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

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

This is virtually why I've cut ties with the Republican Party. Until they quit the outlandish and bizarre social rhetoric and moderate slightly on fiscal issues, I'm an Independent.

Which ironically will lead to more outlandish and bizarre rhetoric and candidates, since in most cases, Independents can't vote in the primaries.

Well neither can 16 year olds, so it's moot. Of course 16 year olds never have any ties to political parties to cut anyway.

But, if you haven't noticed, by the time 2016 comes, I will be old enough to vote and therefore my opinions and ties to parties matter now, as it will directly influence what party I'll be voting for.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is virtually why I've cut ties with the Republican Party. Until they quit the outlandish and bizarre social rhetoric and moderate slightly on fiscal issues, I'm an Independent.

Which ironically will lead to more outlandish and bizarre rhetoric and candidates, since in most cases, Independents can't vote in the primaries.

Well neither can 16 year olds, so it's moot. Of course 16 year olds never have any ties to political parties to cut anyway.

But, if you haven't noticed, by the time 2016 comes, I will be old enough to vote and therefore my opinions and ties to parties matter now, as it will directly influence what party I'll be voting for.

But you said you "cut ties" to the Republican Party. As of now you never had any. You can choose to vote however you want in 2016, but what you do now really has no bearing.

[Mechaman]

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.

[minionofmidas]

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).

[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?