Best Chance for GOP

[tarheel-leftist85]

With all do respect, as a MODERATE Democrat, I feel that I (and others of similar and various ideologies) have been mitigated such that affluent white people in large, Northeastern and Pacific Coast cities are the only ones who matter.  To debate what we should be doing in Iraq and the War on Terror is essential, but to harp on the initial decision (whether wrong or right) is futile and unneccessary at this point (and is a mouse trap set by our opponents), as history will answer this.  What we as the Democratic party (the traditional keepers of American family and judicious military pursuit) should be doing is promoting a well-equipped AND finely treated military by offering a revamped soldiers bill of rights, R&D, increasing military salaries (from the lowest ranks on up).  The Republicans are obviously not doing this, but we should be, instead of voting against military appropriations.  Though we're in the minority, we must at least present a CONCRETE agenda if we are to be a viable party.  Republicans have always been about rhetoric on the American family and supporting the troops, and have they ever delivered since their party's inception?  We have done so in the past, but we seem content on whining at the behest of Mary Beth Cahill, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Wesley Clark and now it appears John Edwards.  When a Democratic congressman proposes his own solution to Social Security snags in the distant future, we (our leadership) blow up at him.  We can offer real solutions unlike our opponent, but we are not as of yet.  When I hear the uninspired media start mentioning more moderate presidential candidates and not serving as Howard Dean's platform, I'll believe my party is changing.  BTW, I would have to agree that most reporters are liberal, though I don't think most of them show their biases (CNN is trying to shed it's image, it almost gives a pass to the Republican party).  Fox News is definitely an appendage of the Republian party (look at their debate show:  an effiminate, lobotomized liberal programmed to lose a "debate" with a steroid-infused, prompted conservative).  Also note that among the cable news networks, Hillary's presidential prospects are most touted on Fox News, as if there are no other contenders.  I watch MSNBC, especially Chris Matthews.  I think he's stumped people of all stripes!

[CARLHAYDEN]

You hit upon several important points.

First, the Republicans have failed to provide the tangible support (financial) for active duty military (and their families) as well as military retirees.  Unfortunately, they get away with this because too many Democrat politicos make it clear their distain and contempt for members of the armed forces.

Second, the Republicans are VERY vunerable on the matter of illegal immigration.  Bush wants to give amnesty to illegal aliens and has failed to place the number of border patrol personnel on our sourther border as Congress has provided for in its financing bill.

[Frodo]

George Allen, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, and Bill Owens.

by the way, can some of you Republicans explain why Tim Pawlenty and Bill Owens are among the top tier candidates that you would nominate as your presidential candidate?  i don't know too much about them apart from the states that they are governors of, so i am not as familiar with these two as i am with Allen and Sanford. 

[Moooooo]

Mitt Romney followed by Tim Pawlenty in a close second.

[No more McShame]

George Allen, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, and Bill Owens.

by the way, can some of you Republicans explain why Tim Pawlenty and Bill Owens are among the top tier candidates that you would nominate as your presidential candidate?  i don't know too much about them apart from the states that they are governors of, so i am not as familiar with these two as i am with Allen and Sanford. 

They're both popular Republican governors of swing states.  They both have legitimate fiscal conservate credentials while their social postions wouldn't piss off the base.  Neither of them come off as harsh as Bush and therefeore wouldn't be as widely hated by the left's base.

[Keystone Phil]

George Allen, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, and Bill Owens.

by the way, can some of you Republicans explain why Tim Pawlenty and Bill Owens are among the top tier candidates that you would nominate as your presidential candidate?  i don't know too much about them apart from the states that they are governors of, so i am not as familiar with these two as i am with Allen and Sanford. 

They're both popular Republican governors of swing states.  They both have legitimate fiscal conservate credentials while their social postions wouldn't piss off the base.  Neither of them come off as harsh as Bush and therefeore wouldn't be as widely hated by the left's base.

I always thought Pawlenty and Owens were social conservatives.

[No more McShame]

George Allen, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, and Bill Owens.

by the way, can some of you Republicans explain why Tim Pawlenty and Bill Owens are among the top tier candidates that you would nominate as your presidential candidate?  i don't know too much about them apart from the states that they are governors of, so i am not as familiar with these two as i am with Allen and Sanford. 

They're both popular Republican governors of swing states.  They both have legitimate fiscal conservate credentials while their social postions wouldn't piss off the base.  Neither of them come off as harsh as Bush and therefeore wouldn't be as widely hated by the left's base.

I always thought Pawlenty and Owens were social conservatives.

