"Increasingly...partisanship and free spending of the Bush presidency—and the takeover of the party by single-issue voters, especially pro-lifers—is driving...pragmatic, fiscally conservative voters out of the GOP."

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18507722/site/newsweek/

 

Amen to that. The Republican party needs to return to its real roots--fiscal conservatism, small government, and sensible, pragmatic foreign policy.

I don't know that its driving us out of the GOP so much as it is driving us away from current candidates and away from the polls.

I think there is a real risk for the GOP that current policies could send a boatload of moderate Republicans over to vote for the other side, a la "Reagan Democrats" a generation ago. Republicans in Congress had better carefully weigh the effects of their continued defiance of the will of the American people.

This is why I think Chuck Hagel needs to throw his hat into the ring for the Republican primary. He would be the only candidate not supporting the Iraq war and only one incessantly criticizing the current administration. He could be a factor if he wanted to, in my opinion.

To me, the article sounds more like wishful speculation by the author than anything else.

Even so, Eisenhower and other lifelong Republicans say they haven't heard much yet from the leading Democratic candidates that persuades them.

I think there is a real risk for the GOP that current policies could send a boatload of moderate Republicans over to vote for the other side, a la "Reagan Democrats" a generation ago. Republicans in Congress had better carefully weigh the effects of their continued defiance of the will of the American people.

 

I don't think the analogy is a good one. "Reagan Democrats" were conservative, middle-of-the-road Democrats who voted for Reagan because of his charismatic red-white-and-blue appeal and because their own party had swung so far to the left. I don't think that the Republican Party has changed its alignment so much as it has simply had a jellied backbone on enforcing issues that it believes in. And there is NO candidate on the other side who is going to bring Republican voters over.

"Increasingly...partisanship and free spending of the Bush presidency—and the takeover of the party by single-issue voters, especially pro-lifers—is driving...pragmatic, fiscally conservative voters out of the GOP."

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18507722/site/newsweek/

 

Amen to that. The Republican party needs to return to its real roots--fiscal conservatism, small government, and sensible, pragmatic foreign policy.

Funny how me voting my values is a bad thing to this author. Guess I should just pocket my faith and my values when I step into the voting booth.

I don't think the analogy is a good one. "Reagan Democrats" were conservative, middle-of-the-road Democrats who voted for Reagan because of his charismatic red-white-and-blue appeal and because their own party had swung so far to the left. I don't think that the Republican Party has changed its alignment so much as it has simply had a jellied backbone on enforcing issues that it believes in. And there is NO candidate on the other side who is going to bring Republican voters over.

 

I couldn't agree more. Fiscal conservatives are looking for someone to champion their cause but the chances of finding that champion amoung the current group of Democrats is remote. Fiscal conservatives are more likely to vote a third party or not vote at all than cross over to the other side.

 

Also, I don't see how the presence of a single issue pro-life voter in the party necessarily negatively affects a fiscal conservatives cause. Afterall, overturning Roe vs Wade is consistent with state rights which is a theory of government to which most fiscal conservative subscribe. Also, most federal spending has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion issue so I just don't see a correlation.

 

One final note, I found it interesting that fiscal conservatives are now being characterized as "moderates". Reagan was a fiscal conservative and he was villified as a cold hearted, radical conservative everytime he tried to reduce the size of government. I suspect that the protrayal of fiscal conservatives as moderates would quickly revert to the caustic protrayal so prevalent during Reagan's administration if a fiscal conservative actually gained power.

I do agree that I have been thoroughly disappointed in GW and his spending habits. And I have sent emails to the White House stating such.

Funny how me voting my values is a bad thing to this author. Guess I should just pocket my faith and my values when I step into the voting booth.

 

You probably shouldn't look at it that way. The way I read the lament is that many legitimate conservative candidates are dismissed out of hand by single issue voters such as yourself, when every other stance the candidate might have falls neatly in line with conservative philosophies. That, and many candidates feel pressured to submit themselves to a religious litmus test to be considered by the larger GOP electorate.

