I’m not a brilliant man, nor even that astute (and no, this is not an opportunity for confirmation), yet I recall saying prior to Der Kommisar’s term as governor in California that he was not going to work out. In fact, I was railing against the promotion of another like Ah-nold: Dick Riordan. I’m not being self-congratulatory here- my perspective seemed obvious at the time, and I found it amazing that others of a conservative mien were not sharing a similar view. Now that Swarzeneggar has fulfilled his destiny, I find it difficult that I, even now, must state the obvious with those same conservatives: Economic conservative/social liberal is an oxymoron, not a tenable political position!
I suspect that claiming both positions simultaneously is a pretty overt attempt at pandering, so I can’t imagine a voter ignorant enough to be suckered in by the effort! I mean, wouldn’t they just be a Democrat? The argument against playing both sides is clear: you can’t advocate for programs you refuse to pay for! What the Governator has done, however, is to go schizo, in popular parlance (although it is most accurately referred to Multiple Personality Disorder; however, you must start with at least one in order to qualify…). Since being elected, Arnold has acquiesced and submitted coyishly to his Left on innumerable pet projects and money pits, all the while paying for them with future dollars. Now it’s time to pay the piper, and Arnold wants to shove the piper’s pipe down his throat, in an attempt to look fiscally-wise and deflect criticism from his lack of managerial skill. Yet, the best he, in his Teutonically-sterile frame of mind, can muster is to slap at the lowest common denominator he can find: the defenseless rank-and-file state worker.
Blame SEIU! The state worker has employed union muscle to wrest all the money from the State! However, the rank and file worker was never given a real choice to not go union- the difference between the full monthly fee and the “fair share” payment he is forced to make anyway is two dollars! On top of that, Administration practice has been to berate workers to the point that they find themselves greatful for a little protection, and all the while Swarzenegger allows State negotiators to promise the moon. Fortunately, it seems, the only place the State makes good on its payments is to CCPOA, the juggernaut correctional officers’ union. Cozy.
Since the Peter Principle is in full employ with most managers with the State (what little management training they get was dumped somewhere around 1959), most employees just want those monkeys off their backs! The average California state employee then gets to enjoy a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” status that is the envy of…well, no one.
Meanwhile, the State could drill 40-50 miles off shore and reap the bonanza of American oil- but California environmental elitists refuse to let us average folks afford energy until the experts perfect the “green” stuff. Evil! Evil! They can’t afford gas? Let ‘em eat the environmental equivalent of cake! And if you can’t afford your gas, we’re going to punish you for driving an SUV by doubling your registration fees. And if you can’t afford those fees, in 30 days were gonna nearly add half again of what you owe so that, what, you still can’t afford to pay? Hey, where you going? You can’t leave this state! We need your taxes!
And now we’re swimming in a sea of liberal ideology that doesn’t get that a government can tax away its base and be left with nothing of any merit to tax! Finally, the truth is there: all the Arnolds and Riordans and the like never were really economically conservative, or they never would have let loose the dogs of social(ist) programs in the first place.Swarzenegger’s elitist diet does not allow him to eat cake with us, and he has to keep his winsome figure. But rather than caviar, what Arnold needs to eat is a strong diet of tar and feathers. Any bets on whether California citizens have a right to ride him out on a rail?
Steve Maley
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
I disagree that social liberal/economic conservative is a contradictory position
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 8:36AM EST (link)Partially, that’s because in a sense I am one. I’m pretty conservative economically, but I also support SSM, drug legalization, state control of gun control restrictions, and state control of abortions (with two caveats, one that while the abortion thing puts me to the right of most of the country on this, I’m willing to accept that most of the country is liberal on the issue of abortion rather than trying to find the middle of the debate and calling that centrist, and two that I believe all of these things should be handled at a state level).
In other words, I’m sort of a weird cross between a libertarian in my ideal political world and a federalist in this one (as in, one who thinks federalism is the best answer).
Now, I understand that when you say “social issues” you are sort of going for social PROGRAMS more than for hot-button “wedge-issues,” but at the same time, I think social programs are actually economic in nature. Fundamentally, they are about money, no social program comes into being without some economic or political incentive for the politicians passing it.
