Rush Limbaugh attacked by Caller

[UtahBill]

What could be so bad about Rush retiring and not being replaced?
Would there be no more dittoheads? Or would the dittoheads become like so many headless chickens running around with no sense of direction?

 

[Renae]

If only it would. Discard the fundamentalist planks in the party platform and you gain more from the middle than you lose on the right. What believeable threat do the bible beaters have ? That they are gonna vote democrat ?? Stop Voting ?? Split off and form the All Jesus Party and Dominate Tulsa Politics ?? The Demographics have reached the tipping point, time for the RNC to tell the Christian Coalition to sit down and shut up. No More Litmus Test veto powers for this 25%-33% of the party.

Christian Votes have no where to run, so stop alienating others by pandering to them.

The GOP Tried that, look what happened? 2006, 2008, complete loss of power.

 

[UtahBill]

The GOP needs to be careful about alienating even more of its members, so I don't think taking a hard line with bible thumpers is a good idea. It needs to be more inclusive, but that is not likely as long as the party leaders are senile old farts who live in the past.
The voters determines what party is in power, so if the GOP is to grow its membership, it needs to appeal to the majority, and for now it appears that the public voter wants less of what the GOP is offering.
Maybe the GOP will get lucky, and Obama will start an unpopular war somewhere, unpopular meaning in a country that has no resources we want...

 

[Zyphlin]

Alienating the religious right is idiotic. Going overboard in placating them is equally idiotic because it will alieanate other portions of the conservative base.

The goal is try to do enough to reach out to all the various factions of conservatives to get them out to the voting booth, without going so far to one side or another that you depress the turnout of another group.

 

[Voidwar]

The GOP Tried that

I disagree. There was no blanket statement by the RNC that the pro-life plank was being abandoned.

The Terry Schaivo fiasco was in 2005, so don't bother spinning the tale that the Republicans ditched that right to life stuff.

 

[Voidwar]

The GOP needs to be careful about alienating even more of its members, so I don't think taking a hard line with bible thumpers is a good idea.

Alienation of the middle, by the bible thumpers, is their problem.

Why not comment on the notion that they gain more in the middle than they lose, considering the Fundies have no where to run.

 

[Voidwar]

Alienating the religious right is idiotic.

Alienating is not exactly what I am suggesting.

If we love Movies, and you love Nascar, am I "alienating" you if I tell you that when we get together I want to talk about Movies, and Not Nascar ?

Dropping their Religious issues as party planks is not necessarily alienating them. Alienating would be to adopt the opposite stance on the issue, and keep the flipped stance as a party plank.

 

[Zyphlin]

Bad analogy....

Lets say we both like movies in general. I however like comedies while you like dramas.

If I go "Lets go to the movies" but everytime I do, all we go to see are Comedies, eventually you're just going to stop going to the movies with me because its not worth your time because while you like movies, Comedies all the time is a waste of your time and money.

If I you go "Lets go to the movies" but everytime you do, all we go to see are Dramas, eventually I'm just going to stop going because its not worth my time.

What I'm suggesting needs to happen is that we need to stop "going to see comedies" everytime but instead make it a nice rotation where sometimes we go see comedies, sometimes we go see dramas, and maybe sometimes find a dramatic comedy. This way, we both get to have go see movies, AND we both get the thing we like highlighted at times.

Same thing with this.

It is FOOLISH to drop social issues from the planks of the Republican party. While the religious right may not run out and go vote democrat, it will depress the turn out and every person that doesn't vote for you that you could've easily gotten by appealing to one of their issues is essentially a vote against you.

Republicans need to hold onto the social conservatives and social issues. But they can't make that the only, or the biggest, part of their platform. It must be one part, in relative equal size as the rest of the platform. This way, you give enough that gets them out to vote, but not so much that it starts alianating others.

Going almost COMPLETELY fiscal conservative is not going to give the republicans any better success than going almost COMPLETELY social conservative or going almost completely any other direction in regards to conservatism. The ideology does not generally work in a philisophical, or a electoral, way without having a balance between it all.

 

[Voidwar]

Bad analogy....

Lets say we both like movies in general. I however like comedies while you like dramas.

If I go "Lets go to the movies" but everytime I do, all we go to see are Comedies, eventually you're just going to stop going to the movies with me because its not worth your time because while you like movies, Comedies all the time is a waste of your time and money.

