GOP 'Lost Its Reaganite Soul,' Conservatives Say

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
GOP 'Lost Its Reaganite Soul,' Conservatives Say
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200611/CUL20061108e.html

(CNSNews.com) - Republicans lost control of the U.S. House of Representatives, and possibly the U.S. Senate, in midterm elections Tuesday because the party "lost its Reaganite soul," according to conservative leaders reacting to the results.

Brent Bozell, the executive director of the Conservative Victory Fund, criticized Republican congressional leadership for abandoning the values advanced by the late former President Ronald Reagan.

"The Republican Party has lost, slowly but surely, its Reaganite soul," Bozell said at a news conference in Washington, D.C. But, he added, "If conservatives go back to their roots ... I think all will be well."

Bozell is also the founder and president of the Media Research Center, the parent organization of Cybercast News Service.

David Bossie, president of the conservative group Citizens United, echoed Bozell's analysis that Republicans lost because they abandoned what he called a "core set of conservative, common sense principles that guided President Reagan and the conservative movement he so effectively led."

Bossie listed limiting government size, controlling spending, cutting taxes, deregulation of markets and promoting traditional family values as staples of conservative ideology that have been left behind by Republican leaders.

"One thing we have found in yesterday's results is, if you're going to be elected as a conservative, govern as a conservative," Bossie said, adding that Republicans must now regain the trust of conservative voters.

"It's time for conservatives to return to Reagan's roots," he said, warning Republicans who remain in Congress to not sign on to "enormously bad legislation" in the name of bipartisanship.

Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, added to the criticism, accusing Republicans of pretending to care about conservative issues like confirming conservative judges and the federal marriage amendment in the last two years.

She said Tuesday's elections showed Republicans that, "You can't just take the [conservative] voters for granted." She encouraged Republicans and conservative Democrats to focus on issues like defining marriage as between a man and a woman and strengthening immigration laws if they hope to get conservative support in 2008.
 
Republicans lost control of the U.S. House of Representatives, and possibly the U.S. Senate, in midterm elections Tuesday because the party "lost its Reaganite soul," according to conservative leaders reacting to the results.
I have been saying that since the Terry Shiavo debacle

The Republican politicians lost touch with their base and squandered a lot of the "political capitol"

The Liberal Democrats kept their base by being as baseless as they have always been and appealing to the ever growing ignorance and complacency of the American public.

If you want to keep the support of the thinkers in society you have to make them think that you are capable of thinking.
 
According to the numbers I've been reading the number of religious republicans (value-voters) who voted republican in this mid-term actually increased.

Defying predictions of widespread disillusionment, white evangelical and born-again Christians did not desert Republican Congressional candidates and they did not stay home, nationwide exit polls show.

When it came to turnout, white evangelicals and born-again Christians made up about 24 percent of those who voted, compared with 23 percent in the 2004 election.

From the "evil" NYT.

It would be difficult to argue that Wendy Wright is talking about anything other than religious republicans.
 
Smaller govt, less regulation, and lower taxes are easy to sell regardless of other social issues.
 
Republicans lost control of the U.S. House of Representatives, and possibly the U.S. Senate, in midterm elections Tuesday because the party "lost its Reaganite soul,"

That's ironic, coming from a puritanical busybody like Bozell.
 
I am not a religious right Republican and I think that the Republican Party, in soliciting the religious right, by proposing to inhibit various liberties, ultimately hurt the Republican Party pretty bad. I don’t care for gay agendas or abortion but I understand that there are those issues that are best handled within ones’ church and within ones’ relationship with God and that those same issues are not for Caesar so to speak.

I see police troops dressed in black armor kicking in some college girl’s dorm room door to enforce some social moral issue as a bigger evil to whatever social moral issue is involved.

It seems to me that I was given two choices this election: Do I go with political Brand X who wants to take away my freedoms A, B and C? Or do I go with political Brand Y who also wants to take away my freedoms C, as well as D, and E? I lose either way.
 
According to the numbers I've been reading the number of religious republicans (value-voters) who voted republican in this mid-term actually increased.

Yes, but I'd like to look a little deeper. The "Values Voters" voted for Republicans because they know that they have no place in the Democrat party.

The Non-Religious Conservatives, ("Valueless Voters?" :neener: just kiddin'), those Conservative driven by more that just a single moral national issues such as abortion and the like, were pretty much split. They voted for conservative candidates and conservative issues but just not Republican. Why? Because Republicans stopped being Conservative. The "Valueless" (again, I kid) split their vote out of hopes that there is still a place in the Democrat Party for Conservatism and something approaching morals. I hope they are correct in the long run. But in the near term... Not gonna happen. But what choice did the Republican’s give them in this election? None. Open Borders, Government giveaways, spineless leadership, Scandals, and not attacking liberal scandals; these are ALL moral issues to some extent just not banner issues like abortion, euthanatize, cloning and stem cells. The “Valueless voters” said, “well, maybe these other guys have a chance of cleaning up this mess?”