In theory, social liberal/economic conservative is possible
civil truth (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 9:23AM EST (link)However, if you take a serious look around, in reality, how many Republicans at the national level (or even prominent Republican state officials) could legitimately be classified as such based on their voting record and public statements.
Rudy Guilliani is about the only name that pops out at me, and even his social liberalism is relatively modest compared with the field.
On the other hand, we encounter the Arlen Specters and the Maine sisters and countless other Republican social liberals who time and time again support and/or vote in line with with their Democratic friends for big government when it comes to economic issues. When they’re not busy supporting Barack Obama for President, that is.
Seriously, look at the percentage of social liberals/economic conservatives versus social liberals/ economic big government Republicans.
And then compare with the percentage of social conservative/economic conservatives vs. social conservative/economic big government. Of course there are a few of the latter, some of whom have big mouths – but look at the percentages.
And then ask yourself as an economic conservative, who on a percentage basis is going to have your back: social liberals or social conservatives?
Take a serious look rather than mindlessly parroting the MSM propaganda.
The greatest evil…is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern. -C.S. Lewis
http://www.gmsplace.com/
I didn't say that there were a LOT of social liberal/economic conservative people. I just suggested that the positions are not contradictory. nt
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 9:45AM EST (link)Did you read my title, much less my comment?
civil truth (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 10:03AM EST (link)I agreed with your statement that such is possible (and of course not inherently contradictory – as exampled by libertarians). But that’s really a rather self-evident statement – so I don’t see the big deal unless your sole concern is to try to reassure yourself and others that’s you’re still a Republican.
Fine, my tent’s big enough for you…at least in terms of what you’ve written about your positions.
But frankly, the author is not concerned with people like you – he’s concerned with our leadership.
The problem in the real world is that there are dang few Republican politicians out there who are social liberals/economic conservatives. Rather, we have the Powells and the various pundits who consistently support big government and urge closer adherence to Democratic big government programs – and then they divert attention from their apostatsy by constantly attacking social conservatives as the problem and demanding that the Republican party ignore them (or expel them from the tent if they don’t shut up and sit in the back of the bus).
Whereas by the numbers, the base of support for economic conservatism comes from social conservatives, not social liberals.
And I think you’ll find a lot of social conservatives who are willing to agree to disagree on social issues with their Republican social liberals/economic conservatives while focusing efforts on defending and promoting economic conservatism/small government.
And so let me ask you, in this dire hour where the collectivists and Communists are threatening a coup d’etat against our economic freedoms and free enterprise/capitalist system – are you willing to also coalltion with social conservatives to defend our economic existence?
Or do you want to spend your time fighting over social issues – fiddling while Rome burns? What are your priorities?
The greatest evil…is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern. -C.S. Lewis
http://www.gmsplace.com/
amen!
icbm (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 10:07AM EST (link)preach it, civil truth, preach it!
It is a rather self-evident statement to me and you
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 10:25AM EST (link)But obviously not to the diarist:
“I find it difficult that I, even now, must state the obvious with those same conservatives: Economic conservative/social liberal is an oxymoron, not a tenable political position!”
I was responding to that part of his diary with my original post.
Fair enough, now please address my substantive question
civil truth (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 10:38AM EST (link)What position will take in the real-world battle over the direction of the Republican party? What are your real priorities – fighting social conservatives or making coalition to fight the Marxist revolutionaries trying to take over our government?
The greatest evil…is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern. -C.S. Lewis
http://www.gmsplace.com/
I'm only interested in fighting social conservatives if...
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 9:54PM EST (link)they continue to try to torpedo any pro-choice Republican leaders. The GOP caucus is currently something like 53% southern. The South has quite a solid history of social conservatism, but economic conservatism? I don’t think so. We’re talking about the region of the country that voted overwhelmingly for William Jennings Bryan. Ironically, the northeastern Republicans were the economic conservatives in the three-legged stool, with the south providing social conservatism (the western regions of the country went all libertarian on us) and the national security issue being taken up by almost all. What a long way down it’s been for the Northeastern republicans…
I’m convinced that the real reason the Republican party has been getting crushed at the ballot box is their inability to act like fiscal conservatives for more than a minute at a time. And I’m pretty convinced that the real reason for that is that the southern populist/SoCon part of the party has decided that only the pro-lifers get to be in charge of the party.
