Why are Republicans not in open rebellion?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Before I address anything else, I have to point out that you've just changed the subject. I didn't say that these are the issues you find most pressing. I said they were your complaints. I will concede the possibility that they are not your complaints but having arrived at that inferrence based upon what I see as your misreading of what Republicans care about, the only other option is that you are wildly mistaken. Particularly on the abortion issue, you are so far off base as to what Republicans think and care about that I am comfortable that you are either expressing your own concerns or you are just shooting in the dark about what Republican think, not actually having heard any voice those complaints. I know you will say it is otherwise, but as one who spends a lot of time trying to figure out not just if the other side is lying, but also whether my people are lying, I trust my instincts on this one. If I am wrong, so be it, but I can't square what you are telling me with anything I have experienced.

I think you need to step back and recognize what you are suggesting here. Do you think I am complaining that Republicans haven't done more with abortion? Do you think I am upset they haven't enacted more tax cuts? How could you arrive at the conclusion that I am identifying issues I wish Republicans had done more with? The last thing I want them to do is be more proactive.

Originally Posted by utah dan

I assume you mean "Republicans prefer Republicans to Democrats." But really? You really don't understand what this should be so? Go back and look at your original list and see whether you think any of the complaints you list (for the sake of argument lets assume they are authentic conservative complaints) arise from the GOP not being liberal enough. On your list, as well as in the reality I percieve, all of the complaints from the rank and file arise from the GOp not being conservative enough.

Yes, obviously a typo. If you feel you need to question whether your assumption is correct on this issue, I think we are really far apart from understanding each other. The phrase was inartfully worded as well. I was working on the assumption that you had actually read my other posts in the thread. The fact that you haven't explains a lot. If you are actually interested in my opinion on the topic, I would recommend reading my opinion instead of asking for what has already been provided.

Originally Posted by utahdan

I'm not sure I really believe it though. I think that Republican and Democrats are just alike in this respect: what our own party does annoys us, but what the other party may do frightens us. Then again, maybe it is necessary. The most I could bring myself to do is stay home.

So it looks like you agree with the underlying premise in this thread. Is the rest simply an attempt at being argumentative for argumentations sake?

Originally Posted by utahdan

I don't have any doubt that many Republicans are having mutinous feelings, I just think it is for other reasons. It will be interesting to see. If the Democrats were offering the Republican base, or even moderate Republicans for that matter, any kind of alternative we could stomach it might be different, but they aren't. At the end of the day I still think most of us pull the GOP lever.

What do you think the reasons are?

Originally Posted by utahdan

I know this is going to irritate you, but you've answered your own question again.

You need to read slower. You have indicated exactly what I said. And then you have gone on to repeat the question over and over. If anything, it is an instance of you answering your own question. I asked you why you continue to ask, recognizing you have purportedly given me an answer. But if it was the real answer, there wouldn't be much point in re-asking me, would there?

Originally Posted by utahdan

I know. I just don't believe you. It's interenet land and people can say whatever they want. Sorry.

Interesting, though, is your comment that you percieve that some conservatives don't understand the full import of that constitutional protection. I would have said if asked that it is liberals who fail to understand the very limited import of its removal. All a matter of perspective I suppose.

True- it is internet land. But people can say whatever they want in non-internet land too. Believe what you want. The truth of the matter exists independently of your belief.

You misunderstand my argument with conservatives not understanding implications of constitutional protection. Many conservatives I have spoken with have wondered why Congress hasn't done more to regulate abortion. They don't understand that Congress must operate within the constitutional framework that the Supreme Court has established. They act as if Congress can simply overrule the Court. I can't even count how many people argued that Congress should just follow the lead of the state (I think it was Montana) that outlawed abortion completely. They don't understand it doesn't work like that.

Originally Posted by utahdan

I agree on the two camp theory, though I think these are tendancies rather than discreet groups. I feel both tendancies. I can grant that fiscal irresponsibility and the borders trouble me, but you know by now that the rest don't. If I'm perfectly honest, I think that congressional republicans by and large are where I would want them to be on those to issues but have compromised with the President who is not where I want him on those issues.

This sounds like an acknowledgment that you are out of step with much of the party (the religious faction). Wasn't that your issue with me earlier?

Originally Posted by utahdan

Lastly, I won't see your response until next Wednesday, so if you care about me seeing it, you may have to boardmail it to me. I probably will have forgetton about this by then.

It certainly is forgettable!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think you need to step back and recognize what you are suggesting here.

None of your questions nor analysis make sense.

You ask why Reps are not in open rebellion. That assumes you know what Reps want. Now I don't claim to know entirely, as I'm not in touch with the "religious, single issue component" but more in touch with the economic component.

You have yet to acknowledge it is perfectly pragmatic for the economic reasons to prefer those guys who, through the political machine, have slowed down as opposed to those of the Left who would destroy our economics.

What is so unreasonable about that? You haven't even acknowledge the pragmatism of that.

Furthermore, you've falied to recognize, Reps may becoming pragmatic, not dogmatic. Better a devil we know than one we don't. Conservative also means cautious. Most of us don't want "government solutions" which are actually problems waiting to burden us.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

None of your questions nor analysis make sense.

You ask why Reps are not in open rebellion. That assumes you know what Reps want. Now I don't claim to know entirely, as I'm not in touch with the "religious, single issue component" but more in touch with the economic component.

You have yet to acknowledge it is perfectly pragmatic for the economic reasons to prefer those guys who, through the political machine, have slowed down as opposed to those of the Left who would destroy our economics.

