I would say the Bush crowd is an abject failure to the fiscal conservatives, but he does a very good job for the religious conservatives. Too many people fail to understand these are different groups.
I suspect that in mentioning too far right and **Brownback ** in the same post, duffer meant that the republican party has moved too far to the religious right.
If so, I strongly agree with him.
Jim
I’m a quasi-republican, not registered but it’s how I tend to vote. Though I’d say I’m on the moderate side of the party. I’m not sure where my vote will fall, it depends on who runs. I don’t care much for McCain. I like Giuliani but I don’t want a mayor jumping to running the country. Hell no on Jeb Bush, we need him to hold Florida together (there’s a reason we have our own Fark tag.)
I dunno, we’ll have to see.
– IG
Either that, or they were conservatives revealing their true colors… 
OK. What’s the religious right gained during the Bush administration? How are they better off than during the Clinton years?
They get some lip service. Ashcroft and Bush have made more references to God during speaches than Reno and Clinton did, for instance. But I just don’t see any movement to the right in social policies. For example Republicans controlled all three branches of government and they didn’t try and outlaw abortion as Gore claimed back in 2000.
I’m an atheist, so I’m certainly not overly sypathetic to the religious right. I just don’t see the great swelling of power that others seem to think they’ve had.
Things that I object to like the pledge having a “God” reference in it, are equally supported by Democrats and Republicans. Politicians of all stripes are equally afraid to come out of the closet as athiests. I barely can see a differernce between the parties on religious issues.
(Also responding to Debaser’s post)
This is closer to what I meant I guess. Maybe I have fallen for the pseudo-moderates that the far-left here try to portray themselves as.
I probably should have said I’d like to see the party move back towards the center in social issues and become more conservative. Or Conservative. (It’s tough wrapping up an entire political philosophy in a few paragraghs.)
I’m no Republican, but Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas (and native of Hope, AR!), seems ready to throw his hat into the ring. He’s currently on a book tour and was on The Daily Show last night expounding on his political philosophy.
He has a lot of presence. Speaking as a Democrat, I hope he doesn’t get nominated. He might be tough to beat.
By which you mean, fiscally conservative?
Huckabee is a real dark-horse. Might pull a surprise.
When I was “touting” Brownback before I was suggesting he will go farther than people think. I still think money is the 800 pound gorilla though and I think McCain will have so much of it that the race will be his to lose. In 2000 Bush practically sewed up the nomination before Iowa. He had so much damned money no one could compete. MCain was the only other guy who really came out of Iowa alive. As the only alternative to Bush he started getting the publicity he couldn’t afford to buy. Unfortunately for him though, Super-conservative South Carolina would be his Waterloo. Bush rallied the far right with his speech at BJU and the push polling and he was on his way to eight years of, uh, glory. The contest in 2008 will be for everyone to try and be the guy that emerges as the main threat to McCain. The longer Giuliani stays a credible candidate, the better the odds that it will turn into a three horse race with someone like Brownback waving the conservative banner.
The challenge for Brownback will be to be seen as more than just a “Christian values” candidate like Gary Bauer was. The difference is that Bauer was seen as a Christian leader venturing into politics while Brownback is a veteran of the Senate and has a track record in other areas such as opposing taxes, taking a hard-line foreign policy and bunch of other stands that really do put him in the same philosophical realm as Reagan.
There are two ways to look at what Bush’s victory has meant to the religious right. You could say he has done nothing for them. Abortion is still legal, his faith-based initiative fell apart and there were the reports that his administration mocks Christian voters behind their backs. On the other hand, his Supreme Court appointments have pleased the right (except for the one who didn’t get seated anyway), he publicly endorsed that intelligent design be taught in schools and he put an end to overseas aid that might have gone to provide abortion or birth control. He has also been an outspoken opponent of allowing gays to marry and has strongly endorsed chiseling this into the constitution. So it’s been kind of a mixed bag I would say.
I think lip service to something intangible is its own reward. I think the Bush administration, by paying lip service, has increased the stature and the exposure of the religious right. It’s free advertising.
Huckabee as Presidential material? Dunno enough about him and his views, except to say that he does seem personable enough in interviews. I will say this: he would be a shoo-in as Secretary of Health and Human Services. His recent enormous weight loss (and book dealing with the issue) gives him instant credibility for such a position. Don’t laugh; the health effects of obesity have been looming over the American public for years, with Americans getting fatter by the minute. I predict that the right person could establish a respectable legacy on this issue alone. But as President? I dunno…
You’re right, that’s what he’d need to do. It’s just that he’d never be able to pull it off. He’s just too much of a anti-science Bible-thumping crank. Forget it.