So in conclusion, the best way to fight marxist revolutionaries is to be fiscally conservative. And if the Republican party has to ram pro-choice nominees down the throats of social conservatives to make that happen, then that’s what needs to happen. But I don’t think that it will come to that.
You, see your last paragraph is why...
DONTREADONME (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 10:02PM EST (link)I said that thing about tripping on your lip, go ahead and ram that policy down the throats of the three pillar conservatives of which I am one, but that little life thing takes precedence over fiscal conservative and defense.
There is only one part of what you said that has truth, the inability to act like fiscal conservatives is what cost the Republicans at the ballot box. Now that I agree with you on, but you still need the So-Cons.
I agree that we still need the SoCons
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 10:19PM EST (link)But I don’t see why the SoCons get to insist on absolute purity and everyone else has to take a back seat. John McCain was informed by aides that if he picked Tom Ridge, pro-life Republicans would walk out of the convention. So he picked Sarah Palin, who had slapped Alaska’s oil companies with a windfall profits tax. And from the fiscal conservatives? The feeblest of moans, quickly silenced. The party has been run for 8 years by people who seem to think that the ONLY qualifications to be a conservative are the pro-life position and opposition to gay marriage. To that end, we had a party more interested in trying to pass meaningless gay marriage bills than in scaling back the scope of government. A party more interested in pulling the Terri Schiavo case out of the Florida court system than in lowering taxes. And it nearly killed the party. Yes, we need the social conservatives. We also need the socially conservative candidates. But this idea that social conservatives seem to have that their pillar of conservatism is somehow more important than the other two needs to go away. The FisCons sucked it up and gave their votes to George Bush. When a genuine FisCon candidate comes along, I expect the SoCons to return the favor, even if he’s pro-choice.
Stop digging, pal
Jack_Savage (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 10:24PM EST (link)“The party has been run for 8 years by people who seem to think that the ONLY qualifications to be a conservative are the pro-life position and opposition to gay marriage.”
You are quickly getting to the point where you are removing all doubt.
In what strange world are you allowing George Bush to qualify as a fiscal conservative? nt
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:29PM EST (link)How the hell did you manage to drag GWB into this?
mbecker908 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:34PM EST (link)Good grief. Mere words fail me. I may wake up TheBunny™
Liberals drag Bush into everything.
gekster (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:38PM EST (link)The two people who were spying for Cuba for thirty years also blamed Bush. So I heard.
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Well, we were talking about the people in charge of the party in the last 8 years. Seems logical enough. nt
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:39PM EST (link)Bush was POTUS. What was he in charge of?
gekster (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:43PM EST (link)They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
He was the leader of the Republican party. Just as Barack Obama is now the leader of the Democratic party. nt
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:50PM EST (link)He was POTUS. Was he "In Charge", per se, of the GOP.
gekster (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:53PM EST (link)They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Kowalski, Is Obama "In Charge", of the Dems, or is Rham Emanual?
gekster (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:54PM EST (link)another nt
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Obama. nt
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 12:14AM EST (link)OK. To clarify what I am saying, Bush ran and got elected by promoting being a fiscal conservative.
gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 12:48AM EST (link)On 9/11, three trillion dollers was lost within an hour. It was just “gone”
Bush saw the need to get money into the economy, and told Congress to go ahead and spend money.
To get Americans to spend the needed capital and get it into the system, he said give them tax cuts, and I’ll let you spend.
It did work.
In his first term he opened up two wars, protected America, created Homeland Security, wich became the biggest govrnment agency at the time, paid for that, and increased the Government revenue at the same time.
He increased it enough to give out three hundred doller checks to all tax payers, some who didn’t even pay taxes, and he did that twice.
