Clash Of The Conservatives

Angelic - drop the RINO crap. (5.00 / 1)

By and large, it refers to those who disagree over social, not governmental or fiscal issues.

I'm pro-choice - so shoot me.  But I'm just as good a conservative as anybody else.

You wanna reach out to the masses?  Try to stop stabbing your own in the back first.

(BTW - I agree with the Gingrich approach over the Limbaugh one, same as you - so are YOU a RINO?)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 22:44:49 PM CST

Calm Down, PP (0.00 / 0)

I guess you missed the diary I wrote on the subject of RINOs. Yeah, I've been accused of being everything under the sun by a kaleidoscope of political partisans - including (gasp!) being a moderate (which in some quarters is tantamount to being a RINO). It's easy to castigate as RINOs social moderates but then what do you call Republicans who intentionally grow the size & power of government or who intentionally circumvent the Constitution? Don't call them Republican (unless the term itself has lost all meaning). The RINOs I'm talking about don't give a damn about political principles - only about money & power (as do their DINO counterparts). Rust never sleeps & neither do RINOs. Sadly, the GOP prefers to turn a blind eye to the corruption within its ranks until it blows up in public view (a la Jack Abramoff). When that happens, it hurts the morale of ALL conservatives - social, economic, & political - as well as honest moderates. I'm not the one "stabbing your own in the back" but, then again, I'm no RINO. And if being candid about the cancer which afflicts our party is considered gauche or a character trait synonymous with that of a backstabber, then I guess I should end all efforts to help out the GOP. The rising ranks of the unenrolled voters beckon me to join them. Maybe I should.

---

by: The Angelic One @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 00:30:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the problem is that you (0.00 / 0)

have redefined a word that has a different meaning to suit your purposes. A better word would be hack, Republican Hack and Democratic Hack.  Because that's who your talking about more than the generally accepted RINO and DINO definitions.  Your use of the word communitarian has the same connotations to me.  

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 05:50:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There You Go Again, EaBo (0.00 / 0)

"You have redefined a word that has a different meaning to suit your purposes."

You make it sound as if my "purposes" are nefarious. All I've done with the term "RINO" is to make its definition more comprehensive. Restricting the term's application towards social moderates not only insults genuine moderates & moderate conservatives in the process (right, PP?) but it also allows the RINO problem to be lowballed as merely an intra-party spat instead of the cancer that it truly is for the GOP. If the current understanding of the "RINO" term is "generally accepted" by Republicans (which I question), then the party is willfully blinding itself to a much larger, long term, systematic problem within its ranks.

"A better word would be hack, Republican Hack and Democratic Hack."

Actually the populist term "hack" has its limitations. It tends to describe elected/appointed officials. It doesn't apply to lobbyists. A "hack" lobbyist isn't a successful lobbyist & will thus have no effect on any political party. But successful influence peddlers in both parties who aren't "hacks" will still continue to game the political system for themselves, their friends, & their clients. The "K Street Project" was a Republican creation which ultimately contributed to the corruption of the GOP & the party's subsequent fall from Washington power. And let's not forget those Massachusetts Republicans who have been found guilty of similar or lesser crimes.

"Your use of the word communitarian has the same connotations to me."

Learn to adapt to changing realities, EaBo. The state GOP can insist on redefining itself as a neo-Libertarian entity but its attempts to validate said model - such as pushing for the repeal of the state income tax - have ended up in disaster for the party. The Democrats have embraced a socialistic form of communitarianism which in the long run is toxic for sustaining a genuine form of community. Republicans give lip service to the idea of community but as a party seems more obsessed with pandering to an exaggerated form of individualism that has little interest in the idea of a sustainable community. Meanwhile the unenrolled voters grow larger & larger because neither party offers them policies which strike a proper balance between individuality & community. Offering a "communitarian conservatism" was my attempt to do so.

