Conservatives?

[keeblercrumb]

I am a little confused (and amused) by the Republicans eating their young (errrr old) here.... I have seen repeated references here and elsewhere to "real" conservatives, etc..

But I am struggling with this..... Just WHO gets to define what a "real" conservative is and what are the litmus test issues used for the conservative dogma? Is it Rush? If you do not agree with everything HE says you are not a REAL conservative?

Us Liberals do not have that problem. If there is a Liberal created dogma full of yes/no issues, I am not aware of it and certainly would not doggedly follow it if it did. Most of us happily ignore "litmus" tests and attempt to simply look at each issue on it's own merits.... If there is a common theme.... it is just that... a "theme".... (The late Phil Ochs said a liberal is "Someone 10 degrees to the left in good times and 10 degrees to the right when it effects them personally" But again... it is a "theme", not a list of issues.)

My working "theme" is that we should seek to improve the freedom and well-being of ourselves and everyone else in the world. That sound vague? It is, but that is what we "Liberals" do.... I cannot recall anybody castigating anyone else for not being a “real” liberal…. At least for the last 50 years or so….

Obviously, any definition of a Liberal provided by "conservatives" is utterly irrelevant.. so don't bother. Really. I am not interested.

So this is a serious inquiry is directed to those who ascribe to being a "real" conservative.... What or Who gets to make this list of issues up? Such that McCain, for instance, somehow does not qualify but Romney does....

I am also not looking for slams on Conservatives here, either... so save your Liberal/Independent/Democrat ridicule, however well deserved, for another thread. Please.

-KC

 

[Boxlicker101]

It has always been my understanding that a "conservative", in the USA anyhow, was a person who wanted to take a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. A C. might say "Freedom of speech is words. Burning a flag is not speech, it is acts, and can be outlawed." Or: "Freedom of the press means newspapers. TV is not newspapers, so freedom of the press does not apply there.

Liberals believe it is open to very broad, or liberal interpretation, especially such vague things as "Equal protection". Personally, I am more of a liberal, although I think they go too far. Maybe I'm a libertarian.

 

[keeblercrumb]

It has always been my understanding that a "conservative", in the USA anyhow, was a person who wanted to take a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. A C. might say "Freedom of speech is words. Burning a flag is not speech, it is acts, and can be outlawed." Or: "Freedom of the press means newspapers. TV is not newspapers, so freedom of the press does not apply there.

Liberals believe it is open to very broad, or liberal interpretation, especially such vague things as "Equal protection". Personally, I am more of a liberal, although I think they go too far. Maybe I'm a libertarian.

I understand... but you are discussing "themes"..... From the barrage of the last couple of weeks against McCain, as well as numerous posts even here, there is being asserted a litmus test of issues that McCain does not, apparently, entirely support, therefore he cannot be a "real" conservative.

So.... again to conservatives (And ONLY conservatives this time, to paraphrase My Cousin Vinny) Who or what gets to decide on this list of issues?

-KC

 

[Pure]

conservative:

it seems there are several kinds:

small government economic conservative--wants 'minimum government' and maximum latitude for entrepreneurs and those seeking a profit without committing fraud; this would imply the lowest level of taxation. SOMETIMES this type also believes in "libertarian" ideas, e.g. that the government should not try to go into moral areas, like prostitution, dope, and porn. SOMETIMES this type also believes in maintaining, in peacetime, a SMALL ARMY only, e.g. to deal with invasion threats.

economic conservative, 20th century variety--believes government should be medium sized and have low taxes, but should be friendly to--e.g. stimulate, aid-- business, and generally defer to it; and government should be run like a busines, e.g balanced budget.

social conservative--two extremes, tolerant and intolerant
--believes in some standard list of 'traditional values,' e.g 'pro family.'
also against 'rights' for homosexuals, rights to abortion, etc. how far they will go with government efforts to promote 'virtue,' e.g impose criminal penalties against immoral behavior, varies; some are tolerant.


military might conservative; wants a mighty defence establishment, as a main area of government spending. large and technologically superior armed forces. sometimes this type of conservative is a vehement 'super patriot.' there are differences as to how often to use this might (in foreign, or overseas areas), see 'neo conservative.'

neo-conservative, e.g. imperial conservative (subvariety of military might conservative) believes US should routinely flex its muscle in the international scene, use its preeminent power--sometimes with men on the ground-- to advance morality and democracy--aka US interests (e.g. obtaining control of oil in Iraq)

paleo conservative seems to be a mix of small gov economic conservative and social conservative.