He stimulated the economy, and he spent less in his whole two terms than Obama has spent in his first 100 days.
This while the Dems said that we were in the worst economy since Herbrert Hoover,
Give Hoover credit, he built a dam.
The Dems tried to sabotage the Iraq war, accused Bush of UNDERMINING the Constitution, suppressing free speech, violating the bill of rights, and I can keep on going.
After three month in Iraq, when the stockpiles of WMD’s were not found, the Dems attacked Bush. Remember, Bush lied, people died?
Not to many Republicans came to tell him, “Dude, I got your back.”
No one came to his defense, only because he wouldn’t say bad things about people.
Tell me when Bush said anything bad about anyone.
His worse enemy, OBL, was not called anything close to what some in his own party called him.
After Bush acted the Christian, due to his beliefs as I would like to believe, and did not condem and attack his acussers, the Republicans kind of abanded him.
The Leadership of the Gop in the House and Senate, in Bush’s second term, are who held the sway of the party.
Remember the MSM slammed Bush so bad that no one wanted to be even be photoed with him while they campained for election?
It was in the Senate, who give the spending bills, more or less the “check,” to the Press to sighn, the ones who have to hold back the spending.
I blame Bush for sighning the checks, but who spent the money?
And after Hillary announced her canidacy for press, everyone assumed her the winner, and Bush became nothing to everybody. That is except me.
But to reply to your first response about Bush, who mentioned Bush for the first time on theis thread?
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
I disagree
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 12:57AM EST (link)The most memorable political battles between election day 2004 and election day 2006 were Terry Schiavo, social security, immigration, and supreme court nominations. All of which belong mostly to George Bush. Yes, once the presidential campaign started in November 2006 George Bush’s agenda became irrelevant, but ALL Presidents become irrelevant once the election season to replace them starts, because everyone in Congress is out campaigning so nobody can get anything done anyway.
We were talking fiscal conserv and who brought out Bush.
gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:06AM EST (link)Youve avoided it nicely.
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
To help you keep up, the article is about rinos, and it evolved into fiscon's, and you brought up Bush.
gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:09AM EST (link)can we go from thier.
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Yes, let's go from there.
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:13AM EST (link)George Bush is not a fiscal conservative. He is a social conservative. He was also, I had thought, indisputably the leader of the Republican party over the last 8 years. Therefore, anyone who suggests that the Republican party has not been controlled by SCNFCs for the last 8 years is, to my mind, arguing that George Bush is a fiscal conservative. Have I made myself clear?
missed it again homer
gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:20AM EST (link)You brought up Bush as the leader of the party, and I contest that. I didn’t claim him to be a fiscal conservative after 9-11, and if you read instead of skimed, you would have saw that.
and I again ask why bring up Bush, when the article was on rinos?
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Easy answer, gek
Bill S (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:21AM EST (link)“Thar she blows!”
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
OIC
gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:25AM EST (link)Being old, I am slow,
and its time to quit on this thread,
Blue lines on left are bigger than text
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
I already addressed the issue of Bush and his powers in the party. Read more above.
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:27AM EST (link)As to why did I bring Bush up, short answer is that we moved the discussion from RINOs to the political leanings of those in charge of the party for the last 8 years. And I think George Bush was in charge of the party for the last 8 years. For the long answer, reread the thread.
I did what you asked homer, you bast@rd
gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:41AM EST (link)I see you are for the right of mothers to kill thier babies.
Your words
“Partially, that’s because in a sense I am one. I’m pretty conservative economically, but I also support SSM, drug legalization, state control of gun control restrictions, and state control of abortions,”
sorry homer, i think your Mom should have had an abortion eight months before you were born. I support her right to choice.
Do you???
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Her "right" to choose?
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 2:00AM EST (link)No. But I believe the states should decide on abortion. Calling me a bastard and a supporter of infanticide and telling me that you want me to have never been born is juvenile. If you cannot have this discussion like an adult then I won’t continue to consider your arguments or reply to them.
P.S.: Homer?