Do Republicans have no interest in developing a practical ideology whereupon terms like RINOs are clearly defined in order to expunge from the party its most corrosive elements while at the same time removing genuine moderates from being unfairly stigmatized by the term (& thus cementing party unity)? Do Republicans have no interest in developing a practical ideology whereupon concepts such as "communitarian conservatism" or "conservative liberalism" (in the classical sense of the term) are developed with an eye towards laying down a foundation from which spring public policy proposals? Do Republicans have no interest in developing a practical ideology whereupon the party finally has something POSITIVE to offer voters? if not, then is it not wasting its time pretending to be an opposition party when in fact it's not?

---

by: The Angelic One @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:30:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Cool Cal loads his gun.... (5.00 / 1)

...to shoot Peter....

Wait.  did you just mean that as a figure of speech?

Cool Cal puts gun away....


"Paul Ferro for higher office!   Pounds Fist on Table!"

---

by: Paul "Cool Cal" Ferro @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 15:40:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, And By The Way (0.00 / 0)

You're beginning to sound like a broken record on our discussion of RINOs, PP. I thought I explained myself on this issue in June of last year.

---

by: The Angelic One @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 11:55:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Angel - really - I didn't remember. I read a lot of stuff in 9 months. (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 23:51:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's OK, PP (5.00 / 1)

As someone who reads a lot of stuff too, I empathize with you regarding information retention!

---

by: The Angelic One @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:30:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Good Post AO (0.00 / 0)

I think what AO means by "RINO"s are those Republicans who make their bones and get their votes by essentially running against the platform of the Republican party. They may have electoral success by playing the "good guy on the wrong team" they do nothing to reinforce the guiding principles of the party... and indeed undermine them.

The whole "Vote for me I'm the GOOD Republican" essentially concedes that the rest of the party and its principles are wrong headed. RINOS, in this sense as AO speaks of them, poison the well for other Republicans.

AO isn't calling out Republicans for having alternate opinions, heck I think a lot of us have them and a certain amount of diversity is a good thing, but "Democrat-lite" as a brand confuses voters and our opponents have been far better at exploiting this than we are.

Just think of all the pro-life/socially conservative/lunch pail Democrats still left in this state, while on the other hand there exist practically ZERO liberal Republicans. This is because the Democrats have exploited our tendency to put up "Democrat-lite" and more liberal Republicans, which has left us with an ambiguous brand and uncertain ideology/principles.

No one is saying that we need a litmus test(s) for issues, and AO isn't saying that, but what is needed are candidates and leaders that govern with some sort of philosophical belief instead of trying to soften any difference between the Democrats... AND that avoids an out of touch anarcho-libertarian leadership model as well.

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -PJ O'Rourke

---

by: South Shore Republican @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 15:10:50 PM CST

Right On, SSR (0.00 / 0)

I've always advocated a broad coalition of people who share a basic yet clearly articulated philosophy which distinguishes the Republican brand from other political parties. How does the GOP differ with Democrats - or even with the Libertarian Party? The state GOP could be viewed as a centrist party when contrasted against the lunatic left (Democrats) & the reactionary right (LIbertarians). But the principles held by Republicans must be upheld if they are to mean anything. RINOs care only about themselves & principles be damned. The GOP has tolerated that attitude for a long time as if justifying FDR's observation (to paraphrase) that a RINO may be a sonovabitch, but at least s/he's OUR sonovabitch rather than uphold JFK's attitude that (again, to paraphrase) sometimes mindless, rigid party loyalty asks too much of a person - especially a thinking person.

---

by: The Angelic One @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 15:45:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If (0.00 / 0)

I had to place myself in one of the so-called factions, it would be for Rush as I am a HARD core conservative, who will be "bagging" his own meat in the near future. BUT..I have liked and respected Newt for a long time and even get his newsletter.

For me one things stands out loud and clear from Newt that Rush and ALL Republicans NEED to start doing.
Start taking to/about CONSERVATIVES!!!!!  
Because at the end of the day that's all it is---
Republicans/CONSERVATIVES vs Democrats/LIBERALS/SOCIALISTS**.

