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

[CountryRoads]

The Republican Party of today is not the Republican party of my father or my grandfather. This is not the party of Reagan anymore. It hasn't been since at least 2005.

There is one REAL issue with the GOP today: It's lost it's identity.

Personally, I think the Tea Party movement is not bad, or wrong. There's nothing wrong with moving to the right, but when you act like Todd Akin, or Dick Mourdock well, then you look just fringe right.

The GOP's establishment is stubbornly convinced that they are the true leaders of the GOP, especially after this election. Far from it. You started the problem.

The Tea Party may be far-right, but the establishment is corrupt, soulless, and quite frankly mindless.

One group of Conservatives refuse to compromise on ANYTHING and look like spoiled children. (I'm looking straight at you Club For Growth, Tea Party etc...)

While the other group of Conservatives are willing to do ANYTHING to hold onto power, including selling out on EVERYTHING. (Mitt Romney, John Boehner I'm now looking at you.)

Everything is black, and white in this party now. You either have to be a maniac or a sell out. Why can't the GOP just be home to INTELLIGENT, PRINCIPLED Conservatives, and Moderate Conservatives who aren't Attention whores?

Why do we have to be the Party of Todd Akin,  and the Party of Mitt Romney?

You can be Pro Life, and Anti-Spending, and Anti-Amnesty in this country. You don't and should not sell out and moderate on these issues.

However, you can't be insanely fringe on the issues either. There is NO SUCH THING as "legitimate rape"  or "Self Deportation."

Tea Partiers, I agree we can't appease to the left. But, working together to solve our nation's issues is NOT appeasement. You forget America is a politically free nation with a diverse political base.

Conservatives, Moderates, and yes, even Liberals. We will not get our way on every issue. You can't always win. If you try, and play a staring contest with the left on every issue YOU (Tea Party) will cost all Conservatives EVERYTHING.

You WILL be the downfall of Conservatism, and we will become like Europe if you continue to act like toddlers and Purists.

While the Tea Party is damaging the legitimacy of the Conservative movement, YOU, Establishment Elites are damaging the image  of the Republican Party.

Snakes like Mitt Romney and John Boehner make us look like slimy, disgusting, POS's. Now, now, I don't mean to offend you both. We all know you are POS's. You've worked hard for your entire lives to create, and maintain that image for yourselves.

You can keep that sliminess, we don't want you change who you are. However, I do ask a simple favor of you elites. Get out of our party you parasites!

The Republican Party needs to stop being the Party of Stupid, and start being the Party of Reagan again.

Until It does, I refuse to call myself a Republican.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I like her.

(In regards to Michele Bachmann.)

[CountryRoads]

I like her.

(In regards to Michele Bachmann.)

Doesn't mean I want her to be president or governor

[Donerail]

And that's why I can't be an R.

[TNF]

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.

[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.

[Franzl]

The Republican Party in its current form should really be a far-right fringe party that gets single digit percentages.

[CountryRoads]

I've always put my conservative values above my party affiliation. Just not to the extent that Tea Partiers do.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Are you a Naso sock?

[Hash]

Are you a Naso sock?

No, he's JewCon.

[CountryRoads]

lol all i did was express what i felt was wrong with my (former) party and because it im being accused of being people im not? or people i dont even?

[Lambsbread]

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.

[Jordan]

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.

[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.

[Napoleon]

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.

That's good to hear.

[Antonio the Sixth]

While I think CountryRoads is in many ways misguided, comparing him to brain-damaged creep Naso is absolutely unfair.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

However, you can't be insanely fringe on the issues either. There is NO SUCH THING as "legitimate rape"  or "Self Deportation."

Actually Self-Deportation does exist. The economy has driven a large number of illegal immigrants to leave the country "by means other then deportation, death etc", thus they choose to leave the country. Is that not "self-deportation"? Of course it is.

What I think you are trying to say is that it is not a policy for dealing with those already here, and that is certainly the case. But as a "trend", "effect" or "occurance" it is most certainly real.

