Conservatives Target Their Own Fringe

politico.com



Actually, as a leftist I would like to see the GOP embrace it's more radical elements. That would further marginalize the party and make it easier to beat in the coming elections. The truth is that the Tea Partiers do not comprise a sufficient majority to win many major victories in this country.

The present move by the Republican party to once again embrace those who are being called RINOs and regroup its forces strikes me as a very shrewd one.

For a long time now the GOP has not had any leaders of the stature of Bill Buckley, a brilliant and articulate intellectual who was a major mover in the party in the 60's and 70's. Buckley was a man of ideas, not just an inventor of catchy phrases, and could hold his own in ideological debates.

This move to the ideological right/center and the ouster of the fringe elements to the . . .well, to the fringe...could well win elections. And it certainly would get more respect for Republicans from people like me.

Originally posted by Sestias
politico.com

The truth is that the Tea Partiers do not comprise a sufficient majority to win many major victories in this country.

If you really think the Tea Partiers are 100% Conservative, you are in for a rude awakening.
The Tea Party movement is the closest thing to a third party this country has ever seen in recent history and if more Democrats were to look at it seriously, they would be surprised.

It's republicans targeting conservative fringe.
Also, as alxandro said, you can't stereoptype these people. They're from a very wide base. I'm not a tea party goer because I feel the movement is being hijacked, and also because I know there's no such thing as a grassroots revolution.

The tea party movement isn't right or left wing, just prominently right wing. It doesn't have an official stance other than "give us control of our own country." Don't tread on me and such.

reply to post by Alxandro


You could be right. I may be vastly underestimating the discontent in this country and the possibility of a winning third party in the coming elections.

It's just hard for me to take people who want to secede from the Union seriously. We tried that once in this country, and as you know it did not work out well for the Confederacy, or for anybody, for that matter.

I wonder if this means REAL Conservative-types are finally realizing that they've been infiltrated by Neocons.

Or if the Neocons are just trying to get rid non-Neocons.

For all intents and purposes, Neocons comprise of both parties.

Someone can be a fiscal Neocon, and still a social Liberal.

reply to post by LostNemesis


As I understand it, the origin of the neocons was in former liberals and even radicals moving to the right and embracing conservatism.

Neocons are the worst of both worlds. All parties should avoid them.

reply to post by Sestias


I don't think the neocons are conservative but they usually call themselves Republicans.

www.oldamericancentury.org...



And even if they aren't in power currently they are still major players and with their alies "The Family" pjmiller.wordpress.com... they have more power in the US than most people can even conceive of.
The PNAC is far from being dead and the leaders are brilliant, ruthless and evil. They are also very powerful with an enormous war chest and play the GOP and it's members like a $5 fiddle. They see the TPM as a bunch of hillbillys and a group to be scorned as fools.
The neocons and The Family are the true elite and party politics are just something to amuse the rabble. The Bohemium Grove crowd and Skull and Bonesmen are much more than social orginizations; their members yield exceptional power in places that matter.

The power play in DC isn't as simple as it seems and is as full of intrugue as a Dan Brown novel. Rightwing/Leftwing are just media terms.









[edit on 27-2-2010 by whaaa]

Originally posted by Sestias
politico.com
“A similar effort will be required today of conservative political and intellectual leaders,” former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote in his column in The Washington Post. “It will not be easy. Sometimes it takes courage to stand before a large crowd and proclaim that two plus two equals four.”

So they/you are using a quote from a former Bush speechwriter about the desired "future" of the GOP? What's next, a quote from a McCain operative?

I disagree with you/them that the GOP is moving center to the RINOS.

(1) The GOP solidarity against the health care package is the BEST empiracle evidence that the party is NOT moving in this direction, even in the absence of leadership.

(2) Re your view of the folly of moving right, the largest victory the GOP ever scored was the Reagan presidency, which was founded on a conservative coalition, not a center coalition.

(3) Lastly, as recent polls have shown, Americans are increasingly IDing themselves as Conservative.

Originally posted by LostNemesis
I wonder if this means REAL Conservative-types are finally realizing that they've been infiltrated by Neocons.
both parties.

Given their posture of fighting terrorism, and their garb of patriotism and democracy, the prospect for dumping these types looks pretty dismal, doesn't it?

As someone who spends much time working with the Tea Parties, I think the realization is beginning to extend both ways. People involved are justifiably cynical with the Republican Party and conservative establishment in Washington. They are more concerned about how they are portrayed on FoxNews than anything else.

I tend to think of it this way: the continuum we face isn't left/right, it is liberty/security. Both major parties, in their partial ways, are guarantors of security. If a third party or independent movement comes from the Tea Partiers (or, in the unlikely event the GOP changes), it will become more rooted in the idea that individuals should make choices on their own.

That said, I don't expect much through this cycle. After 2010, the people who vote for the GOP will see this.

reply to post by pumpkinorange


Yes, the "Reagan Revolution" was a conservative movement. Conservative. Not neocon. Not birther-secessionist-no government at all-anti-gay-anti-tenth-amendment-minuteman-militia-John Bircher-etc. right wing fringe.

Reagan Republicanism is a coherent philosophy which thinkers can embrace. I don't personally subscribe to all of it but it's usually possible to have a real discussion with a Reagan Republican.

I think the GOP would do well to find another Bill Buckley to provide the intellectual underpinnings and lead a new conservative movement. Not Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin.

Originally posted by cassandranova
I tend to think of it this way: the continuum we face isn't left/right, it is liberty/security. Both major parties, in their partial ways, are guarantors of security. If a third party or independent movement comes from the Tea Partiers (or, in the unlikely event the GOP changes), it will become more rooted in the idea that individuals should make choices on their own.

I've lived through both "liberal" and "conservative" administrations. Through them all I've had to abide by the laws and pay my taxes. There hasn't been any difference between them in my personal liberties or freedom to choose.

A libertarian administration may remove one or two pesky social restrictions like pot smoking but I don't anticipate that there will be much change in the range of my personal choices. I'd probably still have to pay traffic tickets.

I feel I am already free.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by Sestias]

I have more respect for the tea party folk than i do with Washington.

At least the tea party folks will mostly agree on one thing the Constitution is important and must be closely followed.

THe problems we face today are a combination of repubs and dems that so easily barging away this country's future for short term prosperity.

I think government should be ran conservatively, to me that means less involvement in social affairs and economic steering and taxation.

Why? Because The original idea is great to help the people, but some tyrant progressives get in office and star piling on destroying chipping away at freedom every-time there is a crisis.
This is why the country is going bankrupt,The government has a place to regulate interstate business. It does not have the right to fund health care or other social services.
This is a social issue and society as a whole determines its direction.
THe problem when government intervening is that it has gained a foot hold into peoples lives at the time when they are most vulnerable this can and will be abused and you can do nothing that is not freedom.

This is the same with vehicles, the internet,toilets anything simply anythign and everything is starting to be regulated by this monstrosity. Hell look at firearms the one machine protected in the Constitution and see how they are trying to destroy that law.

Originally posted by TaxpayersUnleashed

The government has a place to regulate interstate business. It does not have the right to fund health care or other social services.
This is a social issue and society as a whole determines its direction.

How does society as a whole address its social issues without forming some sort of governmental body?