'wet' or pink conservative ('red tory') is an economic conservative, 20th century type--e.g in Canada or UK--who wants government--for the sake of businesses--to have certain 'social welfare' functions, e.g unemployment insurance, old age benefits.

---

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

conservative 'answer' and challenge to wikipedia, with its liberal leanings:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservatism

 

[keeblercrumb]

it seems there are several kinds:

small government economic conservative--wants 'minimum government' and maximum latitutde for entrepreneurs and those seeking a profit without committing fraud; this would imply the lowest level of taxation. SOMETIMES this type also believes in "libertarian" ideas, e.g. that the government should not try to go into moral areas, like prostitution, dope, and porn. SOMETIMES this type also believes in maintaining a SMALL ARMY only, e.g. to deal with invasion threats.

economic conservative, 20th century variety--believes government medium sized, but should be friendly to business, and generally defer to it; and government should be run like a busines, e.g balanced budget.

social conservative--two extremes, tolerant and intolerant
--believes in some standard list of 'traditional values,' e.g 'pro family.'
also against 'rights' for homosexuals, rights to abortion, etc. how far they will go with criminal penalities varies; some are tolerant.


military might conservative; wants a mighty defence establishment, as a main area of governement spending. large and technologically superior armed forces. sometimes this type of conservative is a vehement 'super patriot.' there are differences as to how often to use this might, see 'neo conservative.'

neo-conservative, e.g. imperial conservative, believes US should routinely flex its muscle in the international scene, use its preeminent power--sometimes with men on the ground-- to advance morality and democracy--aka US interests (e.g. obtaining control of oil in Iraq)

paleo conservative seems to be a mix of small gov ecnomic conservative and social conservative.

'wet' or pink conservative ('red tory') is an economic conservative, 20th century type .who wants governemnt--for the sake of businesses--to have certain 'social welfare' functions, e.g unemployment insurance, old age benefits.

So you are saying that YOU get to decide what a "real" conservative is?

I appreciate your input.... AND I do appreciate the latest list of flavors for conservatives and some pretty good "working" definitions of a general nature for them, but (no offense) I am pretty sure the "conservatives" even here would not vote for you to be either their spokesmen or the one to "define" them..

But somebody is...... Again, numerous pundits and posters here have asserted that John McCain is not a "real" conservative because he does not agree with a number of specific issues.... Who gets to make this list up of "real" issues are for a "conservative"?


-KC

 

[keeblercrumb]

Apparently "conservatives" are like cops, you can never find one when you need them.




-KC

 

[Pure]

i don't personally think you have to be a conservative to give a defintion of the term, any more than you have to be Islamic, to define, generally, Islamic religion.

i think my defs are reasonably fair.

but good luck in finding 'conservative' input. maybe rox will turn up

 

[amicus]

KC...Had you listened to McCain speech to CPAC today, or you can most likely google it up and read, you would have an understanding of what Conservative means by definition.

Basically, to be a 'true' Conservative, means to be one who is a strict Constitutionalist, that is to say, one who abides by the letter and spirit of the Original Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution.

In narrow terms, that means a small government that is, by the Constitution, limited to the enumerated powers, such as providing a military to defend the nation, a police force and court system to enforce order and resolve disputes.


Although it is almost unimaginable, government does not build roads, it mandates rights of way so that property owners may provide access to property. Government does not establish or provide education, it protects the rights of all to provide such education as they choose.

The same with religion, government does not endorse or support any form of religion, but acts to guarantee the rights of all to worship as they choose.

Not that you really wanted to know, but...there it is.

Amicus...

 

[keeblercrumb]

KC...Had you listened to McCain speech to CPAC today, or you can most likely google it up and read, you would have an understanding of what Conservative means by definition.

Basically, to be a 'true' Conservative, means to be one who is a strict Constitutionalist, that is to say, one who abides by the letter and spirit of the Original Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution.

In narrow terms, that means a small government that is, by the Constitution, limited to the enumerated powers, such as providing a military to defend the nation, a police force and court system to enforce order and resolve disputes.


Although it is almost unimaginable, government does not build roads, it mandates rights of way so that property owners may provide access to property. Government does not establish or provide education, it protects the rights of all to provide such education as they choose.

The same with religion, government does not endorse or support any form of religion, but acts to guarantee the rights of all to worship as they choose.

Not that you really wanted to know, but...there it is.