I'm afraid your analogy breaks down right here. I can easily enjoy seeing all my comedies with you, and watch my dramas with other drama enthusiasts. As a matter of direct fact, this reflects my own movie viewing quite a bit, as with different friends, different genre's are the norm.

It is FOOLISH to drop social issues from the planks of the Republican party. While the religious right may not run out and go vote democrat, it will depress the turn out and every person that doesn't vote for you that you could've easily gotten by appealing to one of their issues is essentially a vote against you.

Not if appealing to those issues costs you a big slice of the middle, as my original post explained. Further, you have just logically overplayed your hand, as a non voter is absolutely NOT the same as a vote against you.

Republicans did not lose the last two cycles because the fundies failed to turn out, they lost because a big piece of the middle voted against them.

Republicans need to hold onto the social conservatives and social issues.

Why, specifically, why in light of the obvious gains available in the middle ?

But they can't make that the only, or the biggest, part of their platform. It must be one part, in relative equal size as the rest of the platform.

No Way to Square This with the Pro-Life Litmus test. That 25%-33% has absolute veto power now, and gets pandered to with the likes of Palin, and thus loses the ballgame.

 

[Voidwar]

Dropping their Religious issues as party planks is not necessarily alienating them. Alienating would be to adopt the opposite stance on the issue, and keep the flipped stance as a party plank.

Perhaps we can discard both analogies and just discuss it in its own context . . . Could you comment on this part

Fun Discussion btw

 

[Zyphlin]

Republicans did not lose the last two cycles because the fundies failed to turn out, they lost because a big piece of the middle voted against them.

I disagree, strongly.

The loss 2006 because of depressed turnout due to dissatisfaction from the base (in this case, the fiscal and governmentally conservative base. As I said, FOCUSING on social issues is bad too) along with numerous scandals (Macaca is the only thing that did in Allen, the Foley scandal, etc) along with the War in Iraq was FAR bigger issues in 2006's loss than anything to do with Social issues.

The loss in 2008 again had little to do with social issues. Indeed, the only thing that saved McCain and made him relevant in the last few months was bringing in a socially conservative person in Palin. If you want me to dig out my post showing the bumps that occured thanks for Palin upon her announcement I'll be happy too. McCain was SUNK last year before the convention even happened and the only thing that made him survive to election time was Palin's appointment.

McCain's issue was still some depression in the turnout due to unhappiness with him, mixed with the extremely charismatic opponent in Barack Obama that out messages and out manuevered McCain greatly. Obama got the middle not because they were "voting against" the social agenda of Republicans but because he was an extremely Charismatic Cult of Personality that appealed to those that had little vested interest in politics due to his pop culture appeal.

The majority of those in the "Middle" that complained about Palin being the reason they'd never vote for McCain are also people that, even if he would've picked someone like Romney or Vitter, would've STILL voted for Obama anyways.

Nothing in the past two cycles tell me that their social agenda keeps them from getting the middle. What it tells me is that FOCUSING on a social agenda alone alienates conservatives and independents that don't hold that as their main thing.

Why, specifically, why in light of the obvious gains available in the middle ?

Because I think you're premise is completely and entirely flawed. The middle does not vote against republicans because they're against abortion and against gay marriage.

I think SOME might, I think some don't care, I think some are attracted to that. The "middle" is not "liberals".

I think the issue is that when they focus PRIMARILY on the social thing they lose some of hte middle, but that's the same if they primarily focus on anything.

Lets say you ahve a middle section that cares about:

1. Pro-Choice
2. Fiscal Responsability
3. As little government involvement as possible.
4. Government Welfare and support programs.
5. Strong Military
6. Pro-Life
7. Alternative Energy
8. For gay marriage
9. Against gay marriage
10. For civil unions

If your PRIMARY focus is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-government enforced morals, etc. AKA a mostly full on social agenda you're having a chance for #6 and #8 but are hard up for the rest.

If you completely ignore the abortion issue, the gay marriage issue, and other social issues you have a good shot at getting no one from #6 or #8.

However, if you have a balanced message that focus on fiscal responsability, abortion only in case of rape/incest/mothers life in danger, for giving marriage SOULY to the church but instituting civil unions as the universal government coupling method, and persuing other forms of energy including nuclear and our own oil you suddenly have a chance of getting 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 with an okay chance for 8, 9, 10 and an off shot at a few in 1.

