2009 is a relatively low-key election cycle, compared to what 2010 will represent. Anyone with thoughts/opinions heading into next week.

Obviously, the governor races in NJ and VA are interesting. VA is almost definitely flipping back to a Republican governor. Hard to get a handle on whether Christie has lost all momentum in NJ or whether he can get something back.

Perhaps more intriguing (and interesting) is the special election for the NY-23rd district, where a third-party candidate (running on the Conservative Party) has all of the momentum and is believed to be the likely winner: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/...means.html . The Republican candidate is essentially DOA. Could make for some interesting post-election navel-gazing and overreaction. But could it mean something else?

I think BHO has delayed sending troops to Afghanistan because of these elections. He obviously thinks they are important - he was in NJ recently, is scheduled to be there twice more before Tuesday. Guess there is nothing important to do in Washington. I think he made his decision long ago, but has delayed implementation for political reasons. Seeing as we are finishing the deadliest month ever over there, I can only hope that the delay did not cost any lives.

JMO.

(10-30-2009 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think BHO has delayed sending troops to Afghanistan because of these elections. He obviously thinks they are important - he was in NJ recently, is scheduled to be there twice more before Tuesday. Guess there is nothing important to do in Washington. I think he made his decision long ago, but has delayed implementation for political reasons. Seeing as we are finishing the deadliest month ever over there, I can only hope that the delay did not cost any lives.
JMO.

If 1000 soldiers get killed, even counting their families that's probably less than 5,000 votes. That's a small sacrifice for a man on a mission to convert America to socialism.

(10-30-2009 02:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think BHO has delayed sending troops to Afghanistan because of these elections. He obviously thinks they are important - he was in NJ recently, is scheduled to be there twice more before Tuesday. Guess there is nothing important to do in Washington. I think he made his decision long ago, but has delayed implementation for political reasons. Seeing as we are finishing the deadliest month ever over there, I can only hope that the delay did not cost any lives.
JMO.

If 1000 soldiers get killed, even counting their families that's probably less than 5,000 votes. That's a small sacrifice for a man on a mission to convert America to socialism.

Wow. Just...wow.

(10-30-2009 02:26 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 02:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think BHO has delayed sending troops to Afghanistan because of these elections. He obviously thinks they are important - he was in NJ recently, is scheduled to be there twice more before Tuesday. Guess there is nothing important to do in Washington. I think he made his decision long ago, but has delayed implementation for political reasons. Seeing as we are finishing the deadliest month ever over there, I can only hope that the delay did not cost any lives.
JMO.

If 1000 soldiers get killed, even counting their families that's probably less than 5,000 votes. That's a small sacrifice for a man on a mission to convert America to socialism.

Wow. Just...wow.

The actual deaths this month were substantially less than 1000, and of course we cannot atribute any particular deaths or any portion of the deaths to the delay. But it is difficult to logically come to the conclusion that the delay has saved any lives of troops already there. If they were undermanned when the request was made, they have remained undermannned while he is delaying, for whatever reason you choose to believe. I don't think thatbeing undermanned has contributed to the safety of any personnel over there.

As for the effect that each death has on the electorate, I think it goes far beyond family. But the days when the media gave us a daily body count are gone, and the impact is less.

(10-30-2009 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 02:26 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 02:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think BHO has delayed sending troops to Afghanistan because of these elections. He obviously thinks they are important - he was in NJ recently, is scheduled to be there twice more before Tuesday. Guess there is nothing important to do in Washington. I think he made his decision long ago, but has delayed implementation for political reasons. Seeing as we are finishing the deadliest month ever over there, I can only hope that the delay did not cost any lives.
JMO.

If 1000 soldiers get killed, even counting their families that's probably less than 5,000 votes. That's a small sacrifice for a man on a mission to convert America to socialism.

Wow. Just...wow.

The actual deaths this month were substantially less than 1000, and of course we cannot atribute any particular deaths or any portion of the deaths to the delay. But it is difficult to logically come to the conclusion that the delay has saved any lives of troops already there. If they were undermanned when the request was made, they have remained undermannned while he is delaying, for whatever reason you choose to believe. I don't think thatbeing undermanned has contributed to the safety of any personnel over there.