I suggest your Mom should have the same "Right" to choose as you propose for other women. And I will say Sorry
gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 2:07AM EST (link)for the bastard. Knee jerk reaction. No way an excuse. I am truely Sorry
I will ask why it is fine for abortions for women other than your Mother.
And if it is OK for “other” babies to be unborn, then why not for you??????
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Apology accepted, thank you for your maturity
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 2:16AM EST (link)To answer the question, it appears to be “would I object to my mother aborting me?” Which is kind of a mind-bending question since if I were aborted, I would not be here to object. So I will answer by saying that I am glad that my mother had the choice of whether or not to go through with her pregnancy. And of course, I am glad that she made the choice that she did. I hope that answers your question.
I appreciate the same maturity from you. but. Shouldn't "ALL" babies be able to make the same statement you just made to the WORLD? You are on Redstate
gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 2:26AM EST (link)You are on Redstate. We are World Wide.
Who will you tell NO, you can’t be born.
And unfortunatly, if aborted, and God chooses you to live any way, then you will be left to DIE under the Obama Government.
Two points in one. Good job gekster
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Your question appears to be
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 2:30AM EST (link)“Shouldn’t each individual get to decide whether or not it is okay for them to be aborted?” For the same reasons I stated last time, this question does not make sense to me. I will assume that it is a rhetorical question intended to encourage me to think of the fetuses as human persons. I understand your position, but I do not see it that way.
The question is shouldn't all babies get to be able to say, "And of course, I am glad that she made the choice that she did".
gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 2:39AM EST (link)since you are alive to say that, shouldn’t they be given that same right.
Thats the question. been since I mentioned your sacred Mom, who made the right “choice” according to you.
I call. Show your cards now. Mine are on the table.
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
kawalski again, if your Mother thought that eight months before YOU were born,
gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 2:50AM EST (link)some lib talked her into an abortion, thus ending this conversation before it evan began, you are OK with that??
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Yes. NT
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 2:59AM EST (link)That was tough. You Manned up. I and all can respect that.
gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 3:06AM EST (link)I don’t agree, but you have a friend for life.
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
We have a moonbat alert.
mbecker908 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 12:23AM EST (link)123 if you think that was “logical enough” you’re an idiot.
GWB was never mentioned anywhere in the thread. And I’ve been following the guys posting in that thread long enough to know that not one of them would ever be accused of thinking GWB is any kind of a “conservative”.
You just took liberties to toss in his name as a deflection because you were getting the crap beaten out of you. And rightly so.
Jerk.
Find the part you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it please.
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 12:31AM EST (link)George W. Bush has been the leader of the Republican party for the last 8 years.
GWB is, or appears to be, a social conservative.
GWB is not, or does not appear to be, a fiscal conservative.
GWB calls himself a conservative.
Therefore, the leader of the Republican party for the last 8 years took the position that people who were social conservatives but not fiscal conservatives were still conservatives.
I argued that those running the GOP for the last 8 years took the position that I just described.
J_S suggested that this was not true.
GWB, as the leader of the Republican party over the time period I was discussing and with the ideological positions that I was discussing, is the most logical person to use as an example.
Thanks for proving my point
mbecker908 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 12:39AM EST (link)you idiot.
The point was, exactly, that YOU brought GWB into the discussion and you did it by essentially accusing Jack Savage of indicating that GWB was a FisCon.
He wasn’t mentioned before YOU brought him up. YOU brought him up in an extraordinarily dishonest way and since then you’ve been trying to weasel out of it.
Nobody is arguing that GWB is a FisCon. Or, frankly, anything but a domestic liberal in sheep’s clothing. That is not the issue in this little sub-thread. The issue is that you’re a fundamentally dishonest guy who is trying to be a lawyer and get away with some sleight of hand in the form of an outright lie. That don’t fly here.
Feel free to take your crap elsewhere.
I'll try to be less subtle this time around
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 12:47AM EST (link)Me: The people who have been running the party for the last 8 years have been social conservatives but not fiscal conservatives.
Jack: Not true.
Me: George Bush has been running the party for the last 8 years and he is a social conservative but not a fiscal conservative.
