Poll: 51% of Republicans would rather risk losing elections than win with RINOs

[Golem]

Now you know why we're called The Stupid Party. 

Reminds me of Jim DeMint notoriously saying that he’d rather have 30 pure conservatives in the Senate than a centrist Republican majority, presumably so that he could lose with honor on every single vote...

Full article


CNN Poll: Does the GOP want ideologically pure candidates?

A new national poll suggests that the Democrats may be the party of pragmatism and Republicans may be the party of ideological purity...

[NHSparky]

Perhaps Golem here needs to re-read Reagan's CPAC speech.

[Golem]

Perhaps Golem here needs to re-read Reagan's CPAC speech.

Didn't Reagan believe in unity?

[NHSparky]

Didn't Reagan believe in unity?

Not at the cost of compromising one's principles:

LINK

Read it--you might learn something.


ETA:

Even more so, here's his CPAC speech from 1977...LINK

I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for “ideological purity.” Whatever ideology may mean—and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it—it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country “ideology” is a scare word. And for good reason. Marxist-Leninism is, to give but one example, an ideology. All the facts of the real world have to be fitted to the Procrustean bed of Marx and Lenin. If the facts don’t happen to fit the ideology, the facts are chopped off and discarded.

I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.

When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.

When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing—he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.

When a conservative says that busing does not work, he is not appealing to some theory of education—he is merely reporting what he has seen down at the local school.

When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.

Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way—this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.

[Golem]

Reagan was also a pragmatist. He didn't require 100% agreement within the party.

[NHSparky]

Reagan was also a pragmatist. He didn't require 100% agreement within the party.

And he also would have busted the balls of the so-called GOP "leadership" with their drunken sailor spending habits and those who would claim the Scozzafava's of the world were somehow worthy of the title of Republican.

Ya see, Golem, there's a reason the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans is going down and the number of those identifying themselves as conservatives has stayed constant or even risen, depending on who you ask--the GOP USED to be identified with conservatism.  No more.  And conservatives are getting sick and tired of it.

[Chris_]

Reagan was also a pragmatist. He didn't require 100% agreement within the party.

True....however, he was totally unwilling to "compromise" on a set of core principles......and that compromise is what the modern generation of RINOS is all about.....they essentially stand for nothing but "getting along" with the opposition......that is where I (and many like me) seperate ourselves from the self-described "moderates".......I'm still waiting for the book describing the "Great Moderates in American History".......by definition, in order to be "great" one must stand for something, besides "compromise".....

Further, in our recent experience, when we compromise with the opposition, the end result seems to always advance their agends, and not ours.....show me the value in that......

doc

[Golem]

The Republican Party has been a party of contesting factions for as long as I can remember.

[Chris_]

The Republican Party has been a party of contesting factions for as long as I can remember.

Which is why most of us here do not describe ourselves as "Republicans"....

doc

[Splashdown]

Why vote for someone who will vote in favor of TARP? Vote to expand abortion? Vote in favor of that nightmare health care bill?  Vote to retreat in the War on Terror? Vote for amnesty? Put me in that 51 percent.

The party can be a big tent, but we can't just bend over. There has to be some standard.

[NHSparky]

The Republican Party has been a party of contesting factions for as long as I can remember.

Contesting factions also exist in liberal, libertarian, and conservative circles.  Seems to me that there was a bit of a contest between Stalin and Trotsky as well.  IIRC, that didn't end so hot for Trotsky.

Again, as the old saw goes, you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.  The current incarnation of the GOP doesn't get that.

[Golem]

We have to live in the real world - not the world of "I wish it were so, therefore it is so."

But go ahead with the standard "arguments":

• Invoke the name of Ronald Reagan
• Invoke the RINOs term
• Cite the "40% of Americans call themselves conservative" poll

[NHSparky]

And here's another bit of reality for you, Golem...

CONSERVATIVES stayed home in droves in 2006 and 2008, and if things don't change quickly, they'll stay home in 2010 as well.  Perhaps the GOP needs to reexamine their playbook and toss out the "Out-Democrat the Democrats" strategy, and get back to what put them in office in 1980 and 1994, to cite recent examples.

Oh, and one more thing--THEN THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT.

[Splashdown]

We have to live in the real world - not the world of "I wish it were so, therefore it is so."

But go ahead with the standard "arguments":

• Invoke the name of Ronald Reagan
• Invoke the RINOs term
• Cite the "40% of Americans call themselves conservative" poll

Yep. Voting for pro-abortion, pro-TARP, anti-immigration reform, and pro-stimulus repubs is a much, much better idea.  

[Golem]

And here's another bit of reality for you, Golem...

CONSERVATIVES stayed home in droves in 2006 and 2008, and if things don't change quickly, they'll stay home in 2010 as well.

If true, that's stupid.

Perhaps the GOP needs to reexamine their playbook and toss out the "Out-Democrat the Democrats" strategy, and get back to what put them in office in 1980 and 1994, to cite recent examples.

Oh, and one more thing--THEN THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT.

They might run as conservatives, but when they are in office, they are still politicians. They do what they need to do to stay in office.

