GatewayRedbirds.com

jim wrote:I was so mad at McCain for stirring this up

It disturbs me that it's so easy to stir this up. Just right under the surface, apparently.

docellis wrote:

greenback44 wrote:

Hungary Jack wrote:

Christopher Buckley wrote:While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

+

My only contention is that it actually all got started in 1992 when George H Bush intoned "family values" in his nasal dweeby voice. The conservative party has been neither ever since.

It goes back at least to 1980, when Reagan started his post-convention campaign, in Philadelphia, Mississippi, of all places, by intoning his support for "states' rights."

are you guys suggesting that the GOP started pandering to...well, what would you define this group as? This "Family Values", "States Rights", more rural, hawkish group? Or are you suggesting that people like H Bush and Reagan agreed with these types of sentiments and weren't pandering? (I guess it doesn't really matter if they agreed or not)

White people.

edit -

docellis wrote:

greenback44 wrote:

Hungary Jack wrote:

Christopher Buckley wrote:While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

+

My only contention is that it actually all got started in 1992 when George H Bush intoned "family values" in his nasal dweeby voice. The conservative party has been neither ever since.

It goes back at least to 1980, when Reagan started his post-convention campaign, in Philadelphia, Mississippi, of all places, by intoning his support for "states' rights."

are you guys suggesting that the GOP started pandering to...well, what would you define this group as? This "Family Values", "States Rights", more rural, hawkish group? Or are you suggesting that people like H Bush and Reagan agreed with these types of sentiments and weren't pandering? (I guess it doesn't really matter if they agreed or not)

It probably did start with Reagan, but I was too busy chasing girls and drinking beer to care.

I don't know if Reagan or Bush the Elder were evangelicals, but my suspicion is that they were not. But my understanding is that Reagan pursued several policies that could be construed as "legislating morality." Bush, IIRC, did not show as much interest, but come convention time, with the economy not doing so well, he needed something to fire up the base.

McCain is below 40% in the NYT poll. Huge, huge, huge, huge.

pop_haines wrote:

docellis wrote: are you guys suggesting that the GOP started pandering to...well, what would you define this group as? This "Family Values", "States Rights", more rural, hawkish group? Or are you suggesting that people like H Bush and Reagan agreed with these types of sentiments and weren't pandering? (I guess it doesn't really matter if they agreed or not)

I surmised that they pandered the heck out of it, although my conservative
sistren and brethren may disagree. Or may not; and more power to 'em.

See Nixon: Southern Strategy (circa 1968) The first great schism

See Quayle: Family Values Conservatism (circa 1992) The second great schism and the
official declaration of the Culture War.

Read up and then we can discuss on the board or via PM. Makes no diff to me.

I've studied political science for over 30 years and it's been an interesting and
depressing ride for most of that time.

I concur with Pop's synopsis, though there's obviously a lot more to it. The book "What's the Matter with Kansas" is the definitive history book on this movement - the marriage of the plutocrat free market conservatives to the theocratic moral conservatives -the melding of two groups who's value systems would apparantly be opposed. Reagan would be in the former group of plutocrat conservatives, as would John McCain, though he's made well-publicized dysfunctional attempts to pander to theocratic conservatives
In the quest fo power as the saying goes - politics makes odd bedfellows.

docellis wrote:Where do people get the yard signs with candidates names on them?

When I was in Missouri last week a guy from the local Republican HQ knocked on the door and asked to put up a McCain/Palin sign. I approved because I knew my mom would be in favor of it. But I think her having signs for other local republican candidates may have played a role.

Obama Explains His Tax Cut Plans To Plumbing Business Owner

[/youtube]

cardsfansince82 wrote:

docellis wrote:Where do people get the yard signs with candidates names on them?

When I was in Missouri last week a guy from the local Republican HQ knocked on the door and asked to put up a McCain/Palin sign. I approved because I knew my mom would be in favor of it. But I think her having signs for other local republican candidates may have played a role.

My neighbor does the same thing with signs-for all the democrats up for office.

The parties could save a lot of money and clutter if they each made a sign say "VOTE FOR ALL REPUBLICANS" or "VOTE FOR ALL DEMOCRATS". It sends the same message. Reusable for the next election season.

Roger and Pop got it right -- once the marriage of laissez-faire capitalism wedded the culture crowd, Republicans became a force. And now Americans who are more pragmatic are being turned off.

The GOP looks like it is headed for a split. There were will be the party of hardcore wingers and then there will be a more moderate party. Eventually, the party of George W. Bush and Karl Rove will dissipate everywhere but places like Oklahoma, Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. No "Contract With America" is going to save the GOP this time.

Jocephus wrote:

Obama Explains His Tax Cut Plans To Plumbing Business Owner

[/youtube]

Selling higher taxes to someone is like selling a beer-free diet to a Bavarian.

In the video, Obama says he won't raise taxes on "revenues" below $250k. I am sure he must have meant income/profits below $250k, right?