Republican Presidential Candidates

[Túrin Turambar]

Depends. 'Small government' and a 'strong foriegn policy' must actually mean something in terms of policy. And if that means opposition to the stimulus, opposition to public healthcare, inaction on climate change and continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then they could be very unpopular positions by 2012 depending on how the Obama Administration does. Once the New Deal was introduced, for example, it became popular and Republicans who ran on a platform of winding it back (as in 1936 and 1964) were generally crushed.

[Primula Baggins]

As Mr. Prim's cousin Alf could attest.

[sauronsfinger]

from Halplm

Indeed, that they actually BE conservative. You know, fiscal responsability, reduction in the size of government, national security, tax cuts, reduction in spending..

If that is your criteria to be a conservative, that is fine for you. Each person has the right to decide that for themselves. Where is it written that those things you mention are the Bible for what it means to be a conservative?

I know of no elected politician who says
"I favor fiscal irresponsibility"
"I favor huge and growing government so that it takes over our lives"
"I want the enemies of America to weaken out nation"
"Lets tax everyones income 100%"

No politician says those things or believes in those things. If you can find one please put them forth for examination.

This is a honest dispute about the margins. Even the most conservative politician in the Congress would vote for many government expenses and the laying of taxes. Even the most liberal politician in the congress would not vote for an all powerful government which takes everyones money. This is a discussion about the margins and the differences in those margins.

If you apply your criteria to the present Congress, which people in it would deserve the title of CONSERVATIVE according to you?

I think the primary reason the conservatives are so riled up right now is because there are NO leaders of the republican party that are touting small government and strong foreign policy. They'll give lip service to it, but then they vote for huge increases in government.

If that is accurate, perhaps the reason is that such a solution is not a real world pragmatic practical solution that would have the support of the American people. Outside of the Teaparty folks, I see precious little support for such an agenda.

[halplm]

Politicians SAY whatever they think will get elected. If you believe everything politicians say, then Obama is a conservative (choice and competition anyone?).

That has been the downfall of the republican party among its base. they've said all the right words, but their actions were otherwise.

The only person in the limelight that has a record of conservatism that I am familiar with is Sarah Palin.

[sauronsfinger]

That brings me right back to the basic concept that the ideas you are promoting... smaller government, cutting taxes, etc., are simply not a priority with the majority of the American public. If you are right, and the goal of politicians is simply to get elected and maintain power, then they would be more than willing to curry favor with these people who want the same things as you seem to favor. But support for such efforts does not seem to be there. The only logical conclusion is that such ideas simply do not have the support of the American people or else they would gain far more support than what they do.

[halplm]

Oh they want to curry favor with those people and ideals, that's why those are the conservative AND liberal talking points whenever they're talking to them.

They just don't live by their word when actually writing legislation.

A good example is the case of Anthony Adams in the California Assembly. Elected as a republican in a very republican district in Southern California. He then voted for the largest tax increase in history after campaigning on promising not to.

He's being recalled.

[sauronsfinger]

Halplm ...

for your theory to be correct, you would have to believe that the majority of people are just plain stupid and can be fooled by slick talking politicians time and time again. I simply cannot support such a belief. I have faith in the wisdom of the American people and in the American system of government. We have government of the people, by the people and for the people and I am quite proud of that.

[halplm]

Halplm ...

for your theory to be correct, you would have to believe that the majority of people are just plain stupid and can be fooled by slick talking politicians time and time again. I simply cannot support such a belief. I have faith in the wisdom of the American people and in the American system of government. We have government of the people, by the people and for the people and I am quite proud of that.

No, in fact, I do not believe people can be fooled by slick talking politicians time and time again. They can be fooled once or twice, though, especially when a politician can successfully point at the other guy and say "it's his fault I couldn't do what I wanted."

The days of that are coming to an end, though as more information is available to the public, and we have alternative media that actually reports on politicians failing to vote as they said they would.

[sauronsfinger]

The days of that are coming to an end, though as more information is available to the public, and we have alternative media that actually reports on politicians failing to vote as they said they would.

They already have. The last election, the one held just months ago, saw people exercising their right to vote based on that information you mentioned is no so available.

[halplm]

People in the last election (has it been a year already?), voted for hope and change, and Obama has provided neither. His report card comes out in 3 years.

[sauronsfinger]

If that is how you feel, that is your right to feel that way. It is worth noting that the current public opinion polls show nearly the exact same level of support for Obama as President as he garnered in the popular vote. So at least the majority of voters do not feel they voted for one thing and have not been provided with it. The people who seem to be the angriest with the President are those who did not vote for him anyways.

I voted for Obama and I am very happy with the job he is doing.

[halplm]

It is also worth noting that current public approval polls have been dropping like a rock, and the left is giving Obama as much grief as the right these days.

[Primula Baggins]

Not to be a reflexive Obama defender (I'm not), but he's been regaining an awful lot of ground in the polls lately. You wouldn't know it to read the news, especially if your news is from Fox, but it's happened.

And yes, the left is giving him grief, as well we should. At least we have half or a quarter of a chance of being heard, of influencing things even slightly. For eight years we didn't exist.

And, to be fair, he told us to do it.

[halplm]

The left should give him grief, as he isn't doing anything he promised to do.

The right should give him grief, as he isn't doing anything he promised to do.

The middle, well, he's not doing anything he promised to do for them either.

Frankly, I don't know how anyone supports what he has done... but that's just me.

[Erunáme]

The left should give him grief, as he isn't doing anything he promised to do.

That's just plain wrong.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[yovargas]

Thanks, Eru. Cool website.

[halplm]

Not that its surprising, but I find that sites interpretations of his promises and that he's kept them to be a bit forgiving.

[Inanna]

Cool website, Eru, thanks.

[sauronsfinger]

One of the questions I cited as important for 2012 is the role played by the Tea party group and those often described as the Wal Mart wing of the party. An article on Daily Kos - an admitted liberal site - gives us some news about such fissures already opening up on the GOP side which could hurt them as early as the next round of Congressional elections.

The (very real) teabagger threat to the GOP establishment
by kos
Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:32:04 PM PDT

As noted a couple of days ago, Republicans are now FOURTH in voter registration in Nevada, as they are out-registered by first-place Democrats, second placed "nonpartisan", and third-placed Independent American Party, a hard-right fringe outfit. Even the fringe wackos are out-performing Republicans.

Same dynamic is happening in this special election in upstate New York.

Dede Scozzafava, the GOP nominee in a key upcoming House special election, is running dangerously low on campaign cash, according to several GOP sources familiar with her spending and fundraising [...]

Democratic nominee Bill Owens is outspending Scozzafava on television advertising by a nearly 12-1 ratio, according to a media buy database provided by a Republican operative tracking the race.

She’s also being outspent in the sprawling district by Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, the third-party candidate who has peeled off conservative support from the moderate state assemblywoman. Scozzafava has drawn fire from the right over her support for abortion rights and gay marriage, and the GOP schism over her candidacy is reflected in her weak fundraising.

If this develops into a trend for 2010, it could be real fireworks for the GOP.

[Primula Baggins]

I don't think any political party could walk this particular tightrope: either keeping the support of their base, or appealing to people outside the party who might be brought in. In many instances it is impossible to do both: impossible to appeal to the base on immigration without alienating Hispanics, for example.

It's unenviable. And Democrats have certainly been there.

In fact there's a lesson there for pinkos like me, if we dared to draw it. Right now Democrats are benefiting from a backlash against Republicans that will not last forever. Running far to the left because we can right now is probably not a strategy for the future.

Fortunately , it's not likely to happen.