What is so unreasonable about that? You haven't even acknowledge the pragmatism of that.

Furthermore, you've falied to recognize, Reps may becoming pragmatic, not dogmatic. Better a devil we know than one we don't. Conservative also means cautious. Most of us don't want "government solutions" which are actually problems waiting to burden us.

Here is why I disagree. You have a Republican president. He isn't going to allow Democrats to do what they want to do in Congress. What are you afraid of Democrats accomplishing? Do you think they will have a 2/3 majority in both houses to override a veto?

The worst that would happen for a Republican would be the absence of any meaningful legislation for a two year period. In the interim, a clear message would have been sent to the party that the base won't tolerate the ineptitude that was portrayed in this Congress. The end result ideally for Republicans would be a new slate of candidates in 2008 whose values are more closely aligned with the base (as I mentioned happened to put Reagan in power and to put the '94 Congress into power).

Your analysis assumes Democrats would do more harm to your interests than maintaining the current regime would. I fail to see how. The current regime could lose Republicans the White House and the Congress in 2008. Is it worth it to keep these guys in power now?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Here is why I disagree. You have a Republican president. He isn't going to allow Democrats to do what they want to do in Congress. What are you afraid of Democrats accomplishing? Do you think they will have a 2/3 majority in both houses to override a veto?

The worst that would happen for a Republican would be the absence of any meaningful legislation for a two year period. In the interim, a clear message would have been sent to the party that the base won't tolerate the ineptitude that was portrayed in this Congress. The end result ideally for Republicans would be a new slate of candidates in 2008 whose values are more closely aligned with the base (as I mentioned happened to put Reagan in power and to put the '94 Congress into power).

Your analysis assumes Democrats would do more harm to your interests than maintaining the current regime would. I fail to see how. The current regime could lose Republicans the White House and the Congress in 2008. Is it worth it to keep these guys in power now?

Here is the difference, Reps "could" lose, but the Dems "will" definitely harm our interests. Every Democrat President tax rates, a direct frontal assault on all Reps hold dear. That one threat is worth keeping even a marginal President. You fail to understand how damning raises income taxes, raising taxes whatsoever.

This is where Democrats cannot understand the Republican psyche. All Democrats raise taxes, regardless. That certainty damns every Democrat for most Republicans. Republicans, in the old days, would almost rise up in open rebellion simply on that principle. Increasing and creating a progressive income tax is soo offensive, I can see pure hate for anybody willing to do that.

There is no tax reduction friendly Democrat. For some reason, that is something you cannot understand. All other things are subservient to that fundamental principle.

Abortion be damned.

Borders be damned.

All other things be damned. Or at least that's the originating point of view. Because government committed to low taxes musst also be committed to limited government. If you know your revenues will be limited, you will seek limited intervention in the lives of your citizens and to provide limited services. Democratic platform will always be an anathema to this, due to the promise of promising everything to everybody.

Minimal government, reduced regulation except where essential. Strong military but not to the point of ridiculousness.

Abortion is just an emotional issue. I would trade gay marriage, so long as no benefits for the partners would be transferred, for reduced taxes.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Here is the difference, Reps "could" lose, but the Dems "will" definitely harm our interests. Every Democrat President tax rates, a direct frontal assault on all Reps hold dear. That one threat is worth keeping even a marginal President. You fail to understand how damning raises income taxes, raising taxes whatsoever.

This is where Democrats cannot understand the Republican psyche. All Democrats raise taxes, regardless. That certainty damns every Democrat for most Republicans. Republicans, in the old days, would almost rise up in open rebellion simply on that principle. Increasing and creating a progressive income tax is soo offensive, I can see pure hate for anybody willing to do that.

There is no tax reduction friendly Democrat. For some reason, that is something you cannot understand. All other things are subservient to that fundamental principle.

Abortion be damned.

Borders be damned.

All other things be damned. Or at least that's the originating point of view. Because government committed to low taxes musst also be committed to limited government. If you know your revenues will be limited, you will seek limited intervention in the lives of your citizens and to provide limited services. Democratic platform will always be an anathema to this, due to the promise of promising everything to everybody.

Minimal government, reduced regulation except where essential. Strong military but not to the point of ridiculousness.

Abortion is just an emotional issue. I would trade gay marriage, so long as no benefits for the partners would be transferred, for reduced taxes.

Again- explain how Democrats "will" harm your interests if they win this election? Wouldn't Bush veto any attempt to raise taxes? You refer to a Democratic president. That isn't the issue. We are in 2006, not 2008.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Again- explain how Democrats "will" harm your interests if they win this election? Wouldn't Bush veto any attempt to raise taxes? You refer to a Democratic president. That isn't the issue. We are in 2006, not 2008.

Bush, like Clinton, craves popularity. A Democratic Congress will put together even bigger spending packages, probably expanding Medicare Part C. Bush would be unlikely to veto spending packages.

A Democratic Congress would render it impossible to get any competent judicial appointment.

A Democratic Congress might ultimately become a stalemate, but, actually, I don't trust Bush, as he acts too much like a Democrat, and with a Democratic Congress, it might be the final nail in our economic coffin, or in our liberties.

[Cali Coug]

A great article exactly along the lines of what I was discussing here (probably why I think the article is great!).

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/23/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

[Detroitdad]

Fortunately for the Dems they probably will not take either of the two houses, but they will gain seats in both. This election year stinks and I am hoping that the Dems will win in some key races, but that they do not quite get over the hump.