Rockefeller Republicans

[Gren]

I don't think they're returning anytime soon. White Religious conservatives are still a force to take into account. Fiscal conservatives too. And even the white working class can switch parties  when it comes to national elections. Republicans keep having a strong voter base.

[DariusNJ]

I think 20% of New York Republicans voted for Obama ( last time I checked the exit poll), so it would seem there is still some RR's in that state.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I think 20% of New York Republicans voted for Obama ( last time I checked the exit poll), so it would seem there is still some RR's in that state.

What makes you think those people must be Rockefeller Republicans?

[bullmoose88]

People love to interpret posts the way they want to on this board.  The times have changed, guys.  Most white collar suburbanites couldn't careless about gays, drugs, school prayer, etc.  Their main issue of concern is economics and inteligent governance.  While they don't align perfectly with the campaign platform of Nelson Rockefeller in 1964, they are the children of this voting demographic, and this is 2010, not 1964!  It's a matter of generational shift. 

P.S. Gravel is a liberal-leaning libertarian on the nolan chart, right cozy next to Jim Jeffords.   

Yet they still proudly wear his name.
My advice, don't call them Rockefeller Republicans.

People like myself use the term Rockefeller Republican, despite being pro drug legalization and pro other things Nelson was anti- or anti- things he was pro etc, because there are few other terms that so easily distinguish people like us from say, Teabaggers, Reaganites, Goldwater, RR,  types etc...had some other politician been the most prominent member of the Left/Liberal Wing of the Republican party...Im sure that would be the term now under scrutiny...but Ford Republican, or Eisenhower, or Scranton Republican just didn't catch.

[Alexander Hamilton]

People love to interpret posts the way they want to on this board.  The times have changed, guys.  Most white collar suburbanites couldn't careless about gays, drugs, school prayer, etc.  Their main issue of concern is economics and inteligent governance.  While they don't align perfectly with the campaign platform of Nelson Rockefeller in 1964, they are the children of this voting demographic, and this is 2010, not 1964!  It's a matter of generational shift. 

P.S. Gravel is a liberal-leaning libertarian on the nolan chart, right cozy next to Jim Jeffords.   

Yet they still proudly wear his name.
My advice, don't call them Rockefeller Republicans.

People like myself use the term Rockefeller Republican, despite being pro drug legalization and pro other things Nelson was anti- or anti- things he was pro etc, because there are few other terms that so easily distinguish people like us from say, Teabaggers, Reaganites, Goldwater, RR,  types etc...had some other politician been the most prominent member of the Left/Liberal Wing of the Republican party...Im sure that would be the term now under scrutiny...but Ford Republican, or Eisenhower, or Scranton Republican just didn't catch.

Why can't we just be Republicans? After all, they're the ones deviating from Republican principles, not us.

[Zarn]

People love to interpret posts the way they want to on this board.  The times have changed, guys.  Most white collar suburbanites couldn't careless about gays, drugs, school prayer, etc.  Their main issue of concern is economics and inteligent governance.  While they don't align perfectly with the campaign platform of Nelson Rockefeller in 1964, they are the children of this voting demographic, and this is 2010, not 1964!  It's a matter of generational shift. 

P.S. Gravel is a liberal-leaning libertarian on the nolan chart, right cozy next to Jim Jeffords.   

Yet they still proudly wear his name.
My advice, don't call them Rockefeller Republicans.

People like myself use the term Rockefeller Republican, despite being pro drug legalization and pro other things Nelson was anti- or anti- things he was pro etc, because there are few other terms that so easily distinguish people like us from say, Teabaggers, Reaganites, Goldwater, RR,  types etc...had some other politician been the most prominent member of the Left/Liberal Wing of the Republican party...Im sure that would be the term now under scrutiny...but Ford Republican, or Eisenhower, or Scranton Republican just didn't catch.

Ikers!!!

Example: You are one of them Iker Republicans aren't ya? We don't tolerate your kind round these parts...

[bullmoose88]

People love to interpret posts the way they want to on this board.  The times have changed, guys.  Most white collar suburbanites couldn't careless about gays, drugs, school prayer, etc.  Their main issue of concern is economics and inteligent governance.  While they don't align perfectly with the campaign platform of Nelson Rockefeller in 1964, they are the children of this voting demographic, and this is 2010, not 1964!  It's a matter of generational shift. 

P.S. Gravel is a liberal-leaning libertarian on the nolan chart, right cozy next to Jim Jeffords.   

Yet they still proudly wear his name.
My advice, don't call them Rockefeller Republicans.