Amicus...

Well.... I do appreciate that.... but I guess I am missing something. It is curious that you suggest McCain's speech since he has been (and may continue to be) the target of this "not a real conservative" charge which many here (I don't recall off hand if you did... but I believe so.. ) have either voiced or agreed with..... in addition to the Talk Radio pundits...

And as it happens, I did watch Romney's speech in it's entirety.... (only the last minute of which was on his "suspension" and included a rather pointed attack on McCain other than on the war). The Clinton News Network to my disappointment broadcast both Romney and McCain speeches live and in their entirety... . This was complete with Republican pundits, etc.. doing their spin...

Unfortunately the McCain speech was well after my bed time here, but I gather he did pretty well despite a few boos.... but this is beside the point.

Is he a "real" conservative? Who gets to write the list of issues which qualifies one to being one? Surely you are not suggesting McCain decides these things.....

-KC

 

[Huckleman2000]

Sorry, I'm not a Conservative, but it seems the issues that McCain is getting beaten up over are simply instances where he didn't toe the Party line. He showed "weakness", which is the unforgivable sin for a Conservative Leader. Apparently, whomever is President (or VP, in Cheney's case) gets to decide, and anyone who demonstrates a willingness to form his own positions or listens to or makes any compromise with non-Conservatives is, therefore, a non-Conservative.

At the moment, no one seems able to define what a Conservative is, such that the coalition of interest groups that Pure provided a good definition of does not have a leader who can unite them. What we're witnessing is the fracturing of the Conservative coalition. A growing movement among Conservatives thinks that the best thing for them to do, given the current climate of voter dissatisfaction with Republican candidates, is to lose the election. They believe that, like Jimmy Carter before Ronald Reagan, 4 years of "liberal" rule will pave the way for a True Conservative leader to emerge. It's sort of a scorched-earth viewpoint, and that scares me since we have almost an entire year of Bush left.

[eta]: I might point out that it's the Iraq War which is probably the main reason for Conservative disarray. Since there's no way for a Conservative candidate to end it or win it somehow outright, the only way to rebuild the coalition is to have a Democratic administration end it. The hawks can then go back to their "We would have won Viet Nam/Iraq if it weren't for the Democrats" rantings and the Conservative coalition can reform, regain power, and conduct their wars in secret, like they're supposed to be.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Sorry, I'm not a Conservative, but it seems the issues that McCain is getting beaten up over are simply instances where he didn't toe the Party line. He showed "weakness", which is the unforgivable sin for a Conservative Leader. Apparently, whomever is President (or VP, in Cheney's case) gets to decide, and anyone who demonstrates a willingness to form his own positions or listens to or makes any compromise with non-Conservatives is, therefore, a non-Conservative.

At the moment, no one seems able to define what a Conservative is, such that the coalition of interest groups that Pure provided a good definition of does not have a leader who can unite them. What we're witnessing is the fracturing of the Conservative coalition. A growing movement among Conservatives thinks that the best thing for them to do, given the current climate of voter dissatisfaction with Republican candidates, is to lose the election. They believe that, like Jimmy Carter before Ronald Reagan, 4 years of "liberal" rule will pave the way for a True Conservative leader to emerge. It's sort of a scorched-earth viewpoint, and that scares me since we have almost an entire year of Bush left.

[eta]: I might point out that it's the Iraq War which is probably the main reason for Conservative disarray. Since there's no way for a Conservative candidate to end it or win it somehow outright, the only way to rebuild the coalition is to have a Democratic administration end it. The hawks can then go back to their "We would have won Viet Nam/Iraq if it weren't for the Democrats" rantings and the Conservative coalition can reform, regain power, and conduct their wars in secret, like they're supposed to be.

A tad cynical.... but I think you may be right..... And you are "spot on" about the party line thing.... He obviously didn't agree with Bush about several issues over the years..... But that drumbeat thing about being a "real" conservative..... continues....

There was a time when the party "platform" was a big deal within the parties... I am not sure the general public ever gave a rat's ass about it... but the party functionaries certainly did.... And as it was meant to establish the "party line", debates about particular issues were passionate and hard fought.

Nobody seemed to care about labels so much back then. You were a Republican if you wanted to be.. Presumably you agreed with most of the party's platform but nobody expected you to agree with all of it... "most" was a good standard. To be a "real" Republican, was primarily a function of how much support you gave the party and it's candidates and NOT having passed some litmus test.