Drop the social portions of that out, and you lose 6, 8, 9, and 10 voters as somewhat likely to likely to vote for you.

That hurts you.

You are going off the assumption that no independents or moderates care about social issues. You back this up with nothing. NOTHING I've seen show that there are not moderate or independents that do have a conservative view in regards to social issues.

You are going off the assumption that social conservatives will still come out to vote in seemingly just as large of a group if you don't address their issues. Nothing I've seen shows that to be true, and I frankly don't believe it. I'm sure at first a number will still show up to vote, but over time yo'ull see it shifting over to a 3rd party vote or simply not showing up at the ballot box...just like those currently disenfranchised in the republican party that vote libertarian because the portions of the platform they care about have been relegated to near non-existance.

No Way to Square This with the Pro-Life Litmus test. That 25%-33% has absolute veto power now, and gets pandered to with the likes of Palin, and thus loses the ballgame.

You're wrong. I can't really say it any more than that. Palin did not cost McCain the election, its just not the case. If anything it made him competitive for as long as it did. McCain would've lost by a landslide instead of just a bad loss if it wasn't for Palin. Theres nothing that I've seen that make me honestly believe he would've pulled a substantial amount of moderates that he didn't pull already, and yet the polls CLEARLY showed that the interest in Palin got republicans and conservatives interested and active out in voting for McCain that previously were uncaring about him.

Dropping Social Conservatism from Republicanism is as idiotic and longterm harmful to the party as dropping the fiscal, governmental, or militaristic views of the party would, and have, hurt the party.

 

[Zyphlin]

Perhaps we can discard both analogies and just discuss it in its own context . . . Could you comment on this part

Fun Discussion btw

I'm enjoying the discussion

And I disagree.

Dropping it from the planks of the party would essentially mean they're not longer fighting for it. This would mean that they're not fighting things like late term abortion, or a national institution of "gay marriage", or other such things.

I do think that if they remove these things from the planks of the party, and then stops fighting for them, they WILL allienate voters in the long term, and depress the turnout of voters in teh short and long term.

Why do I think that?

Look at the past 8 years. Various portions of Conservatism have been either stricken from the planks of the platform or have been regulated as the political equivilent of the 3rd string quarterback...its there but most people don't even realize it.

Those portions have caused numerous people in the party to feel alienated. They've watched as people they elect hoping and assuming that, even though they didn't focus on those points, they'd still uphold the things they care about becuase they're republicans. And they didn't. And they didn't campaign primarily on it.

And over the years those people have shifted to voting for Libertarian, or Constitutionalist, or write ins, or just stayed and home and didn't vote.

What you're suggesting is taking a step BEYOND what they did to these other branches, regulating them to secondary or tertiary status, but intead completely DROPPING an entire segment of conservatism. All you're doing is swapping one segment of conservatives, and moderates, for another segment.

You are gambling HUUUUUGELY on the belief that somehow that segment you're switching to is going to be larger than the one you're switching it out for. You're also gambling HUUUUGELY by hoping that the religious right would react differently than the libertarian thinking wing of the party.

Personally, I think its a stupid gamble.

I think you can get the best of both words by reigning in the social aspects and putting it on even teir with the rest of the planks of the party, or at the very least a 1b to the others 1a, will allow you to start pulling back in those disenfranchised conservatives while not depressing the turnout of the religious right and at the same time opening up a larger pool of potential moderates to grab.

 

[Schweddy]

If only it would. Discard the fundamentalist planks in the party platform and you gain more from the middle than you lose on the right. What believeable threat do the bible beaters have ? That they are gonna vote democrat ?? Stop Voting ?? Split off and form the All Jesus Party and Dominate Tulsa Politics ?? The Demographics have reached the tipping point, time for the RNC to tell the Christian Coalition to sit down and shut up. No More Litmus Test veto powers for this 25%-33% of the party.

Christian Votes have no where to run, so stop alienating others by pandering to them.

It is indeed splitting. The ignorance of the 80's & 90's leaders are paying off. No longer is the Republican party a single button anti Roe v Wade voting machine. Most of us believe it should be overturned, but a few fundamentalists are still holding on that the Reagan followers are the only ones that can get it done. It is even spilt over the idea of policing the world, as thought that is some moral issue we must take care of.

It is amazing listening to a neo-con as one one hand they bitch about Roe V Wade and on the other advocate war on the false premise that terrorism is what we are fighting. Meanwhile most are discouraged as they are unsure where to turn and what they actually believe because the "other side" might be saying the same thing.

