Why don't Republicans make more of a play for Maine?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The ever-present talk of the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" Republican strikes again!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

Well, you are a fool. That happens.

And how did you make this discovery?

And when it comes to Rockefeller, obviously I'm not a fan of the decisions he made in regards to his personal life. As well, I'm not quite a fan of his policies. His social policies were in many ways an exact opposite of the type I'd favor--meaning that while he cracked down on drugs and legalized abortion, I'd like to say I'd prefer laxer drug laws and outlawed abortion. As well, he and his good ol' boys were practically running a center-wing cabal of sorts in trying to block Goldwater from the nomination in a way that, when I read it, struck me as some paternalistic, condescending bullsh#t.

Party of my dislike of him comes, however, from the general idea that this weird group of moderates out there has that he counts as the sort of model of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" when in fact he was hardly conservative with the state's money and he was as non-liberal as several of his party's conservatives on a few social issues. In general, I don't like when this certain group of people is always talking about how we need to "get back" to being a party of upper-class, WASP technocrats who speak condescendingly about social conservatives and Southerners and pat themselves on the back for being so enlightened while boldly (and moderately) staring out the window of whatever skyscraper they happen to be in. While I might oppose certain contemporaries of his time such as George McGovern more on policy issues, McGovern was in the right party, was to my knowledge faithful to his wife, and was an honest man who wouldn't have led us down the path of economic self-destruction that Nixon used and that I believe Rockefeller would have emulated had he been in charge.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Also, as I pointed out, it's easy to find fiscally moderate and socially liberal politicians, they just happen to be Democrats right now. If you're not happy about that, you're entirely free to change parties at any point (in theory). There are enough Democrats out there that aren't your old "labor lefty" or "blue collar social conservative" (another stereotype) that I'm sure you could find a primary candidate or two that meets your fancy.

A final point is that if you want to refer to some ages-old politician that could win in a blue (atlas red), was a genuine moderate, and might be able to be called "libertarian" from time to time, Mark Hatfield might be your best bet, though he of course is on the other side of the country.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not necessarily. However, I am definitely annoyed by any obsession with the Rockefeller family (bar, of course, the original) and, as well, the apparent obsession a vague group of more moderate voters have with the phrase "fiscally conservative, socially liberal"--I am annoyed as well, though not as much, by those obsessed with the "fiscally liberal, socially conservative" obsessees--and whatever voters might happen to be that. Assuming that if you just drop half of your platform, you're going to win an election, or that you can tell a region of the country to screw off, and it's not going to hurt your party, is absurd. When you combine obsession with absurdity, I'm not particularly fond of seeing it. I would have the same reaction to someone saying "we need to run more and more ultra-conservative candidates!" while also stating that the GOP would be a shoo-in for victory if it did that.

Regarding whether or not "socially liberal, fiscally conservative people are Democrats", not necessarily. However, since at least the days of Nixon, there has been a strong part of the GOP's electoral strategy geared towards attracting blue collar workers to this. Nixon did this by demonizing the alleged "toryhood of change" that seemed to be in place, practically stealing Johnson's economic policies, and working to gather union support for his re-election. I've come to the idea that this resulted in a shift of sorts among the parties. Obviously, the Democrats are still to the left of the GOP on all issues, however, the Democrats seem to have been forced to moderate, and especially in more recent years, it's been on the economic front. While Clinton was, of course, executing people to show off his "socially conservative" credentials, he's largely remembered for his concessions on economic issues, and you can see some similar things with Carter and Obama. I think that, these days, if you're in an upper-scale suburban area and have social views a certain peg or two to the left, you're probably a Democrat, though you might not like unions as much or have certain amount of hypocrisy on some issues. As well, you can look at some Democrats like Jerry Brown and Andrew Cuomo who have reoriented to be more fiscally conservative than previous generations of Democrats.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

Well, you are a fool. That happens.

And how did you make this discovery?

Only fools make such sweeping general statements. They (statements) are always false..

Thank you for your sage advice, good sir. However, I typically (not "always") cover my back with somewhat-less-than-absolute terms, such as "most" instead of "all".

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd rather have most Democrats over a degenerate piece of waste such as Nelson Rockefeller.

I understand that you may not like him, or may disagree with him, but what exactly makes our 41st Vice President, one of our country's most outstanding leaders and philanthropists, a "degenerate piece of waste"?

Not to mention a crusader for civil rights.

Exactly.  If you strongly dislike ole Nelson, I'd wager there's a descent chance you're what's wrong with the GOP voting base today.  The Party of Lincoln will become the old Southern Democrats (culturally and economically populist) over my dead body.

A large number of Rockefeller haters, specially on this forum, are libertarians of some variety. Not exactly what I'd call "culturally and economically populist", if you are using the term "populist" the way I think you are.

Fair enough, and I apologize for generalizing.  But populism is something I NEVER want to see enter the GOP, especially economically.

Have you heard of Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon?

Also, you're using the Nolan Chart definition of "populism" which could more correctly be referred to as "authoritarianism".

Finally, regarding what's wrong with the Grand Ol' Party, people that spell "decent" as "descent" are the main problem, I'd say.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This thread has worn out its worthiness of long, thoughtful responses. However, I may nonetheless grace it with my posts during a hangover or later tonight when I take to the devil's juice to distract me from my job.