In the end, most Conservatives are moral individuals who don’t want to see the Country go to hell in a hand basket. They’ll vote for a moral candidate (read new un tested Dem) over an immoral one (read Rep that broke his word and DID NOT push for conservative issues). It’s Ironic that “Values voters” held their nose and voted for Reps even though they knew they were not want the wanted.

So basically “Valueless voters” voted for the Conservative candidate while “Values voters” voted for the Conservative ideal and against Liberal leadership. Can’t fault either one really.

What this all means is that Liberals have the run of the place for a good long while now and it's gonna be a bitter long fight for 2A groups barring a miracle.
 
I agree that the Republicans have strayed from their traditional roots, but I also believe that Americans as a whole are much more moderate than most Republicans. In effect most people would rather vote for a moderate Democrat than a Conservative Republican. Remember Reagan was not a traditional religious Republican he was a moderate conservative who succed in winning over many traditional Democrats because of his domestic anti-big government agenda. The more the Republicans move to the right the more they will alienate the Moderates in both parties.
 
I agree with you arthurcw.

The article implies that "the Reaganite soul" of the Republican party is synonomous with those who want to "defin(e) marriage as between a man and a woman," I think that is dead wrong and the fact that the number of "value-voters" that voted Republican actually increased tells me that it is dead wrong. The majority of value-voters voted for Republicans and the Republicans still lost.

The "Reaganite soul" of the Rep party must consist of something other than "value-voters."

That is a whole slew of quotation marks, and now my pinkie is tired.
 
I don't get this "Reganite soul" idea. I like what Reagan claimed he believed but in reality he was a wanton, out-of-control spender. Is that part of being a Republican? Claiming fiscal responsibility and small government but spending like a drunk Democrat?
 
The "Reaganite soul" of the Rep party must consist of something other than "value-voters."

Yes. Reagan inspired people with a message of limited government, more of our earnings staying with us to spend as we wished, and the US as a beacon of liberty.

Whether or not he was able -- with enormous opposition in Congress -- to be the perfect Goldwater Republican is irrelevant. It was the message that attracted people and inspired people, and did bring change that we are still seeing (e.g. Democrats talking about taxation like it actually impacts individuals and businesses, rather than like it's just magic money from the sky).

Reagan brought libertarians into the fold. Some of them were religious -- many individualists are people of faith -- some weren't. It's wrong to believe that Reagan's appeal as an alternative to collectivist policies at home and abroad was based on big government and the Religious Right; that's the problem NOW. The stupid "family values" motto came along after Reagan, and its proponents tried to hang it on him, because he'd been popular.
 
To be fair, Reagan had the Cold War to fight. Ironically, it was Bill Clinton who ended up carrying forward many of Reagan's projects. Albeit with Newt's spear in his back :D GW has completely lost track of this legacy. It's one thing to spend in the WOT for overseas conflicts, but quite another to add huge new branches to the federal government. Reagan tried to axe the Dept. of Education. GW has pumped it up to enormous size and still tries as hard as possible to federalize primary schools. He's barely a conservative.

The "values voters" seem to be interested only in using the federal powers to impose their moral beliefs on the rest of us, which is every bit as bad as the Dems trying to push their socialism down our gullets. For once I'd like a federal government that left us alone. But unfortunately it's probably not going to shrink until the Social Security debacle hits the fan and they can't pay the bills. This is why GW and his Democratic allies are pushing so hard to bring in as many Mexicans as possible. Like any good pyramid scheme, it must have more and more new members at the base of the pyramid to make it work.
 
The "values voters" seem to be interested only in using the federal powers to impose their moral beliefs on the rest of us, which is every bit as bad as the Dems trying to push their socialism down our gullets.

Well, not having easy access to porn would be a lot CHEAPER for a lot of us than the Dems' socialism would be.

So even though I oppose the values nazi agenda, it's still better than the values bolshevik agenda, if only because it's cheaper, and with that extra cash I can buy porn on the black market if I really want it, or I can buy ammo.
 
LGN,

You have to remember 2 things. Regan did what he did with a Democrat Congress for the most part. He forced a bunch of Cod Liver Oil down their throats but still had to render the Quid Pro Quo.

His goals were never met fully mainly because he had to deal with the reality of our political system. There was a bunch of back room ranging that lead to much of the domestic spending.

He also was not going to stop spending on the military. He as going to spend the USSR into the grave, and did.