Many democrats are anti-abortion and pro-life too so the thrust of the single button party has become lost. The hard anti-abortion Christians will flock to the local candidate that is against Roe V Wade. Oh, they have a place to turn and as seen - they are pressing other levers. They are no longer a threat for either side and the Pat Robinsons f the world are now less politically relevant. Abortion is no longer the hotest topic.

The issue is that due to the Internet and the information age, many new young Republicans are educating themselves. They have proven to educate and act on those old principles. Which include much more ideas than just abortion. These new educated young Republicans are actually interested and believe in the platform. Leaders do not like to hear this.

Again, I invite you to a local Republican group - go look at the faces. No longer is the tie required. No longer does one have to be "rich" to fit in. No longer does one even have to argue or even *be* a Christian to label themselves as Republican. Young folks are showing up in droves. Liberty minded limited government folks are flocking in. Old school leaders are jumping in their seats and have no clue how to keep the status quo of the direction the party is moving vs the goals outside the platform they have created.

Go see for yourself, don't take my word for it.

 

[Voidwar]

The majority of those in the "Middle" that complained about Palin being the reason they'd never vote for McCain are also people that, even if he would've picked someone like Romney or Vitter, would've STILL voted for Obama anyways.

Romney or Vitter, still Christian Right.

Nothing in the past two cycles tell me that their social agenda keeps them from getting the middle.

I submit that you are deliberately leaving data out of this analysis. The Litmus Tests impact on who becomes a "candidate" in the first place, and this has an impact that cannot be seen in " who won / who lost" election results.

Because I think you're premise is completely and entirely flawed. The middle does not vote against republicans because they're against abortion and against gay marriage.

I think you underestimate how distasteful the middle finds not only nutjobs like Phelps, but also the subtle condescension of the less inflammatory Christian Coalition types.

You are going off the assumption that no independents or moderates care about social issues. You back this up with nothing. NOTHING I've seen show that there are not moderate or independents that do have a conservative view in regards to social issues.

Caring about an issue is one thing. Voting your religion onto all, is quite another. I do not assert that moderates do not care about "social issues", but I won't comment on them, until you define them in particular. It's a case by case thing, and the answer is something other than asking yourself WWJD.

You are going off the assumption that social conservatives will still come out to vote in seemingly just as large of a group if you don't address their issues.

I am. I am absolutely willing to bet that these people will chose to participate in the business of government, even if it only sticks to the business of government. I do not believe that they will disenfranchise themselves over their boorish tendancy to insert their religion into everyone's government. I know they want it. What I'm saying is, if you flat out make it clear that they can't have it, then they will still vote on the actual business of gevernment. These millions of Americans will not just stop voting because the RNC no longer has a pro-life plank. They won't commit political suicide over religious preference. They will leave Sunday to Sunday and vote on Tuesday and all will be well.

Nothing I've seen shows that to be true, and I frankly don't believe it. I'm sure at first a number will still show up to vote, but over time yo'ull see it shifting over to a 3rd party vote or simply not showing up at the ballot box...

I think my over-arching point here is that for every one of these, they would gain 1+ voters from the middle. And people voting their religion would fade from American politics, as a very nice side bonus.

 

[Zyphlin]

The moment you try to lump Phelps of all people, a man reviled by both the right and the left, as the shining example of the religious right is the moment I'm done with this conversatoin.

I'll say, i'll agree to disgaree. I think you're absolutely wrong and I'll hope and cross my fingers people like you aren't the ones that get control of the Republican party because you'll usher in a decade of ****tiness and failure just as those that killed off other planks of have done this decade.

 

[Voidwar]

The moment you try to lump Phelps

This is an unfair accusation.

I did not lump. I specifically separated him in the context.

I think you underestimate how distasteful the middle finds not only nutjobs like Phelps, but also the subtle condescension of the less inflammatory Christian Coalition types.

 

[Zyphlin]

Not only. You specifically put him in leauge, if on one end, of the religious right.

Its really not the case. Phelps is for the most part in a position entirely his own, with even a past filled with connections with the democratic party. If you had said Patterson, or Farwell, or someone...that'd be one thing. Phelps is in no way shape or form similar to them on a political level.

Your post seemed to not differentiate Phelps from the religious right as far as differentiating him only in terms of how inflammatory he is.