The irony is I think that Romney actually would agree with the point. The problem is he prioritized winning the primary, and used that rhetoric to do it. Newt is a complete sellout on the issue and he had to find a way to illustrate that, which he did successfully. However, it was a very honest answer regarding what Romney was willing to advocate during the primary. If you pass e-verify and do nothing regarding legalizing or giving status to illegals, you will have a massive wave of self-deportation. It basically takes what the economy started and continues it by making it impossible to get a job if you aren't legal in the country. I think if Romney had real polling data, and had been more aggressive at getting the hispanic vote because it was realized to be a necessity. He would have completed the policy with a speech in April or May giving the "second half", which he never called for this time but did last time. But he was still fighing Rick Santorum who also had a tough record on immigration, Obama gave out his executive amnesty, and his polling data didn't illustrate the necessity of getting hispanic support. The economy was the number one issue and getting off message for something deemed less important wasn't desired, so "softening on immigration" never occurred.

[minionofmidas]

However, you can't be insanely fringe on the issues either. There is NO SUCH THING as "legitimate rape"  or "Self Deportation."

Actually Self-Deportation does exist. The economy has driven a large number of illegal immigrants to leave the country "by means other then deportation, death etc", thus they choose to leave the country. Is that not "self-deportation"? Of course it is.

No. That is not self-deportation, and will not be self-deportation as long as the green grass grows and words have meaning. That's emigration.
Self-deportation is leaving "voluntarily", asap, Migra guns to your head, as the only way to avoid a deportation on your permanent record. Or else I really don't know what it's supposed to be - technically, of course, it's a nonsensical word from start to finish.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Overall the OP has some good points, but he is getting lost I think.


The good point he makes is that there is this hobsons choice between the failed GOP establishment that drove the country into the ground under Bush and nearly wiped out the party in the process, and an out of control base that driven by justifiable anger and that establishment. Since the TP has failed us the most recently, the establishment is using it as a scape goat to brush over the fact that we lost got butchered in 2006 and 2008 because of them. Since the time span is condensed, their hasn't been a flushing out of the people from that era, like happened after the 1950's, when Martin got bounced out after 1958. So they are the ones who will take back over. Jeb Bush, John Boehner, etc etc. That is where the TP served a good purpose in terms bringing some new people in and primaring out some of the older ones, and they missed some people they should have knocked out like Don Young, Jerry Lewis (who just retired), Ken Calvert (corrupt land deals), and so forth. 

Where I think he gets off track is the conflating of Mitt Romney with other establishment politicians. Romney sided with the base against many of the excesses of the Bush Establishment years (over spending, incompetence in the response to Katrina and the handling of Iraq, open borders amnesty). I don't regard that as selling out, I regard that as acknowledging that on many of these issues the party had gotten off track precisely because it was clinging to power and throwing everything else away, and Romney was offerring to change that in 2007 and 2008. Establishment people viewed Romney as someone who was selling them out, especially on immigration, and that is why they desperately wanted an anti-Romney establishment candidate in the primaries this time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BTW the OP also reminded me of this:

Why do so many of the young 'uns here write as though they're writing speeches for the telly?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

However, you can't be insanely fringe on the issues either. There is NO SUCH THING as "legitimate rape"  or "Self Deportation."

Actually Self-Deportation does exist. The economy has driven a large number of illegal immigrants to leave the country "by means other then deportation, death etc", thus they choose to leave the country. Is that not "self-deportation"? Of course it is.

No. That is not self-deportation, and will not be self-deportation as long as the green grass grows and words have meaning. That's emigration.
Self-deportation is leaving "voluntarily", asap, Migra guns to your head, as the only way to avoid a deportation on your permanent record. Or else I really don't know what it's supposed to be - technically, of course, it's a nonsensical word from start to finish.

