Did the GOP slide begin in the 1990s?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP slide began in the 90's. I set the date as being 1999. That is when the Republicans abandoned the ideals of 1994 completelly and focused on the ideal of incumbency and self preservative through pork and election time votes on social issues like the Abortion ban amendment and the Federal Marrriage Amendment not to have them pass but to force Dems in Conservative districts to take tough votes and allow moderate Republicans a chance to break with party orthodoxy just in time for the Election. Granted they had begun to go astray as earlier as 1997 when Rep. Shuster(R-PA, the elder) as chairmen of the one of the Appropriations subcommittees passed a bloated transportation bill full of earmarks. However nothing compared to the wholesale selling of beliefs by Republicans Left, Right and Center to people who cared only for reelection and power. Many of the reformers left nabbing Governorships, Senate Seats like Mark Sandford, Tom Coburn, and Jim DeMint. Others left and failed to win like Van Hilleary, Ed Bryant, Ernest Istook, and Frank Largent. Luckily for us we got a fine group of freshmen in 1998, 2000, and 2002, including Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, A couple in the GA delegation, Marsha Blackburn, and many more. So there is hope that we will yet take the right course at least in terms of the House. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You tell that to the Jim DeMint's, Marsha Blackburns and the other social idiots of our party and see what they think.  These social conservatives want their platform as #1, even if it means losing.  There is no room for defaction in the party anymore.

And, those voters we've lost have turned to vote for democrats.

Listen to me Sg. Those people you just mention are some of our best, you know why they are principled. They also represent there states well. As a moderate you must know how to agree with somebody only 50 to 60% of time. Isn't that what moderation is all about. Well lets you show some that towards a few conservatives. If I have to choose between a principled honest moderate and corrupt conservative I would chose the moderate. The same goes the oposite I would chose a principled honest conservative over a corrupt moderate. What you chose Sg in the last one of these. Would you chose a corrupt moderate over an honest conservative?

The loss of surburbia has destroyed the party.  Suburban votes used to make us viable in MI, PA, IL, CO, CA, OR and WA.  Try to remember that THESE USED TO BE OUR STATES.

We've lost the surburban vote and we've failed to account for the demographical movements in those states too. Even NY we were competitive for years because we used to win huge margins with surburban voters who were socially moderate and fiscally conservative.

The Republicans are starting to be competitive in suburbs again. I like what I've been hearing from the real leaders of the party (governors, senators, the NRCC), people say they must choose between being principled or big tent. I say,  be a principled big tent. If somebody disagrees with you on 20%, but could win in Connecticut, you should support them. At the same time, you don't campaign against deficits and big government only to grow both the deficits and the government.

Vepres, you and I are going to get along just fine.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP ascendancy began by pandering to the "Angry White Man" crowd.
But this strategy proved to be short-sighted because at the same time alienated the fast-growing minorities and the moderate suburbanites.

It was our only option at the time, cause we could no longer squeeze enough Senate and House seats out of the Northeast, and Midwest. You look at the Senate maps of the 1920's and compare them to the 50's you realise that the GOP when in the majority in the 1920's only held that position do to dominance over the Northeast and Midwest, with the rise of Unions and the growing support among Urbanites for Democrats in the Depression and afterwards, the Republicans couldn't dominate enough to hold the majority in Marginal years and when at bad year comes along like 1958 the GOP got cremed almost as if the country was back in the Depression b/c the GOP lacked base region which they dominated. The Republicans choose to make the West as there dominate Region which fit in with its growing libertarianism, and led to the Rise of Goldwater as national figure. However they realised that even with the GOP west and a competative NE and MW they still couldn't hold a majority in Congress or the Presidency unless they split open the Solid South(See 1968-1976 elections).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

DeMint?  What's principaled about him? That he thinks single women and gays shouldn't teach in public schools?  Great representation of the party there.

If you want us let you guys call the shots in NY and etc, then you better not try to call the shots in SC. I agree, DeMint has said some crazy things as has Tom Coburn but if you look at the alternatives which are Big Gov't populists who are just as batsh**t insane on social issues, I much prefer DeMint and Coburn, you can't argue that they support Bigger Gov't when they rail against spending every single day.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In twenty years, when the history of the Great Realignment is being written - that is to say, when political historians look back to try to find the precise moment in history when an opening was made that allowed economically liberal populists like Huckabee to capture the Republican Party - they will say that Bill Clinton made it happen.