Becker, do you disagree that when we talk about the leadership of the Republican party from 2000-2008, George W. Bush is the single most relevant person to that discussion?
look at my above post so as to see. I took a long time to post it because sometimes I actually think.
gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 12:52AM EST (link)did I allready do an nt??
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
I find no particular proof that
mbecker908 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 8:56AM EST (link)SoCons “ran the party”. FisCons have been pretty much ignored since Newt imploded. And you’re still an idiot.
What a crock of crap
Bill S (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 10:06PM EST (link)Someone here might believe you if you provided even a shred of evidence for your blather.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
Ignorant
Jack_Savage (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 10:21PM EST (link)“The South has quite a solid history of social conservatism, but economic conservatism? I don’t think so.”
Don’t see any of the Southern states asking for a bailout, do you? Southerners have championed all three legs of the stool for quite some time now, because we understand that Cafeteria Conservatism just isn’t conservatism.
It is amazing what contortions abortionists will go through to try and talk people into going along with them.
Southern States Ask for a "bailout" every year
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 10:57PM EST (link)Consider the return on tax dollar values for every state from 2005. It can be found here: http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm
This value is calculated based on the amount of money each state received from the federal government, compared to the amount of money each state’s residents paid in federal taxes.
In short, in 2005 the Northeastern states got $0.89 from the federal government per dollar their citizens paid in federal taxes. The Midwest got $0.91, the West got $0.95. The South got $1.19. When we apply the numbers to individual states, the South makes out quite handily yet again. Six of the 10 most federally dependent states and 11 of the 20 most federally dependent states are southern states. Ironically, and counterintuitively, of the 17 states getting the short end of the stick from the federal government, all but one (Texas) went for Obama.
That's BS, redstatebluestate.
Achance (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:05AM EST (link)It is the arrogance of the processing states at work. Wealth is produced from the natural resources, agriculture, and industry of the Southern, Western, and interior Mid-western states but the companies that own the extraction and processing are located in the parasite states in the Northeast and the Left Coast west of the mountains.
The Northeastern states went so far as to have different inbound and outbound freight rates to the South and West after the Civil War. You parasites always like to point to Alaska but the oil company profits from oil extraction here are taxed in Delaware, not here. The parasite states with their bankers and stockbrokers and all their beautiful people would quickly starve without the production of flyover country. Some days I think it would be fun to make a lot of elitist bastards do without oil; we could live without the revenue a lot longer than you could live without the oil.
In Vino Veritas
You certainly could, although I'd wager Alaska is probably the single most self-sufficient and self-dependent state out there. nt
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:10AM EST (link)You couldn't have typed this with a straight-face:
eburke (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:05PM EST (link)“Ironically, the northeastern Republicans were the economic conservatives in the three-legged stool,”
Are you serious? Northeastern Republicans? Fiscal conserivatives?
Name 5.
“All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Unified Patriots
I'm talking 25-30 years ago.
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:14PM EST (link)Today’s northeastern conservatives are…well, nonexistent. I brought that history up to compare the northeast with the oh so socially conservative (and oh so populist) Southerners.
Who happen to also be oh so fiscally conservative nt
eburke (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:16PM EST (link)“All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Unified Patriots
And yet
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:35PM EST (link)The Southern democrats, the pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, southern democrats control most southern legislatures, and in many cases both houses of the legislature. Tell me, what is a democrat when you make him pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-gay marriage? What is it that makes them so attractive to Southerners, despite the overwhelming Republican wins there in national campaigns?
And so, name five who were economic cons. nt
mbecker908 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:31PM EST (link)Golly geeze, mbecker...there ya go askin' for facts again
eburke (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:35PM EST (link)it’s so….well…rude of you.
“All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Unified Patriots
Rude?
mbecker908 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:38PM EST (link)That really hurts my feelings.
Well, it would if I had feelings.
And hell, I’d settle for three.
Three?
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 12:26AM EST (link)John Sununu (A familiar name), Jack Kemp (the guy who pushed for supply-side economics to be included in Reagan’s economic plan), and Al D’amato (Taxosauros Rex?
