A Conservative's Plea for Normalcy in the Grand Ole Party.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Republican Party started down this path because of Ronald Reagan and his wrong-headed policies, not in spite of them. If anything, the Republicans won't be able to become electable again until they stop fellating the corpse of Ronald Reagan.

True, but the delicious irony of this is that Reagan would probably agree with him on this one.  I, personally, couldn't have said it better myself.  Granted, I still consider myself a Republican (and an establishment Republican at that), but I feel that the Tea Party movement is doing more damage to the GOP than the establishment ever did.  At least we were winning with establishment candidates.  Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that Republicans should stand for conservative values, but the victory of some of our policies is better than the defeat of all of them.  If I'm starving to death on a desert island and all I have to eat is half a loaf of bread, I'm going to eat that half-loaf instead of complaining about not having a full loaf.  I would know that if I don't eat the half-loaf, I'll starve for sure, but if I do eat it, I at least have some chance.  This is why, both in 2010 and this year, I supported candidates like Jim Ryan, Mike Castle, Mitt Romney, and Dick Lugar for the nomination in their respecive races.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Republican Party started down this path because of Ronald Reagan and his wrong-headed policies, not in spite of them. If anything, the Republicans won't be able to become electable again until they stop fellating the corpse of Ronald Reagan.

True, but the delicious irony of this is that Reagan would probably agree with him on this one.  I, personally, couldn't have said it better myself.  Granted, I still consider myself a Republican (and an establishment Republican at that), but I feel that the Tea Party movement is doing more damage to the GOP than the establishment ever did.  At least we were winning with establishment candidates.

Really, like in 2006 when we lost a majority in the Senate. Which one of those six was a Sharon Angle or Todd Akin, my memory is failing me? Or how about in 2008 when we lost another 8 seats? For the life of me, I want to say that all of them were establishment.

Or how about Todd Akin, himself? Was he not a six term Congressmen in a three way primary with a businessman and a former State Treasurer, all of whom courted TP support?

Or how about those establishment advisors who bungled Romney's Presidential campaign and turned it to a train wreck from start to finish. From advisors coming out and taking credit in the press after the FL primary for their guy's win, with the primary process not yet finished! to the post election outreach advice (cause they did such a damn good job doing that for Romney) for the GOP going forward.

I seem to recall the Democrats gaining a trifecta because the establishment run GOP had bungled a war in Iraq, accrued all kinds of corruption scandals and allowed the economy to tank on their watch.

Don't ever let the excesses of the base serve to absolve the establishment of the much deeper damage they have done to this party.

Really?  Lugar would have beaten Joe Donnelly easily; even before the primary, Mourdock was only tied with Donnelly in the general election polls.  Sue Lowden would've probably beaten Harry Reid by double digits, and the Tea Party movement squandered that on on a fringe candidate too.  Mike Castle would have been a shoo-in for Joe Biden's Senate seat, and Republicans wasted that opportunity on a sure loser like Christine O'Donnell.  Were it not for the ideological purity nominating Bill Brady for governor of Illinois in 2010, Jim Ryan would be governor there today.  And it's not just that; a moderate "establishment" Republican like Rob McKenna in Washington state would have probably won were it not for the way the Tea Partiers have made the GOP look like a bunch of right-wing extremists.  And this is all based on polls that I saw during those campaigns.  Believe me, the Republicans cost themselves WAY to many winnable races in 2010 and 2012 with ideological purity.  Politically, times are much different from what they were in 2006 and 2008. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Republican Party started down this path because of Ronald Reagan and his wrong-headed policies, not in spite of them. If anything, the Republicans won't be able to become electable again until they stop fellating the corpse of Ronald Reagan.

You are aware that between 1933 and 1981, in the era that so many on here consider the "moderate Republican" heyday that the GOP only held Congress four years out of forty-eight?  I mean hell dude, the GOP from 1981-1987 held the US Senate longer than they did in the past forty-eight years.
Also, see the 1994 Congressional Election results and half of the Bush Presidency.  OH yes, also see the 2010 midterms.
Now Presidential Elections wise, that's sixteen out of forty-eight versus running on twenty out of (at present and assuming Obama finishes his term) thirty-six?
I don't like Reagan for his policies and a number of other things, but let's at least give the guy and his coalition some dues here.  Sure, the fellatio is annoying (and a bit disturbing, considering he's dead), but it definitely hasn't hurt the GOP to go REAGANOMICS!

America, that's a different story.

Yes, but it's because of Reagan that Republicans have become so obsessed with ideological purity.  And at least before Reagan (and before Clinton, for that matter), the good, decent parts of the country voted Republican at least occasionally.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

In short, it is a term that is a product of the political debate.

Eh, I suppose. But it's the product of an effed-up blind-to-reality intra-party debate that makes no sense outside that debate and comes across very very racist and aggressive, far more so than its intended meaning, and that any sane Republican would have avoided usage of at election time. It pleases no one - it basically says "I am not ready to take the racist position on this issue but I am a racist nonetheless" (or the other way round, if you prefer).

Who are you talking about, and how did it come across as racist?