As for the effect that each death has on the electorate, I think it goes far beyond family. But the days when the media gave us a daily body count are gone, and the impact is less.

To the extent that KIA's were out of Forward Operating Bases that were to be closed as part of the planned redeployment back to "urban" locations, I do blame Obama for wasting time. Had he decided on the proposed plan when it was presented, instead of waiting for weeks, those Marines and Soldiers wouldn't have been there.

(10-30-2009 10:52 AM)gsloth Wrote:  Obviously, the governor races in NJ and VA are interesting. VA is almost definitely flipping back to a Republican governor. Hard to get a handle on whether Christie has lost all momentum in NJ or whether he can get something back.

According to Gov. Corzine's TV ads, all Chris Christie needs to get momentum is a little velocity.

(10-30-2009 04:51 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 02:26 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 02:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think BHO has delayed sending troops to Afghanistan because of these elections. He obviously thinks they are important - he was in NJ recently, is scheduled to be there twice more before Tuesday. Guess there is nothing important to do in Washington. I think he made his decision long ago, but has delayed implementation for political reasons. Seeing as we are finishing the deadliest month ever over there, I can only hope that the delay did not cost any lives.
JMO.

If 1000 soldiers get killed, even counting their families that's probably less than 5,000 votes. That's a small sacrifice for a man on a mission to convert America to socialism.

Wow. Just...wow.

The actual deaths this month were substantially less than 1000, and of course we cannot atribute any particular deaths or any portion of the deaths to the delay. But it is difficult to logically come to the conclusion that the delay has saved any lives of troops already there. If they were undermanned when the request was made, they have remained undermannned while he is delaying, for whatever reason you choose to believe. I don't think thatbeing undermanned has contributed to the safety of any personnel over there.

As for the effect that each death has on the electorate, I think it goes far beyond family. But the days when the media gave us a daily body count are gone, and the impact is less.

To the extent that KIA's were out of Forward Operating Bases that were to be closed as part of the planned redeployment back to "urban" locations, I do blame Obama for wasting time. Had he decided on the proposed plan when it was presented, instead of waiting for weeks, those Marines and Soldiers wouldn't have been there.

While I think it is good to get advice and mull things over before making a decision affecting so many lives, it has been over 60 days since he first got the recommendation. He has had plenty of time to make a decision. At some point, mulling becomes procrastination, and IMO we are long past that point. If he is not postponing for political reasons, then he is not the decisive leader some people thought they elected.

FWIW

Today, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, they noted the deaths of 25 servicemen and -women in Iraq and Afghanistan this last week.

Also, it was reported that Obama was in New Jersey, campaigning for the Democratic candidate.

And NY-23 is getting crazier. The Republican candidate has bowed out - and is encouraging supporters to back the Democratic candidate. Although national "contenders" like Palin and TPaw, plus now the House Republican leadership, are backing the Conservative candidate.

(11-01-2009 09:26 PM)gsloth Wrote:  And NY-23 is getting crazier. The Republican candidate has bowed out - and is encouraging supporters to back the Democratic candidate. Although national "contenders" like Palin and TPaw, plus now the House Republican leadership, are backing the Conservative candidate.

On This Week, the topic of NY-23 came up, and George Will made the comment that is a party for people who have the same take on the issues as Scozzalava, and that it is called the Democratic party. So her endorsement of the Democratic candidate seems apt.

(11-02-2009 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2009 09:26 PM)gsloth Wrote:  And NY-23 is getting crazier. The Republican candidate has bowed out - and is encouraging supporters to back the Democratic candidate. Although national "contenders" like Palin and TPaw, plus now the House Republican leadership, are backing the Conservative candidate.

On This Week, the topic of NY-23 came up, and George Will made the comment that is a party for people who have the same take on the issues as Scozzalava, and that it is called the Democratic party. So her endorsement of the Democratic candidate seems apt.

Dede Scozzafava is a prime example of a RINO.

While the Republican Leadership could look the other way on her Pro-Choice and Pro Gay Rights positions, she also favored the "Stimulus Plan," favored "Card Check" and was Pro- Bailout.

