican Party, not a radical invasion by foreign elements

What the hell are you talking about? The GOP had always had a moderate wing that had descended from the Federalists and Whigs. In the 1920's it was just as present in the party. True the Depression gave it temporary new life, but the "establishment" in the GOP had always been its Northeastern moderate wing from 1854-1964, which was Socially Liberal and economic Centrist or Conservative, usually centrist or protectionist.

Garbage history. The Roosevelt split in 1912 permanently ended any "domination" on the part of the liberal, or even moderate, element of the Republican Party. Don't believe me? Let's look at every Republican President after Roosevelt:

Taft - Moderate-conservative
Harding - Conservative
Coolidge - Conservative
Hoover - Moderate
Eisenhower - Moderate
Nixon - Moderate-conservative
Reagan - Conservative
Bush the First - Moderate
Bush the Second - Conservative

That's four solidly conservative Presidents, two moderately conservative ones, and only three genuine moderates. And no liberals - some "domination".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Arguements"? "Hackisk"? "Idological"? "Harrassing"? I'll quit all those things just as soon as I find out what the Hell they are.

You are using the terms Moderate and Conservative to broadly and I am not going to argue with someone like you.