Despite the election of the "ONE" and Nancy and Harry running the show, I still think the majority of this country (Not THIS state of MA.*) is right of center. That means Conservative principles should win, IF STOOD BY. Newt seems to be modifying those principles slightly...such as with GLO-BALL warming etc.

**Republicans do have Spector, and the Maine twins to throw conservatives under the bus, but Democrats have BLUE Dogs they have to keep on a tight leash.

*Even if Conservative Democrats woke up and came on board there are just too many academia and deep rooted hack machines. We are simply OUTNUMBERED here just by the urban numbers alone.

"From MY cold dead hands"

---

by: Knightbrigade @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 15:47:17 PM CST

I'm Not As Pessimistic About Massachusetts (5.00 / 1)

"We are simply OUTNUMBERED here just by the urban numbers alone."

True but that's for now. Are the Democrats guaranteed urban dominance in the future? Only if the Republican Party concedes the urban vote to the Democrats. If the state GOP developed a practical ideology which took into consideration urban needs, it would make some serious headway in appealing to certain city groups. What's the Republican alternative to the Democrat's policies regarding social services, private/public partnerships in revitalizing cities, or picking/choosing industries in a mercantile manner? Screaming "cut taxes/cut spending" is no longer enough. What positive proposals does the GOP have to offer voters - urban or otherwise?

Just as national Democrats were unafraid to fight for voters in Red States, so too the state GOP must be willing to fight for voters in Massachusetts. But the party needs a vision/blueprint. Right now it doesn't have it.

---

by: The Angelic One @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 16:10:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

urban voters aren't libertarians (0.00 / 0)

Libertarianism, with its repetitioius opposition to the "Nanny State", is a suburban phenomenon, so kicking the Libertarians out would be a way of attracting urban voters in and of itself, as it would also be recognizing government's responsibility and role in community services and securing liberty for all people, including urban citizens.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 17:48:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Depends On The Nature Of The Libertarian (0.00 / 0)

The Massachusetts Libertarian Party is comprised of what I would call "hard" Libertarians. The Republican Party tends to attract "soft" Libertarians who might be turned off by the extremism of the actual Libertarian Party (& I've met quite a few former Libertarians who converted to the GOP due, in part, to the cultish aspects of their former party). I have no problem with "soft" Libertarians in the Republican Party; these economic conservatives tend to be bright, passionate, idealistic people who in many ways act as a checks/balance to the social conservatives who might overreach themselves. The trick is in getting the three conservative factions - economic, social, & political - to work together in advancing their respective agendas & (through said agendas) advance the goals of the conservative movement in all social settings - urban, suburban, & rural.

---

by: The Angelic One @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 21:15:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Note (0.00 / 0)

Please make the distinction when using "Libertarian" and "libertarian"

Libertarian is a member a of the Libertarian Party

libertarian is someone who believes in the ideas of libertarianism.

No need to always capitalize libertarian.

Thank you.

(For the record I consider myself a libertarian.)  

"The prediction here is that RMG will peter out in a couple of months." - Adam Reilly, 2/28/2007
126 Days Until The World Cup

---

by: Garrett Quinn @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 22:38:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Duly Noted (0.00 / 0)

I'll bear that in mind should I write about the subject again. Thanks, Garrett.

---

by: The Angelic One @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 23:00:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, if you are a libertarian (0.00 / 1)

then you should be a Libertarian.  There's a party for libertarians called the Libertarian Party (ha! their url is "lp.org" - no wasteful spending on extra letters).

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 01:09:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

no you shouldn't (5.00 / 2)

Ronald Reagan said the essence of conservatism is libertarianism.  The coalition needs libertarians, without them we fail.  And I ain't a neo-libertarian, I been here for years.

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:13:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ron was wrong (1.33 / 3)

Let's make sure to appeal to anarchists and terrorists, too, if it's all about numbers.  The coalition should be formed around the principle of respect, which is the essence of conservatism, and which is notably lacking in Libertarianism.

I think if the GOP repudiated the callous selfishness of libertarianism, while still espousing the respect for tradition and human values like personal responsibility and dignity at the core of Conservatism, it would attract far more people to the coalition than it would lose.