More to the point, it was Bill Clinton - a southerner (but not a Southerner) - who solidified the cultural South for the Republicans, and forced into the Republican camp a political base wholly alien to it previously: those whose political lineage could be traced to the theocratic populism of William Jennings Bryan, ignoramuses whose sole political desire is to see Augustine's socialistic City of God made manifest in the United States. By cutting these people loose from the Democratic coalition, the New Democrats traded them with a still-small, but growing, civil libertarian bloc that is waiting for a Democratic candidate to come along and speak their language.

At the same time, the populists have infested the Republican Party to the core, and the first President to be elected out of this newly-grafted wing was George W. Bush. He appealed, like no Republican before him, to those groups who are defined chiefly by their alienation from modern society: the heritors of the agrarian yeoman, whose socialism is a socialism of the fields and a socialism of the spirit.

In the future, we will consider 1996 to be the underlying cause of a political reversal that will eventually end up in a repeat of 1896.

First off, Einzige your analysis of the American political cycle is more indepth than a vast majority of people in this nation. Barack Obama is not the future of the Democratic party, he's the past. He is the last harrah of progressivism for the Democratic party. I will go as far as to say that the rise of the New Democrat wing was born as a result of the election of Ronald Reagan. As much credit as Reagan got for helping bastardize the Republican party with his enormous deficit spending, he would inevitably be given credit for the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, a wing that would swear to fight for the civil liberties the Religious Right swore to defeat. The fate of the Democratic party was sealed with the election of William Jefferson Clinton in 1992, the year that the New Democratic wing of the party took control. The widespread public outrage at incidents like Waco, the assault weapons ban, the failure of HillaryCare, among other things, were the beginning of the end of the progressive wing. The election of Barack Obama will not bring forth the resurgence of the progressive wing, rather it will be the death knell of it. The economic nationalism of this administration (Buy Murican), the draconian gun laws it will try or will enact, the even more draconian drug laws it will enforce, the continuation of the Patriot Act, and other things can only inevitably result in the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, led by people like Russ Feingold and Kristen Gillibrand, who will guarantee undisputable civil liberties for the American people. These will be the freedom fighters of the new era in American politics, idealistic warriors who fought tooth and nail for the defense of all civil liberties and not just some. They will swear off the decades of blind allegiance to the power of big government that their predecessors bowed down to.

The GOP, being obsessed with the preservation of state, would ulitmately become the statist oppressor to the libertarianism of the Democratic Party. The hatred of individual rights brought on by George Bush, the disregard for spending brought on by Ronald Reagan, and outright condemnation of individuality brought on by Mike Huckabee, would help in the rise of the batsh**t insane socially conservative economically populist wing of the GOP. Seig Heil!

This may sound batsh**t insane, but we'll see who is laughing (or crying) in twenty years.

What happens if the growth of Gov't under Obama drives the Libertarians from the Democratic party? I don't see this happening especially now with the backlash against Obama's spending giving a new birth to fiscal Conservativism with the GOP and with upcoming leaders like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan I don't see how a Populist Republican party is feasible. The only way that would have succeeded was if George Bush's Compassionate Conservatisim had succeeded and it clearly didn't. The Republicans are now freely attacking the lose spending under Bush which they wouldn't do until now that he is out of office.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In twenty years, when the history of the Great Realignment is being written - that is to say, when political historians look back to try to find the precise moment in history when an opening was made that allowed economically liberal populists like Huckabee to capture the Republican Party - they will say that Bill Clinton made it happen.

More to the point, it was Bill Clinton - a southerner (but not a Southerner) - who solidified the cultural South for the Republicans, and forced into the Republican camp a political base wholly alien to it previously: those whose political lineage could be traced to the theocratic populism of William Jennings Bryan, ignoramuses whose sole political desire is to see Augustine's socialistic City of God made manifest in the United States. By cutting these people loose from the Democratic coalition, the New Democrats traded them with a still-small, but growing, civil libertarian bloc that is waiting for a Democratic candidate to come along and speak their language.

At the same time, the populists have infested the Republican Party to the core, and the first President to be elected out of this newly-grafted wing was George W. Bush. He appealed, like no Republican before him, to those groups who are defined chiefly by their alienation from modern society: the heritors of the agrarian yeoman, whose socialism is a socialism of the fields and a socialism of the spirit.