Yes. Again I should have clarified. When I think of conservatism, fiscal conservatism is what I usually mean. It’s the single most defining part of conservatism as I think of the term.
But, honestly, isn’t it the single most rare part of conservatism?
Once again, the touching naivete of Dopers has me stunned.
If you genuinely believe that being a smoker will earn Obama more prejudice than being a black male, you’re way out of touch. The single biggest thing working against Obama is that a million people who would otherwise happily vote Democratic will not, just because they can’t bring themselves to vote for an African-American.
You guys may be seeing the world as it should be, but sadly not as it is. 
As an aside, I don’t understand how Giuliani can possibly be a viable candidate. Governors make bad presidents when they haven’t held elected federal office, because they have no foreign policy experience. See Bush, George W.. Hell, Giuliani was never even governor.
That’s not true. Clinton is regarded as one of the best foreign relations presidents, and he didn’t have any federal experienece.
I’m not a Republican. I’m also not a Democrat, but if you guys don’t field a voteworthy candidate within the next 5 years I may register as one.
Pete Domenici, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and/or Jack Kemp would be my Republican preferences.
I was a Kemp-worshipper back in the 80s, but where’s he been since he was Dole’s running mate?
So of the likely bunch, here is my order of preference:
McCain (I dislike CFR but won’t hold a grudge on it)
Huckabee
Romney
Rice (not for Pres YET, but she’d be a great VP candidate- possible future Pres tho!)
I don’t want Gingrich as my front-man. He has way too much
personal baggage. But I do want him behind the scenes advising
on policy & strategy.
Just don’t want Giuliani.
You seriously think that somebody who wouldn’t vote for a black guy would ordinarily vote Democratic? I got news for ya, pal: the Democratic Party no longer stands for racism. We lost the racist vote when we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964; those guys now vote Republican, and nothing except possibly an evangelical Christian candidate is going to make them even think about anything else.
I think it’s a little more likely that people will vote for him just so they can say they voted for a black guy for President, but I really don’t think his race will be as much of a factor as everyone else does. I personally don’t think he’s qualified to be President yet, as I’ve said numerous times, but I think I’d vote for him over Romney or, lately, McCain.
It’s not that he’s a Democrat, merely that he’s black. There is still a sizeable number of voters in the South who despite being… ahem… conservative… still vote Democrat. They had their own wing of the party until a few years ago, see Zell Miller, et al.
Can you cite this, I tend to think he did a good job building good will, but I would love to see something to backup your statement.
I think Reagan is another Governor that did great on Foreign policy, it was his domestic policy that I was not so much in favor of.
What was FDR’s prior experience? I thought he was Governor of NY and nothing higher.
Jim
So what about Chuck Hagel? Any support for him among Republicans? And Lindsey Graham has been seeking out TV face time in the past year. Is he contemplating a run?
[hijack]
That post is wrong in so many ways I hardly know where to begin:
Zell Miller doesn’t represent a wing of anything except his own brain. His nickname for decades has been “Zig Zag Zell” because he has a tendency to blow with the political wind. He started his career as a conservative Democrat and crony of Lester Maddox. Then in the 70s he morphed into a liberal (when Jimmy Carter was President and liberal was the thing to be). He got elected lieutenant governor and then governor of Georgia, and did in fact govern in a progressive way, being responsible for such progressive ideas as the Hope Scholarship. He spoke glowingly of Clinton and derided the Bush family during the 1992 Democratic convention. When Zell was appointed to finish the Senate term of deceased Senator Paul Coverdell, people expected him to continue along this path. Instead, he stuck his finger in the wind and took a hard lurch to the right, morphing into the cranky conservative you now know. Georgia Democrats are furious at the man. He is now a Republican in all but name.
Whatever else you can say about Zell Miller, you’d have a hard time tagging him as a racist. While governor, he aggressively integrated Georgia’s bench with judicial appointments, including several black appointees to Georgia’s Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.
You are 30 years behind the times. The South is no more racist than any other part of the country. That’s not to say there’s no racism here. There is. But in my experience it’s about the same level of racism you find anywhere. Yes, there are people who would not vote for a black candidate, but there are as many such people in the North as in the South. And for the record, Georgia has elected multiple black candidates to statewide office. So somebody is voting for them.
Any effect Obama might have in turning off racist voters would likely be overcome by the number of black voters his candidacy would bring to the polls.
[/hijack]