You probably shouldn't look at it that way. The way I read the lament is that many legitimate conservative candidates are dismissed out of hand by single issue voters such as yourself, when every other stance the candidate might have falls neatly in line with conservative philosophies. That, and many candidates feel pressured to submit themselves to a religious litmus test to be considered by the larger GOP electorate.

While you call it a litmus test, I think of it as more accurately representing, as you put it, "the larger GOP electorate."

 

Are candidates not supposed to represent the contingent that is electing them? So if the voters of the GOP candidate is wanting a conservative, both socially and fiscally, candidate, shouldn't the candidate reflect those traits?

 

GW represented those traits and while it seems he has done what he can on the abortion issue and has set a strong foundation in limiting or possibly even one day overturning Roe v Wade, I concur that he has NOT BEEN the fiscally conservative candidate he represented being.

You probably shouldn't look at it that way. The way I read the lament is that many legitimate conservative candidates are dismissed out of hand by single issue voters such as yourself, when every other stance the candidate might have falls neatly in line with conservative philosophies. That, and many candidates feel pressured to submit themselves to a religious litmus test to be considered by the larger GOP electorate.

 

 

I understand what you're saying but I just don't think there are many Republicans who have been eliminated by the larger GOP electorate for lack of a pro-life stance. While it certainly has hindered Rudy Guliani's candidacy, it also just as certainly hasn't eliminated him. Also, most Republican's are in theory both pro-life and fiscal conservatives but in practice fiscally liberal and pro-life.

You probably shouldn't look at it that way. The way I read the lament is that many legitimate conservative candidates are dismissed out of hand by single issue voters such as yourself, when every other stance the candidate might have falls neatly in line with conservative philosophies. That, and many candidates feel pressured to submit themselves to a religious litmus test to be considered by the larger GOP electorate.

It's not so much a religious litmus test as it is a morality and backbone litmus test. For me, its as important of an issue as slavery was 150 years ago. If a candidate told me he would never own slaves, but he doesn't think he has the right to tell others that they can't own slaves, he would not have received my vote. I would rather vote for those who adamantly disagree with me than those spineless wonders who feel that their opinion might infringe on another's rights.

While you call it a litmus test, I think of it as more accurately representing, as you put it, "the larger GOP electorate."

 

To clarify, I meant that in light of the fact that the religious right seems to have hi-jacked the GOP.

 

Are candidates not supposed to represent the contingent that is electing them? So if the voters of the GOP candidate is wanting a conservative, both socially and fiscally, candidate, shouldn't the candidate reflect those traits?

 

Right, but you're operating under the assumption that all fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives, and vice versa. The larger GOP electorate seems to be as fractious as the Dem electorate, with many competing interests.

 

GW represented those traits and while it seems he has done what he can on the abortion issue and has set a strong foundation in limiting or possibly even one day overturning Roe v Wade, I concur that he has NOT BEEN the fiscally conservative candidate he represented being.

 

I have said from day one that GWB has pulled a snow-job on the voting public. He and the GOP campaign machinery have no interest whatsoever in seeing RvW overturned. Were that to happen, they would lose their No. 1 wedge issue, and voters such as yourself — single issue voters — would go back to not participating in elections.

To clarify, I meant that in light of the fact that the religious right seems to have hi-jacked the GOP.

 

 

 

Right, but you're operating under the assumption that all fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives, and vice versa. The larger GOP electorate seems to be as fractious as the Dem electorate, with many competing interests.

 

 

 

I have said from day one that GWB has pulled a snow-job on the voting public. He and the GOP campaign machinery have no interest whatsoever in seeing RvW overturned. Were that to happen, they would lose their No. 1 wedge issue, and voters such as yourself — single issue voters — would go back to not participating in elections.

 

Disagree with the not participating in elections as the abortion issue has only been my driving issue since the mid-90's and I have voted in every election since I turned 18.

 

Again while you say the religious right has hi-jacked the GOP, I see them representing the values and issues of those who are voting GOP and responsible for putting them in office.

 

Just as the claim is made that the Democrats have been "hi-jacked" by special interests groups that do not represent the values/issues of those who are voting for the GOP.