In the future, we will consider 1996 to be the underlying cause of a political reversal that will eventually end up in a repeat of 1896.

First off, Einzige your analysis of the American political cycle is more indepth than a vast majority of people in this nation. Barack Obama is not the future of the Democratic party, he's the past. He is the last harrah of progressivism for the Democratic party. I will go as far as to say that the rise of the New Democrat wing was born as a result of the election of Ronald Reagan. As much credit as Reagan got for helping bastardize the Republican party with his enormous deficit spending, he would inevitably be given credit for the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, a wing that would swear to fight for the civil liberties the Religious Right swore to defeat. The fate of the Democratic party was sealed with the election of William Jefferson Clinton in 1992, the year that the New Democratic wing of the party took control. The widespread public outrage at incidents like Waco, the assault weapons ban, the failure of HillaryCare, among other things, were the beginning of the end of the progressive wing. The election of Barack Obama will not bring forth the resurgence of the progressive wing, rather it will be the death knell of it. The economic nationalism of this administration (Buy Murican), the draconian gun laws it will try or will enact, the even more draconian drug laws it will enforce, the continuation of the Patriot Act, and other things can only inevitably result in the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, led by people like Russ Feingold and Kristen Gillibrand, who will guarantee undisputable civil liberties for the American people. These will be the freedom fighters of the new era in American politics, idealistic warriors who fought tooth and nail for the defense of all civil liberties and not just some. They will swear off the decades of blind allegiance to the power of big government that their predecessors bowed down to.

The GOP, being obsessed with the preservation of state, would ulitmately become the statist oppressor to the libertarianism of the Democratic Party. The hatred of individual rights brought on by George Bush, the disregard for spending brought on by Ronald Reagan, and outright condemnation of individuality brought on by Mike Huckabee, would help in the rise of the batsh**t insane socially conservative economically populist wing of the GOP. Seig Heil!

This may sound batsh**t insane, but we'll see who is laughing (or crying) in twenty years.

What happens if the growth of Gov't under Obama drives the Libertarians from the Democratic party? I don't see this happening especially now with the backlash against Obama's spending giving a new birth to fiscal Conservativism with the GOP and with upcoming leaders like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan I don't see how a Populist Republican party is feasible. The only way that would have succeeded was if George Bush's Compassionate Conservatisim had succeeded and it clearly didn't. The Republicans are now freely attacking the lose spending under Bush which they wouldn't do until now that he is out of office.

You will likely learn that Republicans are fiscally Conservative........when they are out of power.  As soon as they get into power, they spend like drunken sailors. 

I don't need to learn anything in that regard, I already know. Its just that the idea of the Democrats shirking off Wilson, FDR, JFK, and LBJ to once again become the party of Jefferson and Jackson sounds highly unlikely, especially with recent events.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In twenty years, when the history of the Great Realignment is being written - that is to say, when political historians look back to try to find the precise moment in history when an opening was made that allowed economically liberal populists like Huckabee to capture the Republican Party - they will say that Bill Clinton made it happen.

More to the point, it was Bill Clinton - a southerner (but not a Southerner) - who solidified the cultural South for the Republicans, and forced into the Republican camp a political base wholly alien to it previously: those whose political lineage could be traced to the theocratic populism of William Jennings Bryan, ignoramuses whose sole political desire is to see Augustine's socialistic City of God made manifest in the United States. By cutting these people loose from the Democratic coalition, the New Democrats traded them with a still-small, but growing, civil libertarian bloc that is waiting for a Democratic candidate to come along and speak their language.

At the same time, the populists have infested the Republican Party to the core, and the first President to be elected out of this newly-grafted wing was George W. Bush. He appealed, like no Republican before him, to those groups who are defined chiefly by their alienation from modern society: the heritors of the agrarian yeoman, whose socialism is a socialism of the fields and a socialism of the spirit.

In the future, we will consider 1996 to be the underlying cause of a political reversal that will eventually end up in a repeat of 1896.

