I pay far more attention to this shit than is healthy, but so far as I know, this is the first time I’ve read the words “Obama Republicans”. NSII (No Snark Intended or Implied), but cite? Like in “where did you first see this”.
They have their own website, so you know it is legit.
And apparently organized in 2006, so really just a standing campaign-organization and not, by its existence alone, indicative of any new mood among moderate Republican voters.
There was a sarcasm smilie there when I posted, I swear!
Sounds like a No True Scotsman argument to me. Bush, Dole, and McCain all ran as conservatives. But after they lost the true believers declared that it was because they hadn’t been conservative enough. They would have won if only they had been more conservative.
None of which explains the obvious fact that the voters chose Clinton, Gore, and Obama over these candidates. How does that fit in with the theory that the voters want more conservative candidates? They keep voting for less conservative candidates.
Pro-Latin? Anti-Latin? I’m confused. Are you talking about their appeal to Hispanic voters?
That depends on a whole lot of factors. Huckabee has very few positions or comments so far that would make him unelectable except his pardon of criminals who ended up murdering a police officer.
Obama is more conservative than Clinton? The same Clinton who signed into law DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
Santorum is a Latin but the GOP is hardly anti-Latin (I don’t see any words on Italians or the Portugese) and I would argue not anti-Hispanic either merely anti-illegal.
Depends on how logical the anti-war Progressives are. Obama is fairly sensible on Iran unlike Gingrich or Santorum and his wars in Libya and Afghanistan have been great successes. Of course some of these people are such ideologues that the mere idea of US intervention regardless of reason or results repells them-amusingly enough they think killing America’s enemies via the Drone warfare campaign is unconstitutional while having no problem with various socialistic programs.
Even more bizarre, many liberals object to keeping prisoners at Gitmo while having no problem serving pancakes with syrup on ‘em!*
(*Explanation for the confused: Two topics only slightly less connected than Curtis’ picks.)
So would Pat Buchanan have performed better than Bob Dole? My magic 8-ball says no.
Uh, “great successes”? Afghanistan?
I call Bullshit on both. Reagan won a 90.9% electoral victory (I’ll assume you are aware that the popular vote is meaningless) and by election day freed hostages would have only been home in time to file for unemployment ( I was 20 on election day in 1980. There were few jobs during Jimmy “malaise” Carters term). No way would he have won re-election.
A couple of points:
-
It wasn’t after the fact bitching about Bush, Dole, and McCain. Buchanan primaried the first two and conservatives have always been against McCain. These were legitimate criticisms before the fact, not excuses afterwards.
-
The contention is not that the public at large is clamoring for conservatives, the more Hitler-esque the better. The contention has been made that the GOP loses, when they do, because they nominate people who are so far to the right as to make them unpalatable to the independents who matter.
I submit that is not true. Take the conservative positions that most posters on this board hate: pro-life, anti-SSM, pro DADT, prayer in school, originalist judges, etc. None of these positions have harmed a GOP candidate in the slightest way, making the hypothesis that these positions are too extreme to the public not hold any water.
Candidates like Buchanan, Gingrich, and probably Santorum don’t have a chance, not because of their conservative beliefs, but because of their gritty and uncharismatic personalities that make them not appeal to voters. Their unpopularity is not an indictment of conservatism any more than Joe Biden’s failure to win the presidency is a statement about the left.
Huckabee has dangerous ideas about the Constitution:
How does that square with the current Republican talking point about religious freedom? Or does the First Amendment only protect the religious freedom of Christians?
Paging Alanis!
According to that link, yes.
Ya think?! If the immigration pressure, even illegal-immigration pressure, were coming from Canada instead of Mexico, the Minutemen would not exist.
Well, one data point is not a refutation, but that is exactly MY position JTgain. I’m a left leaning independent who has voted for GOP candidates before, (though never in a presidential election). Those positions on important social issues kill a candidate for me for two reasons:
-
Such a position shows a deep lack of perspective about personal freedoms and equality. A person in the highest office of government should understand that this is their first duty to the public which they govern. Worse yet, this type of behaviour is deliberately divisive; something that NO presidential candidate should EVER encourage in the electorate. A president should demonstrate that he or she is looking out for all Americans, not a select few.
-
Since all the positions come from one religious ideology, I cannot in good judgement vote for a candidate who shows such a poor ability to separate their personal, faith based positions from the very broad, secular, ethics- based loose policy making needed to ensure the constitutional rights of a plural society.
This is a shame because many of the other things GOP members often propose is appealing to me, such as smaller, more efficient government, state’s rights, responsible energy independence, etc..
We’re killing terrorists left and right with the drones in Afghanistan.
I think he’s talking more about banning abortion and gay marriage than killing the infidels in the context.
[QUOTE]
Hmm the link notes its limitations and it exaggerates JFK’s liberalism compared to LBJ (it was after all Johnson who created Medicare, Medicaid and signed the Civil Rights Act) and Richard Nixon’s conservatism IMO.
Just look at the anti-Irish propaganda in the 1850s-all new mass immigrant groups have suffered this.
I fail to see the distinction. I don’t want anyone’s god law in the Constitution. That alone disqualifies Huckabee.
Goalpost shift. Pretending that “killing terrorists” equates to “war going well” requires you to ignore the facts that (1) there’s no clear divide in Afghan society or warfare between the people we’re classifying as “terrorists” and much of the rest of the population; (2) ethnic and regional tensions in the area are being exacerbated, not resolved; and (3) the government is ineffective and unstable.
We’re no closer to establishing civil or international peace or laying a groundwork for prosperity and tranquillity in the Afghanistan conflict than we were ten years ago, and arguably a lot farther from it. That doesn’t count as “going well” by any reasonable standard.
The GOP a: ) doesn’t actually want to grapple with the hard work that they’re letting Obama do while constantly lambasting him for being such a muslim nigger socialist or whatever. They get to sit back and throw darts at the people toting the load, meanwhile raising tons of cash from their frothed up base and b: ) figure they can ride this one out; things will probably get better after the do-gooders clean up the GOP-made mess, then since neither party is going to win 3 elections in a row, can get in the WH for another 8 years, just in time to replenish the SCOTUS with their ilk.