But this is strange.... And despite the coverage and noise level of the assertions, very difficult to put your finger on.

In hindsight, perhaps this was not a fair question.... ("Who gets to define a conservative?) I think Amicus tried as did everyone else here... but I was sincerely NOT trying to find out what a conservative was, in 50 words or less...

I was trying to find out, if possible, who gets to define it in such detail that John McCain can be accused of not being one because he disagreed with either Bush or Mitt and Mike on specific issues.

Speaking of.... Whatever happened to Bush? I thought he was the poster child for being a conservative? Where and when did the wheels fall off of that train?

-KC

 

[rgraham666]

Speaking of.... Whatever happened to Bush? I thought he was the poster child for being a conservative? Where and when did the wheels fall off of that train?

-KC

I think it was around about when Katrina flattened New Orleans. A lot of people started to realize that the man was right out of his depth as President. And that his loyalty was to his class, not to America or most of the people living in it.

Also about that time people started to realize that the Republican promise of reduced spending was just that, a promise only.

There were a couple of good articles in The Economist in their Oct 1st to 7th 2005 issue on the subject. They're on line but you need to have 'premium' access to read them.

 

[kendo1]

Feb 8th, 1918 - The Stars and Stripes newspaper publishes for the first time.

 

[rgraham666]

That always makes me think of Bill Mauldin.

 

[Darkniciad]

Speaking of.... Whatever happened to Bush? I thought he was the poster child for being a conservative? Where and when did the wheels fall off of that train? -KC

Bush was never called a model of conservatism. He's always been criticised within the base on numerous issues: Failure to control spending (veto pen for 6 yrs?), immigration(same stance as McCain), entitlements(Medicaire Prescription Drug) and in some cases, Iraq(Nation Building)

His positions on National Defense, social issues, taxes, and justices were simply in line with the times for the base to support him despite the policies that the base didn't approve of.

Ronald Reagan is and always will be the model for conservatives, and even he isn't given a perfect scorecard (Amnesty for illegal immigrants for one).

McCain is getting thrown under the bus for the same sort of reasons that Lieberman was thrown under the bus on the other side. Personally, I'd like to see John pull the same hat trick Joe did and defy the screamers. He already has to some extent by securing the Republican nomination.

We now return you to the this is not a bashing thread-bashing thread, already in progress.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think a "Conservative" is pretty easy to nail down... generally, I think it has to do with fiscal stinginess, social traditionalness, small government, literal interpretations of the Constitution, and a general belief in personal freedoms and liberty over state authority.

I think "Liberal" is not so vague as it was proposed to be earlier in the thread--I think Dennis Kucinich is a great example of what liberal tends to mean... generally, its a comfort with state-sponsored "general welfare" (that part of the Constitution), social noncomformity, larger governmental authority, and the curtailing of personal freedoms and liberty for "common good".

McCain is not so good on conservative principles; and on the conservative platter of issues (immigration, abortion, cut spending, etc.) he's very compromised. Doesn't make him a bad person, just not a terribly good "conservative". He's a decent Republican, though.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Bush was never called a model of conservatism. He's always been criticised within the base on numerous issues: Failure to control spending (veto pen for 6 yrs?), immigration(same stance as McCain), entitlements(Medicaire Prescription Drug) and in some cases, Iraq(Nation Building)

His positions on National Defense, social issues, taxes, and justices were simply in line with the times for the base to support him despite the policies that the base didn't approve of.

Ronald Reagan is and always will be the model for conservatives, and even he isn't given a perfect scorecard (Amnesty for illegal immigrants for one).

McCain is getting thrown under the bus for the same sort of reasons that Lieberman was thrown under the bus on the other side. Personally, I'd like to see John pull the same hat trick Joe did and defy the screamers. He already has to some extent by securing the Republican nomination.

We now return you to the this is not a bashing thread-bashing thread, already in progress.

Hey... for one, I appreciate the answer..... And I am getting a clearer idea from several people what you consider to be a good conservative and just what it represents.... I also appreciate Joe's thoughtful response. I am certainly familiar with these definitions as well McCain’s transgressions.... kind of hard to miss in the media.

Given the reverence and consistency of the responses, it is clear conservatives have been reading from the same bible... nothing wrong with that, of course, myself coming from a political label "liberal" which much more closely resembles the proverbial herding of cats....the consistency has a certain appeal; liberals being typically hung up on the ever illusive "there must be a better way then to let 'em eat cake" school of thought.... and that is pretty unrestrictive….