)
I'll take Kemp.
mbecker908 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 12:32AM EST (link)You can have Sununu. He was a statist in the mold of George HW Bush. And he gave us the sure bet of the unknown SCOTUS nominee. And D’Amato? Heh.
Hey, I like D'amato
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 12:36AM EST (link)Again, he brought a drawing of what he called a “Taxasaurus Rex” onto the Senate floor and stabbed it with a huge pencil. That takes some pretty enormous…pencils.
I agree w/mbecker re: Sununu; either way both
eburke (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 4:29PM EST (link)Kemp and Sununu were pro-life; can’t remember about D’Amato’s social stance but I recall him being a moderate at best on spending.
“All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Unified Patriots
And to kowalski, this one is almost as good as the other one:
eburke (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:12PM EST (link)“if the Republican party has to ram pro-choice nominees down the throats of social conservatives to make that happen, then that’s what needs to happen”
You’re joking, right? I mean, you can’t be serious. The “Ahnold”, ME sisters, Specter (oops), Chafee, Christie Todd Whitman, Colin Powell wing of the party is going to have to ram their fiscal conservatism down the throats of the social conservatives?
I’ve got to go get my smelling salts.
“All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Unified Patriots
Those aren't social conservatives. The Maine Sisters? Please. nt
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:15PM EST (link)exactly...and they're not fiscal conservatives either...which is exactly my point nt
eburke (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:18PM EST (link)“All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Unified Patriots
Why do you assume I'm trying to fight the squish vs. Social conservative fight? **** the squishes, I'm talking about real SoCons. nt
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:20PM EST (link)Excuse me, FisCons. nt
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:26PM EST (link)Ok, you obviously missed the snark so I'll try again
eburke (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:32PM EST (link)You stated that social liberals were going to have to ram their fiscal conservatism down the throats of social conservatives. The list of names I gave were about the most socially liberal bunch in the Party. They also happen to be about the most fiscally liberal as well.
So the thought of a bunch of socially liberal, fiscally liberal folks jamming their ‘fiscal conservatism’ down the throats of a bunch of socially conservative, fiscally conservative Southerners just strikes my as, well, ridiculous.
I deal with ridiculous with snark.
Just sayin’
“All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Unified Patriots
I think you misunderstood my whole point
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Wednesday, June 10th at 11:49PM EST (link)I’m not saying that I would rather have someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal than someone who is fiscally conservative and socially conservative. I honestly don’t care one way or another about someone’s social positions right now when considering candidates. What Mike Huckabee thinks about abortion is one of the last things on my mind when I decide who to vote for in the 2012 Republican primary. With that in mind, the party has been more than willing to field candidates and elect leaders who could care less about fiscal conservatism in recent years, while the attitude towards Republicans with liberal social views has been, shall we say, less permissive.
This is because the social conservatives are willing to go to the mats to fight for their specific issues, while fiscal conservatives have allowed big government conservatives like George Bush to take control of the party. If we want to win elections again, that will have to change. The FisCons are going to have to start coming to the mat in these primaries, even the Club for Growth has been compromising in the name of winning elections. And when we have solid FisCon candidates who can stop the big government encroachment on our lives, if the SoCons try to get in the way because said candidates might be pro-choice, the FisCons need to be willing to not back down.
Boy did this thread blow up fast
civil truth (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 3:24AM EST (link)This comment here is probably your best comment. Unfortunately your comment in the first thread about fiscal cons having to shove pro-choice candidates down throats understandably stuck in the throats your fellow RedStaters. Hopefully most throats have gotten cleared
Also, my reading of the historical trends is 1) as you note, the NE Republicans have largely abandoned fiscal conservative over time (Rudy G being a notable exception); and 2) the South is becoming perhaps the most fertile ground for the next generation of economic conservatives (but not the only). The south also happens to be the strongest area of social conservatives, I suspect.