[DumbAss Tanker]

So what's your point, Golem?  Republicans will never be as good at being Democrats as Democrats are, and it isn't going to get the middle or the Dems to vote for them over the real thing to pretend that they are.  That sure turned out great for McCain, didn't it?

Getting the Social Conserviatives to move to the middle and vote for a faux-Democrat ain't happening, so the whole line of argument is pretty much a waste of electrons.

[Chris_]

We have to live in the real world - not the world of "I wish it were so, therefore it is so."

But go ahead with the standard "arguments":

• Invoke the name of Ronald Reagan
• Invoke the RINOs term
• Cite the "40% of Americans call themselves conservative" poll

I'll go you one better......I will define the "tent size" from my personal perspective......the core principles, and how far I would be willing to go to "include" a candidate that I would vote for......

Government size and intrusiveness

The mimimum size necessary to fulfill the constitutional requirements set forth by the founders..........some additional government can be tolerated to include advances in technology over the years, but the smaller the better.

Federal Regulation

The minimum necessary to preserve free and competitive markets, and preserve the continued growth of the economy.  Advances in technology have created a role for some regulation to insure the safety of citizens, but it should be kept to the minimum necessary to accomplish that task.

Taxes

Taxation to support basic government function, preserve and support our military, and construct and maintain national infrastructure are necessary.......taxation for "social experimentation" should be left to the voters of the states, as they see fit. 

Abortion

I do not see abortion as a political issue.......although I believe that Roe is bad law, I think that this is another issue for the individual states to decide.

Gay Marriage

As the concept of marriage lies at the foundation of our national identity, I believe that it should be supported tacitly by the government......I don't really care what homosexuals do in their respective bedrooms, but I again think that this is an issue for states and localities to decide.

Gun Control

A "tripwire issue" for me.......I will never support a party or candidate that has any inkling that gun control is a good idea.

Foreign Affairs

I believe that this country requires a strong and well-equipped military, and the ability to project power where necessary abroad.  I DO NOT believe that it is Americas role to ensure that the nations of the world "like us" or our policies.......I would much rather that America be feared than liked.  International relations is not a High School Popularity contest, and I would not consider voting for a candidate that did not consider a strong America vital to the prospect of world peace.

That should give you an idea of where I would be willing to evaluate candidates on the basis of ideological spread, and the issues that I would consider compromisable......beyond that, I too, would rather let the country devolve toward internal conflict, and then we will sort it out that way.........

doc

[Golem]

The point is that people should try understand how the political process really works, rather than parroting macho slogans from Limbaugh, Levin, and others.

[Golem]

I'll go you one better......I will define the "tent size" from my personal perspective......the core principles, and how far I would be willing to go to "include" a candidate that I would vote for......

Doc, well said. Thank you.

[Chris_]

The point is that people should try understand how the political process really works, rather than parroting macho slogans from Limbaugh, Levin, and others.

Since I don't listen to any of these.....I suppose that your goal here is to enlighten us on how the "political process" actually works??

doc

[BEG]

I don't have a problem voting for someone I don't agree 100% with.  What I DO have a problem with is voting for people like Scozzafava (that is if I lived in NY 23rd district   ).  It's not that I just don't agree with a few of her views, she isn't a moderate...she is a liberal.  It proved all who didn't support her that we were right when she went on to endorse Owens.  

[littlelamb]

In the last elections I held my nose and voted for McLame I figured it was going to be better than the one we have now. I don't parrot Levin nor Limbaugh although on about 95% of what they say I agree with

[DumbAss Tanker]

The point is that people should try understand how the political process really works, rather than parroting macho slogans from Limbaugh, Levin, and others.

Understanding it, and being unwilling to throw your core principles out the window to elect someone who is only marginally less-bad in terms of those beliefs are not the same thing.

[Mustang]

The moderates of the Republican party need to be pushed aside, it's funny to think that "moderates" that don't have any defining attributes are actually ideological themselves.
A pacifist government that bends over to the democrats foreign and domestic policy might as well be liberal. We are headed towards a large crater in the road that largely involves our unending and unpayable debt. Moderates are going to solve this? They are the same as the liberals as far as I am concerned, probably worse, considering they diminish the chances of a fiscal conservative with a backbone who happens to believe in christian values to fix this countries path of inevitable self destruction rampant inflation, unending debt, and unwilling to fight enemies foreign and domestic.

I still have hope in the Republican party, but not enough loyalty to warrant moderate sabatours to sustain and turn a once conservative party into a "moderate party".
If that's the case, then let the Republican party go into turmoil and by social nature ---conservatives will step forth to take over-but only if we allow them . 

[bkg]

The point is that people should try understand how the political process really works, rather than parroting macho slogans from Limbaugh, Levin, and others.

Why are you so quick to judge people who won't captitulate to the BS of the current "political process?" And please now explain to me how those people would be better served voting for someone who claims to be one way, but is another, when they can rather vote for the person who can stand up and say with conviction "I'm a lib."?? And now explain to me why the "political process," as it is today, is at all acceptable.

No way in hell I'll vote for someone simply because of the letter behind their name on the ballat... That's just friggen insane.