A while ago, we used to have the ADA “rate” liberals…. I am not aware anybody actually paid any attention to it but it is close to what I am looking for here. .. mostly because who were they to decide if a “better idea” is better or not?

I find your reference to the "base" particularly interesting... and I think it is helping to clarify for me the McCain phenomenon..... But again... it is the confidence with which you (and others) can delineate with such consistency the specific "litmus" tests for conservative thought that I find most striking.

Which gets me back to my original question, albeit with some greater insight into the problem.... Who gets to establish the "conservative" issues?

An example... you refer to Reagan as the model except for "amnesty for illegal immigrants".... This is particularly telling observation as it is also seen as one of McCain's cardinal sins.....

But on what principal of conservatism was "amnesty for illegal immigrants" found to transgressing? If Reagan thought it was okay, why isn't it? Why isn't the test for being a conservative to be actually SUPPORTING amnesty for illegal immigrants under the basic "keep the government out of these problems and let the free market decide" principal... which "amnesty" more closely resembles than the other proposed solution.

National Defense I get.... but "conservative" used to be synonymous with isolationism..... we have certainly strayed a long way from home on that one. Now... a critical "litmus" test is SUPPORT of the war in Iraq......."Liberals" and/or Democrats used to be more closely associated with foregin adventurism...

Let me float another balloon...... Were I to say that Rush Limbaugh is 100% conservative (other than in the use of prescription painkillers which can only be called liberal) //NOTE: Sorry for that gratuitous, cheap shot, but I could not help it ///, would I be accurate? Does HE get to decide on what is "conservative"? Are there any issues where he falls down on? If so, who says he is wrong?

Again, from where does this consistency come? Who makes the rules on what and who is a considered "conservative"? Is it really Rush? Is he your “ADA”?

I am really not trying to delve into whether any of these "issues" are right, wrong or indifferent.. I am just trying to find out where they come from.....

-KC

 

[amicus]

Problem arises where and as it always does.

There is an objective, rational, and objective definition to 'Conservative', and you folks don't want that; you want a relativistic, flexible, changing definition that fits your life style.

The problem you have in understanding is the method you use, not the issue itself, which is always the case.

Conservatism, as with Classical Liberalism, are almost one and the same, but you cannot have it both ways and expect comprehension.

Unless....unless...you define your terms and adhere to those definitions as absolute and final and finite, not infinitely changing.

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

here's a link

the american conservative union[ http://www.conservative.org/about/default.asp ] rates those in congress. ratings, below, are based on key votes.

http://www.conservative.org/archive2/2008potus.asp

it's easy to see mccain is conservative by this test; hence the real 'charge' and violent gripe is over alleged disloyalty to the Chief and the Party.



statement of principles
http://www.conservative.org/about/principles.html

ACU's Statement of Principles

The following statement was adopted in December 1964.



• We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the best political charter yet created by men for governing themselves. It is our belief that the Constitution is designed to guarantee the free exercise of the inherent rights of the individual through strictly limiting the power of government.

We reaffirm our belief in the Declaration of Independence, and in particular the belief that our inherent rights are endowed by the Creator. We further believe that our liberties can remain secure only if government is so limited that it cannot infringe upon those rights.

• We believe that capitalism is the only economic system of our time that is compatible with political liberty. It has not only brought a higher standard of living to a greater number of people than any other economic system in the history of mankind; more important, it has been a decisive instrument in preserving freedom through maintaining private control of economic power and thus limiting the power of government.

• We believe that collectivism and capitalism are incompatible, and that when government competes with capitalism, it jeopardizes the natural economic growth of our society and the well-being and freedom of the citizenry.

• We believe that it is the responsibility of the individual citizen, whenever his inherent rights are threatened from within or without, to join together with other individuals to protect these rights, or, when they have been temporarily lost, to regain them.

• We believe that any responsible conservative organization must conduct itself within the framework of the Constitution; in pursuance of this belief we refuse to countenance any actions which conflict in any way with the traditions of the American political system.

• The American Conservative Union is created to realize these ends through the cooperation in responsible political action, of all Americans who cherish the principles upon which the Republic was founded.

• The American Conservative Union will welcome all Americans who are prepared to fight for the realization and preservation of these principles through political action at the local, state and national level.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There are established conservative principles that make it easy to compare deeds with.

You know, anyone can reconstruct the definition of words to mean whatever they want. Let's say I piss in a bottle and drop a string of rosary beads in the bottle. What I have is beads inside a bottle of urine, but I can call it "art."