First off, Einzige your analysis of the American political cycle is more indepth than a vast majority of people in this nation. Barack Obama is not the future of the Democratic party, he's the past. He is the last harrah of progressivism for the Democratic party. I will go as far as to say that the rise of the New Democrat wing was born as a result of the election of Ronald Reagan. As much credit as Reagan got for helping bastardize the Republican party with his enormous deficit spending, he would inevitably be given credit for the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, a wing that would swear to fight for the civil liberties the Religious Right swore to defeat. The fate of the Democratic party was sealed with the election of William Jefferson Clinton in 1992, the year that the New Democratic wing of the party took control. The widespread public outrage at incidents like Waco, the assault weapons ban, the failure of HillaryCare, among other things, were the beginning of the end of the progressive wing. The election of Barack Obama will not bring forth the resurgence of the progressive wing, rather it will be the death knell of it. The economic nationalism of this administration (Buy Murican), the draconian gun laws it will try or will enact, the even more draconian drug laws it will enforce, the continuation of the Patriot Act, and other things can only inevitably result in the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, led by people like Russ Feingold and Kristen Gillibrand, who will guarantee undisputable civil liberties for the American people. These will be the freedom fighters of the new era in American politics, idealistic warriors who fought tooth and nail for the defense of all civil liberties and not just some. They will swear off the decades of blind allegiance to the power of big government that their predecessors bowed down to.

The GOP, being obsessed with the preservation of state, would ulitmately become the statist oppressor to the libertarianism of the Democratic Party. The hatred of individual rights brought on by George Bush, the disregard for spending brought on by Ronald Reagan, and outright condemnation of individuality brought on by Mike Huckabee, would help in the rise of the batsh**t insane socially conservative economically populist wing of the GOP. Seig Heil!

This may sound batsh**t insane, but we'll see who is laughing (or crying) in twenty years.

What happens if the growth of Gov't under Obama drives the Libertarians from the Democratic party? I don't see this happening especially now with the backlash against Obama's spending giving a new birth to fiscal Conservativism with the GOP and with upcoming leaders like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan I don't see how a Populist Republican party is feasible. The only way that would have succeeded was if George Bush's Compassionate Conservatisim had succeeded and it clearly didn't. The Republicans are now freely attacking the lose spending under Bush which they wouldn't do until now that he is out of office.

You will likely learn that Republicans are fiscally Conservative........when they are out of power.  As soon as they get into power, they spend like drunken sailors. 

This only happened once, under Bush Jr. when they became arrogant after 10 years of controlling both houses of congress. Reagan shrunk government and Bush Sr. tried to trim the deficit (though he had to raise taxes to do so).

It's crazy to believe that populists will take over the Republican party. The major voices of the party at the moment are fiscal conservatives who barely even mention social issues. Think McCain, Paul Ryan, Romney (after the campaign), and the majority of the GOP congressmen. If anything, the fiscal conservative side of the party is having a comeback after 8 years of silence.

Besides, the top three Democrats in the primaries were progressives, so to say they're headed towards quasi-libertarianism is a baseless analysis.

Gov't actually grew under Reagan due to a compromise he struck with Dems where he could beef up the Military in exchange the Dems would get some more domestic spending then Reagan had intended. If Reagan had a Republican Congress things might have been different.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In twenty years, when the history of the Great Realignment is being written - that is to say, when political historians look back to try to find the precise moment in history when an opening was made that allowed economically liberal populists like Huckabee to capture the Republican Party - they will say that Bill Clinton made it happen.

More to the point, it was Bill Clinton - a southerner (but not a Southerner) - who solidified the cultural South for the Republicans, and forced into the Republican camp a political base wholly alien to it previously: those whose political lineage could be traced to the theocratic populism of William Jennings Bryan, ignoramuses whose sole political desire is to see Augustine's socialistic City of God made manifest in the United States. By cutting these people loose from the Democratic coalition, the New Democrats traded them with a still-small, but growing, civil libertarian bloc that is waiting for a Democratic candidate to come along and speak their language.

At the same time, the populists have infested the Republican Party to the core, and the first President to be elected out of this newly-grafted wing was George W. Bush. He appealed, like no Republican before him, to those groups who are defined chiefly by their alienation from modern society: the heritors of the agrarian yeoman, whose socialism is a socialism of the fields and a socialism of the spirit.

In the future, we will consider 1996 to be the underlying cause of a political reversal that will eventually end up in a repeat of 1896.