It was the last three that did her in.

What about elections closer to home?

(11-02-2009 08:49 AM)JSA Wrote:  What about elections closer to home?

Annise Parker and Peter Brown in a runoff for Mayor.

I thought Houston learned from last time the perils of having a Mayor with the last name of "Brown."

(11-02-2009 09:27 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(11-02-2009 08:49 AM)JSA Wrote:  What about elections closer to home?

Annise Parker and Peter Brown in a runoff for Mayor.

I thought Houston learned from last time the perils of having a Mayor with the last name of "Brown."

A few months ago, the pundits were speculating whether Brown's early commercial buys were a wise move or not. I guess they were. I had thought it would be Parker in a walk, but apparently not.

Broadly speaking, where do the two stand on issues? Just curious, I doubt I'll ever live in H-town again, but still curious about what goes on there...

(11-02-2009 06:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Dede Scozzafava is a prime example of a RINO.
While the Republican Leadership could look the other way on her Pro-Choice and Pro Gay Rights positions, she also favored the "Stimulus Plan," favored "Card Check" and was Pro- Bailout.
It was the last three that did her in.

This is interesting to me because I'm pro-choice and pro-gay-rights, but my fiscal conservatism opposes anything like the "stimulus" plan or "card check" or bailout. If Scozzafava were a fiscal conservative, I'd support her in a heartbeat, but she obviously isn't. In order to remain a major party, the republicans are going to have to realize that there are parts of the country where anti-abortion, anti-gay candidates simply cannot win, but a fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal candidate can win, and they are going to have to support such candidates wholeheartedly in those areas if they expect to be more than a regional party.

I don't have a home in either party. I tend to vote for third parties (usually libertarian) and sorta kinda cheer for the republicans, because I'm not personally threatened by their positions on abortion or gay rights in the same way that I am personally threatened by "tax and spend" democrats. I guess my favorite outcome is one party controlling congress and the other the white house, because gridlock is the best antidote to the truly crazy people on the fringes of both major parties.

Shrub was absolutely the worst of both worlds for me--fiscal spendthrift who was considered "conservative" because, in words someone posted on this or another ncaabbs board, "he wore a cowboy hat and talked about Jesus a lot."

(11-02-2009 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2009 06:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Dede Scozzafava is a prime example of a RINO.
While the Republican Leadership could look the other way on her Pro-Choice and Pro Gay Rights positions, she also favored the "Stimulus Plan," favored "Card Check" and was Pro- Bailout.
It was the last three that did her in.

This is interesting to me because I'm pro-choice and pro-gay-rights, but my fiscal conservatism opposes anything like the "stimulus" plan or "card check" or bailout. If Scozzafava were a fiscal conservative, I'd support her in a heartbeat, but she obviously isn't. In order to remain a major party, the republicans are going to have to realize that there are parts of the country where anti-abortion, anti-gay candidates simply cannot win, but a fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal candidate can win, and they are going to have to support such candidates wholeheartedly in those areas if they expect to be more than a regional party.

I don't have a home in either party. I tend to vote for third parties (usually libertarian) and sorta kinda cheer for the republicans, because I'm not personally threatened by their positions on abortion or gay rights in the same way that I am personally threatened by "tax and spend" democrats. I guess my favorite outcome is one party controlling congress and the other the white house, because gridlock is the best antidote to the truly crazy people on the fringes of both major parties.

I am more abortion-neutral, but the effect is the same as pro-choice. Otherwise, we seem similar, except that I tend to vote Republican rather than third party. I would be more likely to go with a third party if I felt they actually had a chance of getting in there and doing something. I know, a catch-22 - I'll support them when they become more viable, but they won't become more viable without support.

If the Republicans would emphasize certain social issues less, i would like them better. If the Democrats would ... well, I'm not sure what it would take to make them attractive to me. Other than a few minor (to me) social issues, they are either opposed to what I think or way too extreme on issues on which we are in basic agreement. Come on, third party!!! I did hear a prediction on national TV that we would have a true third party by 2012 if the two current majors kept on their respective courses.

As for gridlock, it looks better and better. Certainly better than the runaway train (another railroad reference!!) we have now.