1.First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

2.Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably.

3.Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. That is, precedent.

4.Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Be mindful of consequences.

5.Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. That is, real diversity of individuals and circumstances.

6.Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

7.Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.

8.Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

9.Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

 

[rgraham666]

• We believe that capitalism is the only economic system of our time that is compatible with political liberty. It has not only brought a higher standard of living to a greater number of people than any other economic system in the history of mankind; more important, it has been a decisive instrument in preserving freedom through maintaining private control of economic power and thus limiting the power of government.

http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

Capitalism doesn't like democracy at all. As my favourite writer puts it, "Capitalism was content under Hitler, happy under Mussolini, very happy under Franco and delirious under General Pinochet."

Here in the West capitalism was happiest when there was the least amount of democracy. In Britain before there was electoral reforms broke up the Rotten Borough system or most people had the vote for that matter. In the States capitalism was happiest when there was slavery, and later when a large portion of the working class was recent immigrants and so had no rights as citizens.

It's why capitalism loves doing business with China. There won't be any democracy there for a long time, if ever.

There is also the unspoken, and untrue, assumption that power in private hands is better than in public. Newsflash for you guys. They're the same people. Power is dangerous no matter who holds it. At least in a democracy we get some say. In the system these 'conservatives' propose a person will only be as important as their wealth. Which will fuck most of us up pretty bad.

http://bestsmileys.com/textinbubble1/11.gif

 

[3113]

Well, I'm no conservative, but hasn't one of the oldest, conservative definitions of a conservative in the U.S. been "More power to the states?" That is States rights over National government rights? The right of the state to decide if they're, oh, say, a slave state or not, or a dry state or not, or what laws on pornography or abortion or religion in school will be?

 

[oggbashan]

My view from the outside:

My definition of a Republican Conservative in the US is someone whose policies appeal to the right-wing of their Party. Such a candidate could never win votes from undecided voters, nor from disaffected Democrats.

Elections are won or lost by those who are closest to the centre ground. Candidates who appeal only to committed party members are unlikely to be elected when the whole US votes.

The Republican Party now has a candidate who can appeal beyond their own party even if some traditionalists within their own ranks are not happy.

The Democrat Party still has to decide between two candidates that are very close on policies and both lack appeal to many Republican waverers.

Unless the Democrat Party can come up with a compromise soon, they will be fighting among themselves while the Republicans consolidate behind their candidate.

Republicans should be relieved. Democrats should be worried.

But who am I to advise? I'm a long dead King living on the other side of the Atlantic.

 

[Huckleman2000]

My view from the outside:

My definition of a Republican Conservative in the US is someone whose policies appeal to the right-wing of their Party. Such a candidate could never win votes from undecided voters, nor from disaffected Democrats.

Elections are won or lost by those who are closest to the centre ground. Candidates who appeal only to committed party members are unlikely to be elected when the whole US votes.

The Republican Party now has a candidate who can appeal beyond their own party even if some traditionalists within their own ranks are not happy.

The Democrat Party still has to decide between two candidates that are very close on policies and both lack appeal to many Republican waverers.

Unless the Democrat Party can come up with a compromise soon, they will be fighting among themselves while the Republicans consolidate behind their candidate.

Republicans should be relieved. Democrats should be worried.

But who am I to advise? I'm a long dead King living on the other side of the Atlantic.

Although you wouldn't know it from some news organizations, the correct grammatical form is "Democratic" Party. Referring to it as the "Democrat" Party is a pejorative form promulgated by many on the Right, including the imbecile currently in the Oval Office.

[eta]: Of course, being an imbecile affords Bush the plausible deniability that he simply doesn't know any better. The fantasy that he does know better, but pretends otherwise simply to get in a dig at the opposition, gives the Right wing both amusement and further proof of the Leader's omniscience.

 

[Pure]

there was an interesting observation by a CNN commentator last night. he said that usually a candidate starts right or left and moves toward center--at least in his talk-- as elections approach.

mccain is clearly going to do the opposite. he HAS the centrist Repugs. he will be courting the far right conservatives, which as another poster has stated, are key in an Republican victory. maybe Huck can be a running mate and mccain can promise to appoint judges from a list furnished by Ann Coulter.

it would seem, however that this would NOT work that well; you can keep the right and move towards center, and the right will generally stay. if you do the opposite, it seems to me the center will go for Hillary or Obama, who aren't that far left anyway.