First off, Einzige your analysis of the American political cycle is more indepth than a vast majority of people in this nation. Barack Obama is not the future of the Democratic party, he's the past. He is the last harrah of progressivism for the Democratic party. I will go as far as to say that the rise of the New Democrat wing was born as a result of the election of Ronald Reagan. As much credit as Reagan got for helping bastardize the Republican party with his enormous deficit spending, he would inevitably be given credit for the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, a wing that would swear to fight for the civil liberties the Religious Right swore to defeat. The fate of the Democratic party was sealed with the election of William Jefferson Clinton in 1992, the year that the New Democratic wing of the party took control. The widespread public outrage at incidents like Waco, the assault weapons ban, the failure of HillaryCare, among other things, were the beginning of the end of the progressive wing. The election of Barack Obama will not bring forth the resurgence of the progressive wing, rather it will be the death knell of it. The economic nationalism of this administration (Buy Murican), the draconian gun laws it will try or will enact, the even more draconian drug laws it will enforce, the continuation of the Patriot Act, and other things can only inevitably result in the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, led by people like Russ Feingold and Kristen Gillibrand, who will guarantee undisputable civil liberties for the American people. These will be the freedom fighters of the new era in American politics, idealistic warriors who fought tooth and nail for the defense of all civil liberties and not just some. They will swear off the decades of blind allegiance to the power of big government that their predecessors bowed down to.

The GOP, being obsessed with the preservation of state, would ulitmately become the statist oppressor to the libertarianism of the Democratic Party. The hatred of individual rights brought on by George Bush, the disregard for spending brought on by Ronald Reagan, and outright condemnation of individuality brought on by Mike Huckabee, would help in the rise of the batsh**t insane socially conservative economically populist wing of the GOP. Seig Heil!

This may sound batsh**t insane, but we'll see who is laughing (or crying) in twenty years.

What happens if the growth of Gov't under Obama drives the Libertarians from the Democratic party? I don't see this happening especially now with the backlash against Obama's spending giving a new birth to fiscal Conservativism with the GOP and with upcoming leaders like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan I don't see how a Populist Republican party is feasible. The only way that would have succeeded was if George Bush's Compassionate Conservatisim had succeeded and it clearly didn't. The Republicans are now freely attacking the lose spending under Bush which they wouldn't do until now that he is out of office.

You will likely learn that Republicans are fiscally Conservative........when they are out of power.  As soon as they get into power, they spend like drunken sailors. 

This only happened once, under Bush Jr. when they became arrogant after 10 years of controlling both houses of congress. Reagan shrunk government and Bush Sr. tried to trim the deficit (though he had to raise taxes to do so).

It also happened in the 1990's after Republicans took over.  They realized that they needed earmarks and pork-barrel projects to get their members reelected. 

Yes I have commented on that. But generally the period from 1995-1999 was the first era of fiscally conservative Gov't since the 1920's. From 1995-1999 earmarks went down, welfare was reformed and the annual growth of Gov't spending was reduced. It wasn't untill 1999 that the Republicans completely abandoned fiscal conservativism, and it generally coincides with the rise of two Texans George Bush and Tom Delay. After 1999 we saw the growth of earmarks like never before; the creation of unfounded mandates, Medicare Part D; and Government Agencies, Homeland Security. What I am hopefull of is the return to the ideals and core beliefs, no matter what those beliefs may be, and have that determine the strength or weakness of our candidates not how much they can bribe there constituents.

My hope is for the Republicans to be in there mid 1990's form when they retake congress and not some corrupt, pseudo-populist socially conservative hybrid whose only existence is to further the interests of the incumbents and achieve no real reforms except those that beef up the poll numbers for next election. Its amazing that 30 years into the modern Conservative movement we have only squeezed out four years of reasonable fiscal conservativism.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In twenty years, when the history of the Great Realignment is being written - that is to say, when political historians look back to try to find the precise moment in history when an opening was made that allowed economically liberal populists like Huckabee to capture the Republican Party - they will say that Bill Clinton made it happen.

More to the point, it was Bill Clinton - a southerner (but not a Southerner) - who solidified the cultural South for the Republicans, and forced into the Republican camp a political base wholly alien to it previously: those whose political lineage could be traced to the theocratic populism of William Jennings Bryan, ignoramuses whose sole political desire is to see Augustine's socialistic City of God made manifest in the United States. By cutting these people loose from the Democratic coalition, the New Democrats traded them with a still-small, but growing, civil libertarian bloc that is waiting for a Democratic candidate to come along and speak their language.

At the same time, the populists have infested the Republican Party to the core, and the first President to be elected out of this newly-grafted wing was George W. Bush. He appealed, like no Republican before him, to those groups who are defined chiefly by their alienation from modern society: the heritors of the agrarian yeoman, whose socialism is a socialism of the fields and a socialism of the spirit.