Second thing; As much as I respected and loved Regan the man, he is now not just Regan the man... he is REGAN THE MYTH. The Myth has been redone a bit over the years. The Myth is based on what he wanted to accomplish more than all the things he did accomplish.
I'm not diminishing his accomplishments, not the least of which is the toppling of the USSR. What I'm saying is he never did all of what he wanted to. No one political leader can. He left a legacy, a movement, that he expected others to follow and continue. Bush 41 did not. The '94 Republicans did. Bush 43 did not. As a consequence of "W" not continuing the Regan ideals, neither did the Congressional Republicans, many of which were in the freshman class of '94. They (Congressional Republicans) would have been forced to go against their Party leader.

In my opinion, Regan Conservatism officially died before the '02 elections it just took 4 more years for the people to realize it and revolt en mass. The sad part is that it's gonna take that long (or longer) for those who voted for these "Conservative" Democrats to realize that they are not allowed to be conservative either by there part leadership.

So the BIG question is who figures it out first? Reps or Dems? Which party kicks the snot of its leadership first and returns to a REAL conservative agenda. My bet is the Republicans. But I will jump ship in a heart beat if in 4 years the Conservative Dems get enough clout to bump off their liberal leadership.

I am Republican because I am Conservative. I will always be Conservative... but the party affiliation is up for negotiation should the Dems give me a reason. And If I, a Republican since I was 10 (nope... I'm not exaggerating) can envision a possibility of voting Democrat, albeit remote; I can't fault those who did this election even though I think they were wrong in the long run.
 
Screw that. Isn't there some forbidden, necromantic ritual we could use to resurrect Eisenhower?
First you must beseech the ghosts of the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and Iran for permission to proceed

Evangelicals and the NRA are not the Republican base.
They are the Republican face

The NRA and the evangelicals are credited with winning the election for the last round of Republicans
If all the Christian rightists and every member of the NRA had voted the and all the the average God fearing family oriented conservative voters had stayed home we would be crawling around in the mud hunting with our trusty side by sides.
 
I like everything the artical mentions except the 'family values' crap, This is one of the biggest problems with the republican party imo, for every religious nut who wants to ban gay marrige, or abortion, there is one swing voter who would just as soon the government stay the heck out of people's personal lives. Republicans would be wise to drop the anti-science stance too, evolutionary theory and stem cell research are facts of modern life, I have no problem with religious people practicing on their own, but i'd prefer they keep their antiquted beliefs out of classroom instruction and medical research.
A majority of voting americans are NOT neo-con religious zealots as evidenced by the last ellection.
 
cmb, look out for propaganda.

The only thing that Bush vetoed was using Federal tax money for embryonic stem cell research, which a large number of Americans oppose on moral grounds.

It was not banned.

While Bush himself may have done it on religious grounds, the position is a de facto libertarian one: don't use my tax dollars to fund something I think is wrong, but don't stop someone else from funding what they want to fund.
 
ArmedBear took the words right out of my keyboard.

Stem cell research (of any kind) is not banned, as the Democrat ads would have you believe. If Bush had fought against spending tax money on a lot more things, ...
 
Henry Bowman said:
Stem cell research (of any kind) is not banned, as the Democrat ads would have you believe. If Bush had fought against spending tax money on a lot more things, ...

Ha! If the GOVERNMENT can't do it on taxpayer's money, the Democrats consider it banned. You all know that while private enterprise is inefficient, bungling, incompetant, greedy, undependable, the government, OTOH, is a shining example of efficiency, wonder, dependability, intelligence, genius, etc, etc.....just like during Katrina. WHOOPS! Who said that????????:fire: :D :p

Yeah, the repubs blew it -- big time. The Reagan era is dead. Arthurcw made some good points about Reagan, I won't rehash them here except to say, yes, he did not accomplish everything he wanted, and I was surprised at how honest he could be about it. He got on TV and said he did NOT succeed in shrinking govt., but he did carefully explain he HAD curbed it's rate of growth.

arthurcw said:
And If I, a Republican since I was 10 (nope... I'm not exaggerating) can envision a possibility of voting Democrat, albeit remote; I can't fault those who did this election even though I think they were wrong in the long run.

Well, here in north Alabama, I was facing a vote for conservative Democrat Bud Cramer...or nothing. He ran unopposed by ANY repub! He's kept his mitts off my guns, and been good for N. Alabama, so yeah, I did vote for him.
He's the only D I voted for though.
I hope the republicans learn the right lesson from this...like George Armstrong Custer, they're awful good at learning the wrong lessons, though....:uhoh: :eek:
 
I think you misunderstood me, I never claimed they banned stem cell research, But I do take exception with their religious nut approach when dealing with bills concerning SC research and evolutionary theory in the classroom.

Opposing a bill on the grounds of monetary concerns is one thing, citing religious reasoning is quite another.
 
What???? Reagan was big government anti liberties GOP. The size and spending of the feds blossomed under Reagan, and let's not forget blackmailing the state to raise the drinking age to 21, the whole War on Drugs thing, and his love of censorship

If any thing can be said of Bush is that he topped Reagan at Reagan’s own game
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top