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:12:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Still Peddling That Urban Myth, EaBo? (5.00 / 1)

Way back in November 2007, I thought I debunked your obsessive contention that Ronald Reagan was a libertarian. Yes, it was a PART of his character but he was a more complex man.

Even Karl Marx had a diary that examined the Reagan Presidency & found that government grew under Reagan's watch. No surprise; the perfect was always the enemy of the good for Reagan.

Must I call upon the eminent RMG troll Festus Garvey to further repudiate your erroneous assumption on Reagan's ideology? Well, must I?

---

by: The Angelic One @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:20:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where do Libertarians fit in to that? (0.00 / 1)

I don't think they qualify as Conservatives, who are not anti-government or anti-federal government like Libertarians are.  Libertarians might see the Republican party as being their party because it is opposed to big government and taxes and celebrates individual responsibility and freedom, but they might also see the Democrats as being their party because of liberal views on abortion, gay rights, and drug laws.

I think they should reject both parties, since they have their own party already for crying out loud, and both parties should reject them.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 16:20:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

rv, shouldn't you be in the Libertarian party? (0.00 / 1)

How would you differentiate yourself from a Libertarian?

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 17:50:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm a moderate Republican. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: republicanvoices @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:53:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Right, so am I (0.00 / 0)

I would differentiate myself from a Libertarian by asserting a need for responsible government and denying that people have a right to do anything they want.

I would say I'm a Republican because I've voted R on every ballot since I could vote in 84 (Hmm, I might have voted for Dukakis, I honestly can't remember).  I've donated to many candidates that I like the message of, like Quayle, Keyes, and, well, that's maybe it as far as contributions.

I would say I'm a "moderate" because I do not consider government to be the enemy, I consider lassaiz-faire capitalism to be the enemy.  And I'm opposed to wars like Iraq and want to seek peace with Islam, not overpower it and make it submit to Satan instead of God.

How would you differentiate yourself from a libertarian, and in what way do you see yourself as "moderate" and differentiate yourself from the "not-moderates" in the party?

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:02:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Libertarianism Is A Great Subject For ANOTHER Diary, John (0.00 / 0)

The title of THIS diary, however, is "Clash Of The Conservatives" & the topic focuses on the apparent split in the movement over how said movement should go forward during its period of electoral exile. Do you favor the Limbaugh approach, the Gingrich approach, or some "third way" yet to be articulated? And please tell us why the approach you support is important for the long-term prospects of the party. Thanks.

---

by: The Angelic One @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 16:30:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Can't go forward with those guys (0.00 / 0)

Gingrich and Rush are sooo 1990's, you can't go forward by evoking their names or ideas.  I agree with you about how dem-lights and neo-libertarians aren't resonating either, and am with you on community.  I think the way forward is to loudly tell the libertarians and dem-lights who don't like the Republican party's values to go to their own parties and not try to hijack the Republican party just because you like lower taxes and a pro-business economic policy.  I would hope that the litmus test would be same-sex marriage and transgenderism and genetic engineering, because those are the sort of human dignity issues that the party was founded on, and merely being "pro-business" won't earn any points if you support genetic engineering of children.  Note that it's not a religious litmus test, or an anti-gay litmus test, but entirely about genetic engineering being bad public policy because it will lead to a crushing coercive state and take away human dignity and freedom, just like slavery did.

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:54:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Damn, John! (0.00 / 0)

For a while there I thought you'd be able to discuss a topic without going off on a tangent about genetic engineering. Yes, it's an important issue but - c'mon, dude! Stick to the topic at hand! Please!