However, much of the party leadership, much of which is also from the south, comes from an earlier generation who have abandoned the fiscal conservative cause (if they ever were on board in the first place) and that includes the Bushes – and many are still social consevative.s
At the same time, we also have many fiscal and social liberals who are trying to wrest control of the party (Powell, Specter before he jumped ship and a slew of pundits).
So we have a war on two fronts – resisting the big government types who are trying to get control and raising up a new generation of fiscal conservatives to give us the bodies who can raise leadership challenges.
So in light of that, rather than getting too theoretical and fighting past battles, the best bet I think will be to look at upcoming candidates case-by-case. I really do think that you’ll see that most of the upcoming fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives, but I do also think at least at RedState that a fiscal conservative who is also a social liberal would at least get a fair hearing if they’re running against a big government opponent.
I would hope so, for the future of our country. After all, if the Marxists prevail, we all lose – first our economic freedom, then our social freedoms as well as – as has happened in every other totalitarian country.
It’s an irony that proves the case for freedom: the Marxists at the outset usually pretend to be socially liberal, but once in power their control-freak collectivists propensities win out and they become even more oppressive and puritanical that social conservatives ever would be.
The greatest evil…is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern. -C.S. Lewis
http://www.gmsplace.com/
Excellent reply, civil, and you've saved me the time
eburke (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 4:38PM EST (link)to have to write it all myself, ‘specially the first paragraph.
I am a full-blown SoCon but am also a 3-legged stool conservative who sees all the legs tie together in a moral way. So my personal threshold is that I need you to be conservative on at least 2 of the legs. That’s why this ‘rabid’ SoCon had Huckabee next to dead last (above Johnny Mac) in my preferences because as good as he was on social issues, he was/is a populist government guy (it took two of ‘em, but the 2 Bushes finally taught me my lesson) and his naivette on foreign policy was downright scary. Rudy, OTH, was rock-solid on the other two legs of the stool so, although he was but 2 steps above Huckabee, I would have voted for him and then prayed fervently that he meant what he said about who he would appoint to the bench.
What we have now, as you so perfectly posited, is a bunch of economic liberals who wish to gain power by kicking the SoCons out because, IMHO, they recognize what many on here don’t – that most SoCons are also FisCons and will just get in their way.
Anyway, RSBS123, this post went down a lot smoother than some of the previous ones that, well, obviously got my dander all up.
Peace, bro!
“All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Unified Patriots
eburke, I take a similar approach about "number of legs"
civil truth (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 8:47PM EST (link)And yes, I would have taken Rudy over Huckabee in a heartbeat. (Then again Huckabe was nearly last on my list for the deficiencies you mentioned – plus my gut instinct that he was a snake-oil salesman.)
Rudy unfortunately flamed out early with his poor campaign strategy. However, I think Rudy coud well have prevailed head-to-head against McCain. And imagine if he had picked Sarah Palin as his VP candidate – they would have given no quarter to the Democrats – and covered each other’s back.
Ah well, no use dwelling too long on “couda been” – but Rudy-Sarah could have cleaned out Dodge City and Tombstone! Instead, the outlaws are wearing the badges…
The greatest evil…is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern. -C.S. Lewis
http://www.gmsplace.com/
Ah what could've been civil. Can you imagine
eburke (Diary) Friday, June 12th at 7:09PM EST (link)Rudy and Sarah tag-teaming the The One and his doofus running mate?
Man, there wouldn’t have been enuf popcorn in the world.
“All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Unified Patriots
IMHO
panthera (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:01AM EST (link)I tend to think someone who claims that they are socially liberal but fiscally a republican is ashamed of being republican. You know when you’re with friends and you apologize for being republican by saying, “well Im not that conservative..I think abortion is ok. ”
Secondly, I believe social issues are a strength of the Republican Party, contrary to what Democrats will lead you to believe.
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.
Your argument presupposes a liberal social circle. On the other hand, I'm from NY, so the odds are in your favor ;) nt
redstatebluestate123 (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:04AM EST (link)OIC
panthera (Diary) Thursday, June 11th at 1:11AM EST (link)Except my comment wasnt an argument..it is an opinion. =D
–leppard, Tejas
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.