In the future, we will consider 1996 to be the underlying cause of a political reversal that will eventually end up in a repeat of 1896.

First off, Einzige your analysis of the American political cycle is more indepth than a vast majority of people in this nation. Barack Obama is not the future of the Democratic party, he's the past. He is the last harrah of progressivism for the Democratic party. I will go as far as to say that the rise of the New Democrat wing was born as a result of the election of Ronald Reagan. As much credit as Reagan got for helping bastardize the Republican party with his enormous deficit spending, he would inevitably be given credit for the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, a wing that would swear to fight for the civil liberties the Religious Right swore to defeat. The fate of the Democratic party was sealed with the election of William Jefferson Clinton in 1992, the year that the New Democratic wing of the party took control. The widespread public outrage at incidents like Waco, the assault weapons ban, the failure of HillaryCare, among other things, were the beginning of the end of the progressive wing. The election of Barack Obama will not bring forth the resurgence of the progressive wing, rather it will be the death knell of it. The economic nationalism of this administration (Buy Murican), the draconian gun laws it will try or will enact, the even more draconian drug laws it will enforce, the continuation of the Patriot Act, and other things can only inevitably result in the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, led by people like Russ Feingold and Kristen Gillibrand, who will guarantee undisputable civil liberties for the American people. These will be the freedom fighters of the new era in American politics, idealistic warriors who fought tooth and nail for the defense of all civil liberties and not just some. They will swear off the decades of blind allegiance to the power of big government that their predecessors bowed down to.

The GOP, being obsessed with the preservation of state, would ulitmately become the statist oppressor to the libertarianism of the Democratic Party. The hatred of individual rights brought on by George Bush, the disregard for spending brought on by Ronald Reagan, and outright condemnation of individuality brought on by Mike Huckabee, would help in the rise of the batsh**t insane socially conservative economically populist wing of the GOP. Seig Heil!

This may sound batsh**t insane, but we'll see who is laughing (or crying) in twenty years.

What happens if the growth of Gov't under Obama drives the Libertarians from the Democratic party? I don't see this happening especially now with the backlash against Obama's spending giving a new birth to fiscal Conservativism with the GOP and with upcoming leaders like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan I don't see how a Populist Republican party is feasible. The only way that would have succeeded was if George Bush's Compassionate Conservatisim had succeeded and it clearly didn't. The Republicans are now freely attacking the lose spending under Bush which they wouldn't do until now that he is out of office.

You will likely learn that Republicans are fiscally Conservative........when they are out of power.  As soon as they get into power, they spend like drunken sailors. 

This only happened once, under Bush Jr. when they became arrogant after 10 years of controlling both houses of congress. Reagan shrunk government and Bush Sr. tried to trim the deficit (though he had to raise taxes to do so).

It also happened in the 1990's after Republicans took over.  They realized that they needed earmarks and pork-barrel projects to get their members reelected. 

Yes I have commented on that. But generally the period from 1995-1999 was the first era of fiscally conservative Gov't since the 1920's. From 1995-1999 earmarks went down, welfare was reformed and the annual growth of Gov't spending was reduced. It wasn't untill 1999 that the Republicans completely abandoned fiscal conservativism, and it generally coincides with the rise of two Texans George Bush and Tom Delay. After 1999 we saw the growth of earmarks like never before; the creation of unfounded mandates, Medicare Part D; and Government Agencies, Homeland Security. What I am hopefull of is the return to the ideals and core beliefs, no matter what those beliefs may be, and have that determine the strength or weakness of our candidates not how much they can bribe there constituents.

My hope is for the Republicans to be in there mid 1990's form when they retake congress and not some corrupt, pseudo-populist socially conservative hybrid whose only existence is to further the interests of the incumbents and achieve no real reforms except those that beef up the poll numbers for next election. Its amazing that 30 years into the modern Conservative movement we have only squeezed out four years of reasonable fiscal conservativism.

I'm sure they will. It is in their electoral interests. After all, last time they abandoned their promises of fiscal responsibility and small government, they were slaughtered (2008).

They abandoned those promises in 2002 and 2004 and did fine those years. 

Thats what I have been trying to tell you. The reason they did fine those years is
A. Earmarks do help reelection bids
B. People cared more about physical then Finacial security.