(10-30-2009 06:31 PM)Sleepy Owl Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 10:52 AM)gsloth Wrote:  Obviously, the governor races in NJ and VA are interesting. VA is almost definitely flipping back to a Republican governor. Hard to get a handle on whether Christie has lost all momentum in NJ or whether he can get something back.

According to Gov. Corzine's TV ads, all Chris Christie needs to get momentum is a little velocity.

I read the national story in the Chronicle this morning looking at the VA and NJ Governor elections for signs of the national sentiment. I thought they missed a chance to look right here - at the Houston Mayoral election. Brown seems to be running a "less government, more business" campaign that is taking hold. That message seems to be at odds with current events in Washington.

(11-02-2009 06:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Dede Scozzafava is a prime example of a RINO.

Actually, I would say that the clearest example of a RINO that I know is George W. Bush. Or maybe Dick Cheney.

(11-02-2009 02:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2009 06:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Dede Scozzafava is a prime example of a RINO.

Actually, I would say that the clearest example of a RINO that I know is George W. Bush. Or maybe Dick Cheney.

The Democrats aren't going to like hearing that.

I'm kind of surprised to see no comments here after the elections. The Republicans did better than expected but not as well as they hoped. I think the results have implications for healthcare legislatiion, cap 'n tax, and 2010.

I saw a focus group from Virginia, half Obama voters in '-08, half for McCain. The overwhelming issue for them was jobs. One guy said that Obama had done more in 9 months than the Bushes did in 16 years (I can't explain the math), but he didn't get a chance to elaborate on what those accomplishments were.

I heard a comment that Obama is more popular than his policies. Seems right to me. I would enjoy having a beer with him or shooting some hoops, but he wouldn't like me if I were a Congressman.

It does seem that lots of voters will come out for Obama but not for the people he endorses.

"I heard a comment that Obama is more popular than his policies. Seems right to me. I would enjoy having a beer with him or shooting some hoops, but he wouldn't like me if I were a Congressman."

"It does seem that lots of voters will come out for Obama but not for the people he endorses."

A big factor is why people are disappointed. For some, it's because he's done too much, for others, not enough. Some of the commentators on KPFT are just as pissed at him as those on the AM shows but for different reasons. As for endorsements, presidents historically don't have much luck in trying to influence local elections.

Good points. Speaking to the VA Governor's race, my local paper (which endorsed McDonnell and generally endorses Republicans) had this reasonably balanced assessment of what the election means. And I think Hoffman's loss shows some limits to what running under the label of "true conservative" is, if you don't have a plan of action to back it up. Not sure what kind of campaign Christie ran (and he was definitely helped by Corzine's general unpopularity), but in VA, McDonnell probably also fits the true conservative label (including on social issues), but ran his campaign by delivering a focused, positive message on what he plans to do for Virginians. Being a true conservative and being against the Obama/Reid/Pelosi triangle (the Barry, Harry and Nanny posse, as I've seen someone humorously put it) is not enough to convince voters to go all-in with majority support.

The Washington Post's take on winners and losers had an interesting stat toward the end (again, this is focused on Virginia):

Quote:In 2008, President Barack Obama won Nye's Norfolk-area district with 51 percent and lost Perriello's Southside seat narrowly with 48 percent. Yesterday McDonnell won 62 percent in Nye's 2nd and 61 percent in Perriello's 5th.

These were 2 freshman Dems from 2008 who took traditionally Republican seats on Obama's coattails. (Perriello had help from bad missteps from the incumbent, as well.) As it stands right now, these seats are definitely in play for the Republicans to reclaim them in the next congressional elections. And these are the types of congressmen that have to consider the implications of supporting some of the more controversial parts of the current congressional legislative agenda. The Democratic whips have their work cut out for them.

The one thing missing from the analysis to date is the impliciation of a relatively down level of participation. I believe Virginia was down a little under 10% in participation from the last governor's race (in 2005). There was not a huge voter turnout this year, so I'm hesitant to draw too many conclusions. But an 18% win is hard to ignore.

Annise Parker vs Gene Locke - who wins now?