Going back to 2006, I have seen it used to describe all those who have left the country, that hadn't been deported by the gov't or had died. Yes of course that it is certainly emigration, emmigration of illegals, but it being emigration, doesn't preclude it from being called by another term since it is emigration by a specifc group. Anybody, can "emigrate". Also in the context of the illegal immigration debate, the use of the term self-deportation is used to illustrate the gov't is not the most effective means of removing people out of country who don't belong here, as a means to avoid the "You can't have mass deportations, you can't afford it, etc etc". You avoid and refute the charge by acknowledging and agreeing that is the case, thus the charge is basely because it isn't what you are pushing for.

In short, it is a term that is a product of the political debate. Kind of like the extra-expansive use of the word neocon to during the Bush years to describe people it was never meant to apply to. Do you object to that too?

[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. 

[Supermariobros]

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.

Same.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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. 

I am not the one giving one side or other a pass though. You were and that was my point and the reason for the devil's advocacy. They have legitimate reasons for existing and until you acknowledge thme and fix them, they will keep the revolt going indefinately. Bush did as much to create the Tea PArty as hatred for Obama did.

Sue Lowden was beating Angle in the primary polls by double digits just two weeks out. She made her "Chickens for Healthcare" comment and imploded. All this talk of TP insurgency and Paul people getting revenge, must be temprered by the fact that the only reason we got Angle was because of a flawed establishment candidate who happened to self nuke just in time. What guarrantee is there, that she wouldn't have become a trainwreck against Reid in the general? She lost that primary for herself.

Mike Castle expected the primary win and didn't really mount an effective effort. We just saw a powefull establishment candidate expect victory in the general reap the just results, in WI. Whats to say Castle wouldn't have lost also, the same way he lost that primary. I beleive exit polls had Coons beating Castle, though I would have to check that again, I got it secondhand.

Six term incumbents don't lose primaries by 20+ points in the primary. That isn't a last minute Tea PArty hit and run (Castle, Murkowski, and Norton were all very close by comparison and they had no where near Lugar's stature, save for Castle maybe). A lot of things went wrong for Lugar and it was very negative primary campaign that he wasn't prepared to fight. And Dick Mourdock was comparable to Sue Lowden, a statewide Republican (Lowden was Party Chair in NV, Mourdock was Treasurer) who nuked hismelf with a gaffe. You think only tea partiers can do that kind of thing? We had every reason to be safe that Mourdock could handle himself prior to thel ast two weeks. The polls could be explained by low name recognition and the nasty primary. It was still a GOP state in a Presidential year and we were almost certain Romney would win it and he did. So basically my point is, do primary voters have no right to vote out such a long term incumbent, that they feel has lost touch with them? If so, why have primaries? Certainly it was more risk, but it was a calculated one worth taking in many primary voters eyes. Suppose the registration problem that Lugar ran into, was as serious as the Secretary of State? I beleive he is on his way to jail.  You think Lugar would have still won the general had that come out in late October? Thats a Ted Stevens like scenario, hence my 2008 and 2006 comparison. Candidates collapse all the time, from both factions.

As I recall, Kirk Dillard was the runner-up, followed by Andy Mckenna in ILL. Crazy things happen when only 20% of the vote is needed to win. Mark Kirk was nominated on the same night with the same voters, winning 55%. I think you have to look at the vote split, rather than anything else. Yes, it was a critical time consideirng it gave thme a trifecta and the ability to gerrymander the regained GOP majority delegation out of existance. Would have also been a good talking point to say that ILL had thoroughly rejcted its own President if the Governorship had been won as well (for 4/6 statewide victories that year).

As for Missouri, yea Akin got about $1 to $2 million in free adversiting from Reid and McCaskil at the very end labeling him as a conservative, buti t wouldn't have mattered cosnidering how close it was if Brunner and Steelman hadn't beatend and battered one another to a pulp already.

I love it when I get into arguments one day with moderates and they act as if I am a far right Republican and then the next day I argue with far right cosnervatives and they accuse me of being a moderate. Perhaps, the difference is one of perspective. I can see both sides and the people I argue with can't, regardless of which faction they hail from. How odd that they operate the same way, in spite of having different views. Yet it is so.