 

[Renae]

I disagree. There was no blanket statement by the RNC that the pro-life plank was being abandoned.

There is a reason it won't be abandoned...

The Terry Schaivo fiasco was in 2005, so don't bother spinning the tale that the Republicans ditched that right to life stuff.

We appear to have a misunderstanding, I meant the GOP tried appealing to more moderates.

If the only way to do that is to abandon the Pro-Life Plank, then they are welcome to do that, I and many many many others will just go elsewhere.

 

[Voidwar]

If the only way to do that is to abandon the Pro-Life Plank, then they are welcome to do that, I and many many many others will just go elsewhere.

A completely empty threat and I call your bluff. Where you gonna go ? Be Specific.

I already debunked this hollow sabre-rattling . . .

What believeable threat do the bible beaters have ? That they are gonna vote democrat ?? Stop Voting ?? Split off and form the All Jesus Party and Dominate Tulsa Politics ??

 

[Zyphlin]

The Constitutional Party still has a significant amount of social conservative views. I'd imagine that within 4 election cycles you'd see a decent portion of the religious right moving over to that like a decent portion of the fiscally conservative right went to the Libertarian party.

 

[American]

The Constitutional Party still has a significant amount of social conservative views. I'd imagine that within 4 election cycles you'd see a decent portion of the religious right moving over to that like a decent portion of the fiscally conservative right went to the Libertarian party.

And the Republican Party dies?

 

[Renae]

And the Republican Party dies?

I LIKE much of what the Constitution Party has to offer, however, they are not organized and lack the clout needed.

However, if the GOP decides to adopt liberal social positions like dropping the Pro-Life plank, and follow the big government path it's been on...

I'll move, and that's that.

Voidwar makes the mistake in thinking that the GOP voter base is mindless and will vote regardless of what is done. That's a poor line of thought.

 

[Zyphlin]

No, I think and then the Republican Party continues akin to how it has been.

A fragmented party that can't attract all of its base and becomes to focused on a specific set of issues in a specific pillar or two.

The past 8 years has greatly been focused on a Religious Right social agenda and a neoconservative Military agenda. It has harmed the Republican party, alienating and depressing the turn out of many fiscal and governmental conservatives.

Changing the focus to fiscal and governmental conservative GREATLY while completely throwing out the social aspect would likely result in a single election cycle boom, followed by a slow decline again. Disenchanted libertarian and fiscal conservatives would begin coming back to the Republican party while the social conservatives would begin to fill in where those coming back to the party just were.

In the end, I think it'd be a net drain on the republicans, just because I believe the numbers bare out that there are decent bit more social conservatives than the other pillars. But for the most part, I think it'd be much the same as now. A Republican party with a large segment of it disenchanted and upset, voting third party or just not turning out well, and the party seeming to have no real identity save for a few extreme points of the pillars being pushed, which doesn't have mass appeal to the middle.

I think the way to save the Republican party is the reign in the social side of it, but not destroy it. Increase the power and scope of the fiscal and governmental pillars. And work together to try to find a way to address the new issues of the post 9/11 era while touching back to traditional conservative views on intervention, nation building, and world policing.

Focusing on primarily social and military issues is not and has not worked. Getting someone who is fiscally and governmentally decently sound, but routinely at odds with the rest of the republican party is not going to work either as it pisses off a large section of the base.

A Charisma leader, plus a clear, balanced platform that said leader can successfully explain and sell to the American People.

 

[Voidwar]

Voidwar makes the mistake in thinking that the GOP voter base is mindless and will vote regardless of what is done. That's a poor line of thought.

I did not engage in this simplistic behavior you describe. I stated many reasons for my rationale, and my assertion that a voting segment will make a certain choice . . .

I am. I am absolutely willing to bet that these people will chose to participate in the business of government, even if it only sticks to the business of government. I do not believe that they will disenfranchise themselves over their boorish tendancy to insert their religion into everyone's government. I know they want it. What I'm saying is, if you flat out make it clear that they can't have it, then they will still vote on the actual business of gevernment. These millions of Americans will not just stop voting because the RNC no longer has a pro-life plank. They won't commit political suicide over religious preference. They will leave Sunday to Sunday and vote on Tuesday and all will be well.

. . . is hardly a sound basis to claim I think they are mindless.

 

[Voidwar]

I'll move, and that's that.

Ok Alec Baldwin . . . .