I would say Locke's background is going to leave him open to a lot of very negative campaign ads - some richly deserved I might add.

(11-02-2009 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2009 06:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Dede Scozzafava is a prime example of a RINO.
While the Republican Leadership could look the other way on her Pro-Choice and Pro Gay Rights positions, she also favored the "Stimulus Plan," favored "Card Check" and was Pro- Bailout.
It was the last three that did her in.

This is interesting to me because I'm pro-choice and pro-gay-rights, but my fiscal conservatism opposes anything like the "stimulus" plan or "card check" or bailout. If Scozzafava were a fiscal conservative, I'd support her in a heartbeat, but she obviously isn't. In order to remain a major party, the republicans are going to have to realize that there are parts of the country where anti-abortion, anti-gay candidates simply cannot win, but a fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal candidate can win, and they are going to have to support such candidates wholeheartedly in those areas if they expect to be more than a regional party.

I don't have a home in either party. I tend to vote for third parties (usually libertarian) and sorta kinda cheer for the republicans, because I'm not personally threatened by their positions on abortion or gay rights in the same way that I am personally threatened by "tax and spend" democrats. I guess my favorite outcome is one party controlling congress and the other the white house, because gridlock is the best antidote to the truly crazy people on the fringes of both major parties.

Shrub was absolutely the worst of both worlds for me--fiscal spendthrift who was considered "conservative" because, in words someone posted on this or another ncaabbs board, "he wore a cowboy hat and talked about Jesus a lot."

What has been going on with the Republicans has been an organized effort to take the spotlight off of "social conservatives"-the Phyllis Schlafly type anti-abortion and anti-gay crowd who are very vocal, visable and venomous --and perfect for a MSNBC story on "intolerance"..

Now how that Ballot Measure on Gay Marriage made it in Maine surprises me.

I think the Republicans can make a deal with the "social conservatives"-- stay in the background and we will at least listen to your concerns. I have a feeling that "traditional marriage" won't merit a sentence on the 2012 Republican Platform, and the "pro-life" statement will be there, but will be watered down.

The Evangelicals I know realize that Obama is on the ropes when it comes to the economy, and its in their best interest to shut up and get out of the way of the Republicans talking solid issues like the economy, deficit, bailouts, government nationalization of healthcare, unemployment, Pelosi, Reid, etc.

One really nice Evangelical woman asked me how come I wasn't sympathetic to their Pro-Life position. Being a social libertarian I told her, "Sorry, but dead babies don't vote, however unemployed people do."

(11-04-2009 05:03 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(11-02-2009 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2009 06:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Dede Scozzafava is a prime example of a RINO.
While the Republican Leadership could look the other way on her Pro-Choice and Pro Gay Rights positions, she also favored the "Stimulus Plan," favored "Card Check" and was Pro- Bailout.
It was the last three that did her in.

This is interesting to me because I'm pro-choice and pro-gay-rights, but my fiscal conservatism opposes anything like the "stimulus" plan or "card check" or bailout. If Scozzafava were a fiscal conservative, I'd support her in a heartbeat, but she obviously isn't. In order to remain a major party, the republicans are going to have to realize that there are parts of the country where anti-abortion, anti-gay candidates simply cannot win, but a fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal candidate can win, and they are going to have to support such candidates wholeheartedly in those areas if they expect to be more than a regional party.

I don't have a home in either party. I tend to vote for third parties (usually libertarian) and sorta kinda cheer for the republicans, because I'm not personally threatened by their positions on abortion or gay rights in the same way that I am personally threatened by "tax and spend" democrats. I guess my favorite outcome is one party controlling congress and the other the white house, because gridlock is the best antidote to the truly crazy people on the fringes of both major parties.

Shrub was absolutely the worst of both worlds for me--fiscal spendthrift who was considered "conservative" because, in words someone posted on this or another ncaabbs board, "he wore a cowboy hat and talked about Jesus a lot."

What has been going on with the Republicans has been an organized effort to take the spotlight off of "social conservatives"-the Phyllis Schlafly type anti-abortion and anti-gay crowd who are very vocal, visable and venomous --and perfect for a MSNBC story on "intolerance"..