People like myself use the term Rockefeller Republican, despite being pro drug legalization and pro other things Nelson was anti- or anti- things he was pro etc, because there are few other terms that so easily distinguish people like us from say, Teabaggers, Reaganites, Goldwater, RR,  types etc...had some other politician been the most prominent member of the Left/Liberal Wing of the Republican party...Im sure that would be the term now under scrutiny...but Ford Republican, or Eisenhower, or Scranton Republican just didn't catch.

Ikers!!!

Example: You are one of them Iker Republicans aren't ya? We don't tolerate your kind round these parts...

I feel like I'm in a saloon, wearing an a pink and blue cowboy outfit with atomic logos and nikes.

[Deldem]

Sadly, it's a long way off.

The GOP needs to go through what the Democrats did in the 70s and 80s before this happens.

[TeePee4Prez]

People love to interpret posts the way they want to on this board.  The times have changed, guys.  Most white collar suburbanites couldn't careless about gays, drugs, school prayer, etc.  Their main issue of concern is economics and inteligent governance.  While they don't align perfectly with the campaign platform of Nelson Rockefeller in 1964, they are the children of this voting demographic, and this is 2010, not 1964!  It's a matter of generational shift. 

P.S. Gravel is a liberal-leaning libertarian on the nolan chart, right cozy next to Jim Jeffords.   

Yet they still proudly wear his name.
My advice, don't call them Rockefeller Republicans.

People like myself use the term Rockefeller Republican, despite being pro drug legalization and pro other things Nelson was anti- or anti- things he was pro etc, because there are few other terms that so easily distinguish people like us from say, Teabaggers, Reaganites, Goldwater, RR,  types etc...had some other politician been the most prominent member of the Left/Liberal Wing of the Republican party...Im sure that would be the term now under scrutiny...but Ford Republican, or Eisenhower, or Scranton Republican just didn't catch.

I think the Republican party wants people like you out.  Rockefeller/Scranton Republicans are basically modern DLC Democrats.  I get pressured into switching on "city" issues or for "balance", but I'm not taking the religious right with me.  And one thing with Philadelphia, you'd be foolish not to be a Democrat.  The primary basically determines the winner. 

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

Why is it at all 'unfortunate' that the Rockefeller Republicans won't be coming back?

[Mint]

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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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?

[Sasquatch]

Yesterday's Rockefeller Republican is today's DLC Centrist Democrat for sure.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Yesterday's Rockefeller Republican is today's DLC Centrist Democrat for sure.

And both are mega-HPs.

[J. J.]

I think the Republican party wants people like you out.  Rockefeller/Scranton Republicans are basically modern DLC Democrats.  I get pressured into switching on "city" issues or for "balance", but I'm not taking the religious right with me.  And one thing with Philadelphia, you'd be foolish not to be a Democrat.  The primary basically determines the winner. 

In 1964, Scranton was considered to be to the right of Rockefeller.

I actually think you could see the country swinging very far to the right.  (I'm not overjoyed about the possibility.)

[segwaystyle2012]

Yesterday's Rockefeller Republican is today's DLC Centrist Democrat for sure.

There is no such thing as a DLC Centrist Democrat.

[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.

[Sewer]

Yesterday's Rockefeller Republican is today's DLC Centrist Democrat for sure.

There is no such thing as a DLC Centrist Democrat.

[Scam of God]

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

[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.

[Scam of God]

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.

[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.

[Scam of God]

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

Of course I'm using them broadly. All ideological labels are, by necessity, broad. Or do you really think that Mr. Conservative himself, Robert Taft, would have anything in common with someone like Mike Huckabee, both self-described "conservatives"? What I tried to do above is come close to how they were perceived at the times of their Presidencies. And the outlook isn't good either for the mythologized liberal Republican "Establishment" or your own fanciful notion of history.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't worry. You couldn't win anyway.

[Bo]

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".

I'd classify Taft, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford (whom you forgot) as liberal-moderate. I'd also classify Hoover and Bush Sr. as conservatives. I agree with all your other rankings, though.

[Scam of God]

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".

I'd classify Taft, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford (whom you forgot) as liberal-moderate.

Taft was considerably to the Right of Roosevelt; Eisenhower ran against Truman as being "soft on Communism"; Nixon was an anti-Semite and notorious red-baiter; and Ford was never elected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hoover was quite liberal, and instituted a number of measures that would later be expanded to encompass the New Deal. Bush the First flip-flopped on virtually everything.