Yes, that's what I'm saying; they're social conservatives with good records of balancing budgets and keeping spending under control.  Acceptable to both the base and more libertarian minded members such as myself.

[Keystone Phil]

George Allen, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, and Bill Owens.

by the way, can some of you Republicans explain why Tim Pawlenty and Bill Owens are among the top tier candidates that you would nominate as your presidential candidate?  i don't know too much about them apart from the states that they are governors of, so i am not as familiar with these two as i am with Allen and Sanford. 

They're both popular Republican governors of swing states.  They both have legitimate fiscal conservate credentials while their social postions wouldn't piss off the base.  Neither of them come off as harsh as Bush and therefeore wouldn't be as widely hated by the left's base.

I always thought Pawlenty and Owens were social conservatives.

Yes, that's what I'm saying; they're social conservatives with good records of balancing budgets and keeping spending under control.  Acceptable to both the base and more libertarian minded members such as myself.

I'm sorry. I misread what you said. You stated that their views wouldn't piss off the base.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, that's what I'm saying; they're social conservatives with good records of balancing budgets and keeping spending under control.  Acceptable to both the base and more libertarian minded members such as myself.

If you want balanced budgets, vote Democrat. These borrow and spend Republicans are never going to balance anything.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Yes, that's what I'm saying; they're social conservatives with good records of balancing budgets and keeping spending under control. Acceptable to both the base and more libertarian minded members such as myself.

If you want balanced budgets, vote Democrat. These borrow and spend Republicans are never going to balance anything.

Sadly, I have to agree.  Under Reagan and especially Bush 41 the budget deficit started ballooning, while Clinton turned it into a surplus until Bush 43 reversed the surplus into record deficit territory surpassing that of his two previous Republican predecessors in the White House.  To Bush's defense, 9/11 didn't help matters any, nor did the Iraq war, which was necessary, but we have entered unchartered territory with the budget and trade deficits.

[Nation]

If Mitt Romney somehow wins the nomination, he's most likely got my vote unless Bayh or Mark Warner run for the Dems.

[opebo]

George Allen, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, and Bill Owens.

by the way, can some of you Republicans explain why Tim Pawlenty and Bill Owens are among the top tier candidates that you would nominate as your presidential candidate?  i don't know too much about them apart from the states that they are governors of, so i am not as familiar with these two as i am with Allen and Sanford. 

They're both popular Republican governors of swing states.  They both have legitimate fiscal conservate credentials while their social postions wouldn't piss off the base.  Neither of them come off as harsh as Bush and therefeore wouldn't be as widely hated by the left's base.

I always thought Pawlenty and Owens were social conservatives.

Yes, that's what I'm saying; they're social conservatives with good records of balancing budgets and keeping spending under control.  Acceptable to both the base and more libertarian minded members such as myself.

What I don't understand is how anyone who claims to be 'libertarian minded' could back any social conservative.

[A18]

That's because you're not libertarian minded. Plenty of libertarians are social conservatives anyway; they just don't believe in state-enforced morality.

[opebo]

That's because you're not libertarian minded. Plenty of libertarians are social conservatives anyway; they just don't believe in state-enforced morality.

Ah, but the GOP is very much for implementing state-enforced morality.  You are in practice voting for Statism.

[A18]

I don't see much of it. The only real exception is the war on drugs, but I don't see either party punishing for elimination.

A $15 minimum wage is statism.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That's because you're not libertarian minded. Plenty of libertarians are social conservatives anyway; they just don't believe in state-enforced morality.

No, being libertarian minded means being opposed to social conservatives. A libertarian is the opposite of a communitarian. That might be a better term than populist, since populist is often used just to refer to economic issues, and sometimes you have politicians who sound far more populist than they are economically liberal (like John Edwards).

[A18]

Not, it doesn't. It means wanting to maximize freedom.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Not, it doesn't. It means wanting to maximize freedom.

How the hell does being socially conservative maximize freedom?

[A18]

You can be against drug use, but still think it should be legal.

[No more McShame]

No, being libertarian minded means being opposed to social conservatives.

That's wrong actually there are a lot of issues that libertarians agree with social conservatives on.  Government funding of abortions, school vouchers, government funding of the arts, marriage penalty.  I'm sure there's more but you get the point.  Many libertarians are also pro-life as they view abortion as murder.  You tend to oversimplify things.  Libertarianism is not the opposite of social conservatism.

[MODU]

Allen or Romney.  Allen, since her will maintain the current republican voter base.  Romney since he might bridge the gap and pull in some independent or conservative democrats.