Now how that Ballot Measure on Gay Marriage made it in Maine surprises me.

I think the Republicans can make a deal with the "social conservatives"-- stay in the background and we will at least listen to your concerns. I have a feeling that "traditional marriage" won't merit a sentence on the 2012 Republican Platform, and the "pro-life" statement will be there, but will be watered down.

The Evangelicals I know realize that Obama is on the ropes when it comes to the economy, and its in their best interest to shut up and get out of the way of the Republicans talking solid issues like the economy, deficit, bailouts, government nationalization of healthcare, unemployment, Pelosi, Reid, etc.

One really nice Evangelical woman asked me how come I wasn't sympathetic to their Pro-Life position. Being a social libertarian I told her, "Sorry, but dead babies don't vote, however unemployed people do."

I saw this perspective on another board today, too. Do the social conservatives finally go third party now?

To me, the real RINOs are Shrub, Cheney, and the other neocons. As long as they and their like are in control of the republican party, I cannot be a republican.

My brother describes a neocon as "someone who is liberal on every issue where I'm conservative and conservative on every issue where I'm liberal." I tend to agree.

As long as the likes of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are in charge of the democrats, I can't be one of them either.

For right now, I see nothing good about either major party.

(11-04-2009 05:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, the real RINOs are Shrub, Cheney, and the other neocons. As long as they and their like are in control of the republican party, I cannot be a republican.

My brother describes a neocon as "someone who is liberal on every issue where I'm conservative and conservative on every issue where I'm liberal." I tend to agree.

As long as the likes of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are in charge of the democrats, I can't be one of them either.

For right now, I see nothing good about either major party.

What would your ticket be?

(11-04-2009 05:18 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-04-2009 05:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, the real RINOs are Shrub, Cheney, and the other neocons. As long as they and their like are in control of the republican party, I cannot be a republican.
My brother describes a neocon as "someone who is liberal on every issue where I'm conservative and conservative on every issue where I'm liberal." I tend to agree.
As long as the likes of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are in charge of the democrats, I can't be one of them either.
For right now, I see nothing good about either major party.

What would your ticket be?

Maybe Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. At least they know how to run something.

I really don't see anybody that any party is likely to nominate that I would have any confidence in.

(11-04-2009 05:11 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-04-2009 05:03 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(11-02-2009 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2009 06:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Dede Scozzafava is a prime example of a RINO.
While the Republican Leadership could look the other way on her Pro-Choice and Pro Gay Rights positions, she also favored the "Stimulus Plan," favored "Card Check" and was Pro- Bailout.
It was the last three that did her in.

This is interesting to me because I'm pro-choice and pro-gay-rights, but my fiscal conservatism opposes anything like the "stimulus" plan or "card check" or bailout. If Scozzafava were a fiscal conservative, I'd support her in a heartbeat, but she obviously isn't. In order to remain a major party, the republicans are going to have to realize that there are parts of the country where anti-abortion, anti-gay candidates simply cannot win, but a fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal candidate can win, and they are going to have to support such candidates wholeheartedly in those areas if they expect to be more than a regional party.

I don't have a home in either party. I tend to vote for third parties (usually libertarian) and sorta kinda cheer for the republicans, because I'm not personally threatened by their positions on abortion or gay rights in the same way that I am personally threatened by "tax and spend" democrats. I guess my favorite outcome is one party controlling congress and the other the white house, because gridlock is the best antidote to the truly crazy people on the fringes of both major parties.

Shrub was absolutely the worst of both worlds for me--fiscal spendthrift who was considered "conservative" because, in words someone posted on this or another ncaabbs board, "he wore a cowboy hat and talked about Jesus a lot."

What has been going on with the Republicans has been an organized effort to take the spotlight off of "social conservatives"-the Phyllis Schlafly type anti-abortion and anti-gay crowd who are very vocal, visable and venomous --and perfect for a MSNBC story on "intolerance"..

Now how that Ballot Measure on Gay Marriage made it in Maine surprises me.

I think the Republicans can make a deal with the "social conservatives"-- stay in the background and we will at least listen to your concerns. I have a feeling that "traditional marriage" won't merit a sentence on the 2012 Republican Platform, and the "pro-life" statement will be there, but will be watered down.