---

by: The Angelic One @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 22:00:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are to be complimented, Angel, on the streak you created. (0.00 / 0)

John H. is an interesting guy.  His concerns are valid, if obsessive.  I've always wondered what else was under the hood.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 23:49:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But that's my answer (0.00 / 1)

Sorry, but I think the Republican party should cast itself as the natural conception party, and cast the Democrats as the Transhumanist party.  It's already all lined up that way, with all the dems being totally beholden to equal marriage for same-sex couples and safe and affordable radical fertility treatments etc.  2010 could be a referendum election on whether we should ban or allow same-sex conception and cloning and genetic engineering.  The Libertarians and Federalists in the party can be persuaded to stay if we convince them that this is one federal law that we really need in order to stop a huge big government entitlement program.  But if they really think that we should buck the rest of the world and allow same-sex conception and genetic engineering, let's tell them to leave the party.  Let's see if the Democrats can do that.  I think they'll have to say that they refuse to ban same-sex conception, and I predict the Republicans pick up a hundred seats.

---

by: John Howard @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 00:12:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If you want a party... (4.00 / 2)

...that is overrun by people telling you how to live your life in private and shoving Jesus down my throat I'll gladly leave. If you want a party that is overrun by people who believe in some garbage called compassionate conservative and think the government can actually solve problems then I'll gladly leave.

Of course, then the party will be confined to minority status and only have power in the South and parts of fly-over country...oh wait a minute.

You know what? I am OK with gay marriage. I support gay marriage. I am completely fine with it because it is hard to make the argument that marriage is a scared institution and the foundation of the family when nearly half of marriages end in divorce. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults. That's it. It's not 1950 anymore.

I believe in laissez faire capitalism, too.


"The prediction here is that RMG will peter out in a couple of months." - Adam Reilly, 2/28/2007
126 Days Until The World Cup

---

by: Garrett Quinn @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 06:05:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't leave for those reasons. (0.00 / 1)

I told you what my litmus test is, and if you don't want to agree to it, then yes, please leave.  Note that my criteria has nothing to do with religion, it is about preserving the basic human right of all people to conceive with their own genes, to have their father and mother's grandchildren just like they had their father and mother's grandchildren, and to be fully married with all the basic civil rights that every marriage has always had.  And it's also about preserving human equality, so that all people remain created equal, and no people are created any other way than by a man and a woman's consensual procreation together.

You should hear the way some same-sex marriage advocates speak of breeders who they think should not be allowed to breed:

You also have to consider that in Singapur they will pay low quality people money not to breed while encouraging college educated succesful people to breed.

As someone who has struggled with my weight all my life while seeing others eat like pigs and remain naturally skinny, I would want my son to have the advantages I didn't have.

Mother nature is a bitch, and if there's a way to get around her wickedness, I say go for it.

That is contrary to the ideals of the Republican Party, which is about equality and rights and respect for mother nature and nature's god from which our equality comes from.  We just have to explain to people that the short-term freedom to engineer your own child's genes quickly becomes a long-term slavery of government regulated eugenics where people feel obligated not to have "low quality people".  We have to help the Libertarians and Federalists see past the tip of their own noses and convince them that they need to relinquish a psuedo-right in order to secure a true right.  Remember, it's not your own body you are experimenting on when you create someone new.  The government has to assume responsibility for people who cannot consent to being subjects of these experiments.

My Compromise, which could be the Republican's compromise, would not only give same-sex couples federal recognition and equal protections much sooner than anyone else imagines, but it would do it while preserving the essential right of marraige and therefore restoring the meaning of marriage in people's minds.  It wouldn't need to bring back the 50's, but it would be good to strengthen marriage so that it brought some security and respect to the couple and their children.

---

by: John Howard @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 14:43:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Did you really just use the word "breeder" (3.00 / 2)

Are you serious?  

"The prediction here is that RMG will peter out in a couple of months." - Adam Reilly, 2/28/2007
126 Days Until The World Cup

---

by: Garrett Quinn @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 15:37:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I was quoting "Bobby" (0.00 / 0)

did the link not work?  It should link to the Independent Gay Forum.

---

by: John Howard @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 16:03:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Disagree/Agree With Garrett (5.00 / 1)

I disagree with Garrett on "marriage equality" (it's not just about homosexuality) & laissez-faire capitalism (which sounds great in theory but a bitch to apply successfully in the real world of competing interests).