The whole idea of abandoning fiscal conservatisim was for short-term electoral gain but thinking short term only comes back to bight you in the end. Out of control spending was one issue in 2006 that the GOP could have avoided, corruption was another big one that could easily have been avoided. But they didn't, they chose short term gain in return for long term consequences.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

Essentially I think we will see a slow an steady losening up on Gay Rights coming first in the form of endorsing Civil Unions like Jon Huntsmen did, don't expect them to endorse Gay Marriage as it is still not supported by more then a 1/3 of the electorate. You will also see the rhetoric shift on Abortion a little bit but I don't see us as a whole abondoning the Pro-life plank or position. If anything Abortion is not one of there problems with younger voters. The Republicans will become defined by there opposition to Obama's spending to the point that it is one of the main points of agreement among something like 90% of the coalition. Making a dive towards big Gov't populism impossible.

As for Hispanics and African Americans, the Republicans should use a lot of Populist pro-labor type rhetoric to peel of those who oppose the wage Depression cause by Illegal Immigration, but it won't go beyond that. Indeed this will separate Hispanics into two groups(those motivated by self interests, and those lemmings for the special interests) and you will see a trend form where the ones here the longest are the most Republican. If Republicans can attain, in the next decade, 45% of Hispanics and 25% of African Americans I think they will have done quite well, and this is certainly possible with the strategy I just laid out. Republicans are definately going to moderate in several areas some Libertarian some more populist, but I think if one will be larger it will be the Libertarian side based of being defined by a moderating stance on gays and a firmly entrenched opposition to Gov't spending thanks to Obama. Are numbers in the rural south will go down but our continued Pro-life position, pro-gun, strong Defense and tough on Crime positions will keep most of them in the party. You won't suddenly see AL become a Dem state again. If anything the recovery among the suburbs and the growth in African American support would reinforce several Southern States after the loss of several populist blue dogs back to the Dems.

We might also see a moderation in the form of Republicans coming up with working solutions on Health Care and Education. The opportunity, should Obama fail on either of these, is too great to pass up and thus the possibililty of stealing one or two of the Dems usually strong issues.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Here's what the party strengths could be with a purely moderate libertarian GOP. Yes, their base vote goes down, but they have many more opportunities to win, which would help in the congress.

Though the south would be stronger Democrat in NCYank's scenario, with Alabama and Kentucky in the GOP column at least.

Edit: Just noticed, it looks a lot like Ford vs. Carter. Interesting.

I think you missinterepreted what I said. The gains in the growing southern suburbs, Hispanics and as for African Americans and gains among them will be primarily in the South. So the GOP would still have a firm hold on the GOP solid south with suburban whites,Hispanics and Blacks securing base big states like Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas. Plus the continued Pro-life position, Pro gun, tough on crime and strong military would keep LA, MS, and TN as strongly Republicans and Ark and WV would be swing states that lean GOP. The comment about Alabama also applies to other states in the South that are similar like SC, MS, LA, TN, KY, Ark and WV(though not as much GOP as today for the last two).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is a 50/50 election 5 to 7 years after my strategy has been adopted. The GOP solid South begins to weaken and retreat to the margins due to Dems gains of the populist Bubba voters. Republicans counteract this with gains among the Hispanics and since the gains among blacks will be primarily in the South this secures and prevents the Dems from taking the smaller less urbanized southern states while those demographic gains plus recoveries in the suburbs secures  Texas, GA, and FL some of there largest states  which all go GOP by at least 55% or more and gives them a small 5 point marginal advantage in NC.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Plus the continued Pro-life position, Pro gun, tough on crime and strong military would keep LA, MS, and TN as strongly Republicans and Ark and WV would be swing states that lean GOP. .

These positions are fundamentally incompatible with any form of libertarianism. Continue to keep them and, ipso facto, the Republicans are not the party of 'moderate libertarianism'.

Libertarianism isn't pro gun? Sure, ok, yeah.

Yeah yeah, I think you made a general overview type of mistake. How are gun rights incompatible with libertarianism, especially since it takes the power of force away from the government and gives it to the people?