The Evangelicals I know realize that Obama is on the ropes when it comes to the economy, and its in their best interest to shut up and get out of the way of the Republicans talking solid issues like the economy, deficit, bailouts, government nationalization of healthcare, unemployment, Pelosi, Reid, etc.

One really nice Evangelical woman asked me how come I wasn't sympathetic to their Pro-Life position. Being a social libertarian I told her, "Sorry, but dead babies don't vote, however unemployed people do."

I saw this perspective on another board today, too. Do the social conservatives finally go third party now?

They won't leave and go to a Third Party. They will stay with the Republican Party. You just have to give them something "else" to focus their emotion on. Something other than "my lifestyle is better than yours" type garbage.

I turned some on to the Tea Party Movement. They seem to to like it. They have much in common--lower taxes, lower spending, no Czars, distrust of "big government" etc.

You just have to get them off the "one track" of moral issues onto something that everyone can agree on- economic issues and topics such as Obama is incompetent, etc.

Want to know who has the highest negatives of ANY Democrat? Its Nancy Pelosi. She is easy to demonize.

(11-04-2009 05:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My brother describes a neocon as "someone who is liberal on every issue where I'm conservative and conservative on every issue where I'm liberal." I tend to agree.

What is the real definition of neocon?

The initial Wikipedia definition is pretty accurate, especially the first sentence as being something a neocon has been since the 1970s (when I think it first started gaining traction):

Quote:Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.[1][2][3] In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.[

(11-02-2009 02:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, I would say that the clearest example of a RINO that I know is George W. Bush. Or maybe Dick Cheney.

That certainly isn't what the Republicans themselves were saying from 1994 to 2008.

(11-06-2009 04:50 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-02-2009 02:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, I would say that the clearest example of a RINO that I know is George W. Bush. Or maybe Dick Cheney.

That certainly isn't what the Republicans themselves were saying from 1994 to 2008.

They were saying something quite different with Newt's contract in 1994, but they pretty much abandoned that some time after retaking congress (I'd say with the decision to push the Lewinsky affair in 1998, if not before). The period 1998-2008 will hardly go down as the republican party's finest moment.

I have no use for either Shrub's republicans or Obama/Reid/Pelosi's democrats. A political system that leaves us a succession of such bad choices has serious problems somewhere.

(11-06-2009 07:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They were saying something quite different with Newt's contract in 1994, but they pretty much abandoned that some time after retaking congress (I'd say with the decision to push the Lewinsky affair in 1998, if not before). The period 1998-2008 will hardly go down as the republican party's finest moment.

I have no use for either Shrub's republicans or Obama/Reid/Pelosi's democrats. A political system that leaves us a succession of such bad choices has serious problems somewhere.

I was referring to W specifically -- his governorship from '94-'00, then the presidency. RINO is usually used derisively by Republicans (I don't consider you one based on what you have written) to refer to people they don't like (e.g. Olympia Snowe). W was wildly popular among Rs until it was way, way too late. I am still baffled they picked him over McCain, but that was their choice as a party, and now they have to live with that.

I agree with your second paragraph.

(11-06-2009 01:42 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-06-2009 07:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They were saying something quite different with Newt's contract in 1994, but they pretty much abandoned that some time after retaking congress (I'd say with the decision to push the Lewinsky affair in 1998, if not before). The period 1998-2008 will hardly go down as the republican party's finest moment.
I have no use for either Shrub's republicans or Obama/Reid/Pelosi's democrats. A political system that leaves us a succession of such bad choices has serious problems somewhere.

I was referring to W specifically -- his governorship from '94-'00, then the presidency. RINO is usually used derisively by Republicans (I don't consider you one based on what you have written) to refer to people they don't like (e.g. Olympia Snowe). W was wildly popular among Rs until it was way, way too late. I am still baffled they picked him over McCain, but that was their choice as a party, and now they have to live with that.
I agree with your second paragraph.

For some strange and unknown reason, the republican party stuck their collective heads up their collective @$$e$ in 1998, and haven't pulled them out yet. Given that they are the only credible alternative to the democrats, this is very scary.