I agree with Garrett that the Republican Party should be neither a theocracy - or the political arm of said theocracy (a la Europe's Christian Democrats) - nor a shop that countenances "compassionate conservatism" (another justification for Big Government) which has proven to be a failure under George W. Bush's eight year presidency. Because of said failure, the GOP finds itself at an ideological & political crossroads.

Like I said, genetic engineering is an important issue but not one that commands the attention of voters right now given the country's current financial crisis. The Republican Party needs to have a comprehensive approach to public policy issues & a track record of accomplishment if the party wishes to reclaim its stewardship over government. Whose vision - Limbaugh's? Gingrich's? - can lead the GOP out of its wilderness?

---

by: The Angelic One @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:00:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

D.R. Tucker Supports Gingrich Approach. (0.00 / 0)

Although his article is about RNC Chairman Michael Steele, writer D. R. Tucker sides with Gingrich on the debate about conservatism's future. Looking into the future, Tucker predicts the following:

"Once the Limbaugh vision is rejected as phony by the electorate (even if voters fall out of love with Obama, they won't fall in love with an alternative they'll likely regard as bogus), the GOP will be forced to embrace the vision Gingrich articulated at the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference: a vision that calls for "better solutions" and for effective conservative remedies for the problems facing working- and middle-class Americans in such areas as education, health care and energy. While both Gingrich and Limbaugh revere Reagan, Gingrich understands that it is not the 1980s, and the problems affecting average Americans are dramatically different from the problems of the "Morning in America" era."

"The reform conservatism espoused by Gingrich is, as Limbaugh enemy and former Bush speechwriter David Frum would put it, the sort of conservatism that can win again."

---

by: The Angelic One @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 22:21:00 PM CST

Huh? (2.00 / 1)

"Once the Limbaugh vision is rejected as phony"

Oh REALLY!???
I like and respect Newt, but D.R. and ANY OTHER so called moderate Republicans better understand something.
Hard core strong conservatives maybe a lot of things, but PHONY ain't one of them!!!
And we are not going away anytime soon...  

"From MY cold dead hands"

---

by: Knightbrigade @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:31:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

On Tucker's "Phoney" Charge (0.00 / 0)

Knight, Tucker mentioned in his article that Republicans hurt themselves when they (as the party of limited government) allowed the federal government to mushroom under Bush & GOP Congressional dominance. Tucker apparently feels that the conservative vision - the "Limbagh vision," if you will - of limited government was a "phony" one because when push came to shove on implementing said vision, Republicans (as the party representing conservatives) blinked &, like their Democrat rivals, piled on the pork on their respective congressional districts. Conservatives in general & Republicans in particular became damaged goods in both the 2006 & 2008 national election cycles. Tucker infers that Limbaugh hasn't learned anything & that his call to arms will, if heeded by the GOP, marginalize it into a regional party. Tucker thinks that Gingrich understands the nature of the problem & offers a vision for the GOP that can place the party back into national competition - & maybe back in the saddle again as a governing party - so long as the Republican Party's achievements reinforce its core principles. Which vision should the GOP embrace? Limbaugh's entertainingly romantic dream of the past or Gingrich's clear-eyed blueprint for the future? Tucker embraces the latter. So do I.

---

by: The Angelic One @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:20:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Because (0.00 / 0)

Bush & GOP spent like drunken sailors does NOT make THEIR vision Rush's vision. I agree that a big reason WE/GOP lost in 2006/2008 is because we acted like crapbag liberals.
Rush as do myself and any TRUE conservative DOES believe in limited government and NO PORK!
I think the current class of Republicans gets it, with the BIG ZERO vote for the porkulus bill.

Newt's vision/STYLE is to modify our principles to current standards of society. It probably will work, but so will just keeping our CORE principles as is. The KEY is ACTUALLY STICKING to the PRINCIPLES instead of just TALKING about them.

"From MY cold dead hands"

---

by: Knightbrigade @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 16:56:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm Hip With That Thought, Knight (0.00 / 0)

Expediency of principle is always a losing proposition no matter which political party does it.

---

by: The Angelic One @ Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 02:45:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]