Gun rights is one of the few things that social Conservatives agree with Libertarians on. As for Einzige, the whole idea behind moderate Libertarianism is that you accept some of the philosophy without taking all of it. If you think the GOP is going to become carbon copy's of the Libertarian party your nuts you nuts. Even so such a GOP I am describing would be far closer both socially, and definately economically to the Libertarians then the Dems are or ever will be. Of course you will probably respond with in insult and quickly divert from the topic in typical Einzige fashion. You will never break the Dems of the unions and the welfare queens. If the power of the unions are broken it will be infavor of the Enviromentalist, which are hardly libertarian.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

To the contrary: The GOP is becoming progressively less libertarian. Mike Huckabee won the youth vote in the Republican primaries, after all.

The more you ally yourself with the right-wing the more you sell libertarianism short. Heed that.

Don't look just at the Republican primaries, look at the rhetoric in congress. Anti-spending, anti-big government, pro-free market, and they have softened their tone on foreign policy (though they could do better), and social issues are taking a back seat, these all indicate they're moving in a libertarian direction.

Why? I don't give a damn what a political base says; I care about what they do. And Huckabee roundly won the "up-and-coming" Millennial Republican generation. The temporary rhetoric of job-seekers left over from the '94 Revolution is less-than-meaningless when trying to analyze medium-long term trends. 

Exit polls of youth vote from early primaries (top three candidates shown):

Iowa
Huckabee: 40%
Romney: 22%
Paul: 21%

Wyoming
No exit polls

New Hampshire
McCain: 27%
Paul: 19%
Romney: 17%

Nevada
Romney: 50%
Paul: 19%
McCain: 13%

South Carolina
Huckabee: 35%
McCain: 28%
Thompson: 15%

Florida
McCain: 30%
Romney: 23%
Giuliani: 19%

Notice that Huckabee only performs well with the youth in the south, but is slaughtered everywhere else. In the west, Florida, and Northeast, Romney and McCain are preferred by significant margins. This is consistent with the voting patterns of the overall results.

You are of course right but don't be surprised when Einzige gives you an irrational response or attacks you.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Living in California for many generations, I remember when Reagan was Governor and the first Governor in the USA to sign on to Roe v Wade.  A group of my friends took a bus from the San Fernando Valley to Sacrament to give him a standing ovation.  You see, I knew the Reagans and heard them speak on individual freedoms.  They wanted no part of the Federal or State Government in their personal social lives.  That is what I meant when the platform called for individual freedoms.  It is no longer the case.  Our individual freedoms have been labeled sins and the religious right wants us all to accept the faith and be made clean.  This I cannot do and refuse to even discuss it. 

I have no political party and to be honest about it; it is killing my political spirit.  I have nothing to work for or look forward to.  I am old, cranky and tired. 

I do feel for your position, being without a party. However I must disagree in that I find limited Gov't is impossible w/o some sort of social control. Either you have an overbearing Gov't or a strict traditionalist society governed by moral values. The altenative is in my view anarchy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I still stand by 2005 as the beginning of the GOP decline. Maybe more precisely Nov 2005.

I would say 2005 was the beginning of the end for the Bush era GOP. Bush should have never attempted Social Security reform with only 55 senators. That political defeat humbled him and brought his approvals down to 50%.

Then Katrina and Harriet Miers occured. And so by The time he gave his SOTU in Jan 2006 his approval rating was hovering around 41%. Whenever Bush tried to push something, something else negative occured that undid him. Katrina helped undo Harriet Miers. In early 2006 he pushed a divisive immigration bill while simultaneously Iraq began to collapse after the bombing of that Mosque. People will really trust you to keep your promise to secure the borders after the failures of gov't in Katrina and Iraq. The house passed 4244(or whatever it was called) and the Senate passed McCain-Kennedy nothing came out of conference and the rest is history. Mission: Divide GOP- accomplished. Iraq continues its decline and becomes the central issue in the election. Corruption is the second issue. The GOP had weathered the Abramoff scandal and had survived. It was the Foley scandal that brough this issue back up again. Other side issues that helped bring the Dems to power included, the minimum wage, the Donut hole, and Pay as you GO (What happened to that? They waived it after six months, I watched it on C-span).

In 2007, Bush stands firm on Iraq and we watch as his poll numbers tank to 30%. He tries to push Immigration reform again and gets rejected outright in the Senate, the House never takes it up. Iraq finally turns around but the maintstream media doesn't give it the coverage that it should. Then in late 2007 the economy begin to weaken and fell into recession in Dec 2007(reported to have occured in mid 2008 with GDP revisions). The economy begins a "modest recession" untill September and October when the economy goes itno complete downward spiral giving Obama the election he had done everything possible to throw away until September's collapse.