Now Perry is going on and on about gays. WTF. Why?
This guy is a fruitloop, pledging to make an amendment on anti-gay marriage.
Who does he think he is?
This is so frustrating!!! Why can’t the stupid GOP just stick to business, jobs, financials, etc.
The right winged moral majority shit is for the birds, this is where they lose it.
Give me a break. Why. WHY!!!
Couln’t agree more…
The major GOP candidates look like they’re in a race for second place. (to Obama)
Romney is keeping his head down, which is probably smart.
I’m pulling for my man Gary “who the hell is” Johnson, though
Pledges and amendments are going to be the Republicans undoing. Why can’y they focus on the business of business and apply sound principles to improve our economy. They are their own worst enemy.
the narrative is that Perry is going to campaign according to the Bush plan - invoke the evangelicals and fundamentalists and basically play the dumb guy -
then Palin will step forward as reluctant savior and will run with him as VP - - works every time
.
Romney is keeping his head down, which is probably smart.
Absolutely. Convincing the Republican party to nominate him is probably way harder than convincing independents to elect him President once he gets it. Considering he doesn’t dial up the crazy that the far right of the Republican party seems to be craving right now, his best bet is to keep his head down and hope they don’t notice he isn’t as crazy as they are.
the narrative is that Perry is going to campaign according to the Bush plan - invoke the evangelicals and fundamentalists and basically play the dumb guy -
then Palin will step forward as reluctant savior and will run with him as VP - - works every time
Okay, this was funny.
The GOP decided they had to fold in the evangelicals and ‘values voters’ several decades ago when they realized that if only their base of rich white guys voted for them, they would never win another election.
Appealing to the value voters is standard practice to for a republican to win but this guy might be nutty enough to think these issues are more than just campaign sound bites.
I think in general he and others like him are doing themselves a disservice, because judging by my pot-smoking, west-coast republican friends there are plenty of pubs who can’t bring themselves to vote for someone who is so socially conservative and just sit out the election or vote independent.
Romney’s strategy of not making his mormonism an issue might actually keep him from being too gung-ho on the social commentary front and be good for him in the long run.
I am following U.S politics from a distance but could this be a year where they just throw someone into the pool knowing they aren’t going to beat an incumbent President?
I think Romney is a legitimate contender but will have problems securing the nomination. I don’t see anyone else with the most remote chance of beating Obama to be honest and some of the rhetoric coming out is really damaging to the GOP, making them sound more and more like a real fringe party.
There is someone in the wings ready to jump in, right?
Yep, totally agree. I think that folks like Perry think they have to do such things to appeal to the Republican “base,” but what they don’t realize that is they will are probably killing their chances in the general election when these sorts of things will come back to haunt them. Moderate Republicans have shown that people generally like what they have to say when they focus on fiscal policy without trying to bring along a lot social issues.
Spot
The problem with Romney is that he’s not “really” a conservative, he supports too many liberal (read, expensive/entitlement) policies. Plus the wacko religious freaks probably won’t get past the fact that he’s a Mormon. Why, don’t ask me, it’s so stupid. (What happened to NO religion in politics? Didn’t we come here to get away from all that shit? But i digress…)
It is really disappointing that our only choices seem to be extreme leftists, or wacko religious righties. I can’t stand it, this is so frustrating.
Conservatism in America is having an identity crisis. But the (R)etards in charge are not swift enough to modernize and just stick to business. It is a nail in the coffin, I cannot vote for dumbshit Perry who wants to create a constitutional amendment against Gays. That is dumber than anything Obama has offered to date, IMO. It’s so stupid, it pains me.
Maybe it will take 60 or 100 years, but a revolution is coming and I think the Republican Party, as it is now, will be overthrown. They just don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. If they cannot figure out to leave the social stuff ALONE, they deserve to be tossed out to the old folks homes.
The major GOP candidates look like they’re in a race for second place. (to Obama)
Romney is keeping his head down, which is probably smart.
I’m pulling for my man Gary “who the hell is” Johnson, though
^^^This…please, people, if you’re conservative but sick of the nut-job far right dictating these elections then get behind Johnson!
What I can’t get over on both sides is the one liners that have nothing to do with what they then propose. How is it exactly that the Rep Party stands for smaller government, while at the same time wanting to regulate every aspect of our personal lives.
I’d have no issue if Perry said he thinks being gay is against his beliefs, but his stand on Gay marriage is that the government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage whatsoever, and any laws regarding marriage will be stricken from the government.
Styrrell
Social conservatism is intractable in the Republican party; it is the very essence of who they are and how they see the world and its problems. Many believe that fiscal conservatism depends on the existence of a socially conservative society (and to a point, I don’t disagree). Reference Jim DeMint’s comments on the subject.
The Tea Party is effectively calling the shots within the GOP (though decreasing in relevance beyond its borders), and make no mistake, they are the old guard religious right if they are anything at all. As long as the Tea Party exerts influence, social issues will play a major role in how candidates are chosen, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.
Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.
What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And** while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters. **
So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.
More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
Pass it off to the states to figure out and move on.
Social conservatism is intractable in the Republican party; it is the very essence of who they are and how they see the world and its problems. Many believe that fiscal conservatism depends on the existence of a socially conservative society (and to a point, I don’t disagree). Reference Jim DeMint’s comments on the subject.
Maybe I’m being a bit idealistic here but aren’t we advanced enough for Judeo-Christian morals to just be…morals (this is in reference to the DeMint article you linked)? Like, I’m athiest but grew up in a Catholic household; I do think my moral fiber is grounded in that religious upbringing. However, I believe I can teach my children ‘right and wrong’ without following it with ‘because God said so’, just like I think it can be taught without following it with ‘because the State said so’.
I don’t know…unless shown otherwise I think a society based loosely on libertarian ideals can sustain relative peace and prosperity, but maybe I’m giving to much credit to the average person to be able to learn right from wrong without the influence of God or State.
Ballpark estimate, what percent of the electorate do you think supports that approach? I would guess the overwhelming majority of independents and liberals/Democrats oppose it, and would prefer federal protection for same-sex couples, and that the majority of conservatives/Republicans would favor a federal solution as well.
I would expect more conservatives than liberals to respect the federalist tradition, but I suspect the cultural conservatives would trump the state’s rights wing of the GOP in terms of sheer numbers.
Two things here. The majority in America are religious, and religious people seem incapable of the conclusion that religion and morality are not interdependent. And regardless of how our society began, or on which ideals it was founded, we’re a long haul from libertarian at present.
Two things here. The majority in America are religious, and religious people seem incapable of the conclusion that religion and morality are not interdependent. And regardless of how our society began, or on which ideals it was founded, we’re a long haul from libertarian at present.
Yeah, agreed on both fronts–begrudgingly. I wish it weren’t so–I would be fascinated to see the long-term effects of libertarian principles on a 21st century western society–but sadly that’s a complete pipedream.
I believe it was Rob who last mentioned it, and I agree: Freedom and democracy are ultimately incompatible; one requires the sacrifice of the other. All but the most rigid ideologues understand that a sweet spot exists along the continuum between the poles (though no two people are likely to agree on precisely where that point lies), but that we’re not likely to arrive there, or even stay there for very long. So it goes.