Maybe it is me, HOWEVER, as I listen and read the media concerning the current Supreme Court Nominee and other issues we face the conservative voices are very seldom if ever elected officials.

I suppose this means....

A. There are no voices to be heard in the Republican party among all the elected officials.

B. The media has decided that the Limbaughs, Gingerichs, etc make for better ratings than actual elected officials.

Am I not seeing something ?

Regarding A: Not many with guts to speak out loud.

Regarding B: They seem to be the only ones with the guts to speak out loud.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Regarding A: Not many with guts to speak out loud.

Regarding B: They seem to be the only ones with the guts to speak out loud.

There are plenty of conservatives that are speaking but the media does not pay them any attention.
Let me explain. The top democratic "brain trust" ( Carvalle and his ilk) has decided that according to the polls, Rush and Gingrich are not held in high regard across the land. They are riding on the theory that if they are the "face" of the GOP, the democrats will win. Period.
It is a calulated risk and I think they are on to something. If these guys are portrayed in people's minds as "blowhards" "bigots" or just plan "characters" carrying the GOP's water buckets....well...need I say more?
It doesn't matter that these two guys are genius's or not...when they "talk" people will not really stop to listen to them. That is what the Left is banking on.
The media can demonize an angel if it had to. They did it to Goldwater and they tried to do it to Reagan. They would beat on Ronnie as an old out of touch, senile geezer but he would come back and razzle and dazzle them with his wit and wisdom.
Where is the "next" Reagan?

Keedy

Originally Posted by Keedy

There are plenty of conservatives that are speaking but the media does not pay them any attention.
Let me explain. The top democratic "brain trust" ( Carvalle and his ilk) has decided that according to the polls, Rush and Gingrich are not held in high regard across the land. They are riding on the theory that if they are the "face" of the GOP, the democrats will win. Period.
It is a calulated risk and I think they are on to something. If these guys are portrayed in people's minds as "blowhards" "bigots" or just plan "characters" carrying the GOP's water buckets....well...need I say more?
It doesn't matter that these two guys are genius's or not...when they "talk" people will not really stop to listen to them. That is what the Left is banking on.
The media can demonize an angel if it had to. They did it to Goldwater and they tried to do it to Reagan. They would beat on Ronnie as an old out of touch, senile geezer but he would come back and razzle and dazzle them with his wit and wisdom.
Where is the "next" Reagan?

Keedy

Perhaps Colin Powell ???? That would be an interesting presidential race in 2012.

Originally Posted by MMC24

Perhaps Colin Powell ???? That would be an interesting presidential race in 2012.

Colin Powell???????? Isn't he a Democrat? He voted for Hussein Obama and Jimmy Carter too, I think. The GOP would be better off without that guy. IMHO.

Keedy

...if the rapidly declining number of "base" Republican conservatives continue to steer their ship to the hard right. There are some attractive ideas among those conservative core values, but not a broad enough or specific enough number of campaign planks to even begin to win 50% of the vote plus 1.

It's a simple matter of electoral arithmetic. Until the GOP begins to move more towards where the majority of Americans are, more center-right, they have no chance of winning very many elections.

The Democrats are probably clicking their heels each time proponents of the "hard right" make claims or allegations unacceptable to the majority of Americans who are closer to the "middle". The base GOP is killing itself and the two-party system along with it.

What's better? To for the GOP to move more to the center, win some elections and regain some political currency...or maintain strict adherence to largely unpopular hard right core values at the expense of becoming a weaker and weaker political force?

The answer seems pretty clear to me. I'd love to return to the days of a two-party system and the checks and balances that would result. But the way things are going, it isn't going to happen anytime soon. All the claims that "60% of Americans are conservatives" fall in the same category of totally unsubstantiated, whistle-in-the-dark wishes as some of the other partisan stuff that gets posted here.

Like I've said before...it's a matter of electoral arithmetic. Politics is fundamentally a business. A product (candidates) must be created, financed and marketed to achieve the desired result. Until the GOP embraces that concept, all of the complaining and accusing that's been done by the "base" will continue to have no particular effect. That would be a shame.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

...if the rapidly declining number of "base" Republican conservatives continue to steer their ship to the hard right. There are some attractive ideas among those conservative core values, but not a broad enough or specific enough number of campaign planks to even begin to win 50% of the vote plus 1.

It's a simple matter of electoral arithmetic. Until the GOP begins to move more towards where the majority of Americans are, more center-right, they have no chance of winning very many elections.

The Democrats are probably clicking their heels each time proponents of the "hard right" make claims or allegations unacceptable to the majority of Americans who are closer to the "middle". The base GOP is killing itself and the two-party system along with it.

What's better? To for the GOP to move more to the center, win some elections and regain some political currency...or maintain strict adherence to largely unpopular hard right core values at the expense of becoming a weaker and weaker political force?

The answer seems pretty clear to me. I'd love to return to the days of a two-party system and the checks and balances that would result. But the way things are going, it isn't going to happen anytime soon. All the claims that "60% of Americans are conservatives" fall in the same category of totally unsubstantiated, whistle-in-the-dark wishes as some of the other partisan stuff that gets posted here.

Like I've said before...it's a matter of electoral arithmetic. Politics is fundamentally a business. A product (candidates) must be created, financed and marketed to achieve the desired result. Until the GOP embraces that concept, all of the complaining and accusing that's been done by the "base" will continue to have no particular effect. That would be a shame.

Hmmmm Seems people have a short memory. I remember the 80's when the country was very conservative and nobody dared speak the "liberal" word. Unfortunetly, the GOP has steadily declined by electing pseudo-conservatives to the white house. Bush senior and his son have done more damage to the party than 10 Nixons could have.
The first Bush raised taxes (read my lips) and his son with the "compassionate conservatism", was a disaster.
The democrats are very glad that some republicans are moving to the center. With less and less true conservatives to vote for...people might as well vote democrat and get it over with.
With the country going down the fiscal hole very rapidly....the only real hope is a fiscally and socially conservative to save this once great nation. When will the people come to the conclusion that the Great Society myth is really just that...a myth. It (socialism) has been tried many times in the past and every one of them failed.
I don't think we need a left or right or a middle. I think we need a morally and fiscally responsible leader. Sorry for the spelling.
Keedy

Agree Keedy. The biggest problem the republicans have is they have moved away from the core values the party use to have. The move to the center has been a disaster. Having a president with real conservative values that would be moderated by congress and senate is the best chance for the party to win. You just saw what putting up a middle of the road candidate caused. The most liberal, left wing, socialist ever elected is now president. And it was because many of the republicans with true conservative core values stayed home.

Keedy, I've described myself as a "fiscal conservative" and a "social moderate". If someone asks me my political preference, I typically answer "independent" or "somewhere in the middle".

I clearly prefer fiscal conservatism--hard right, real conservatism--something we haven't seen coming out of the U.S. Congress in more than twenty years. But I lean left on some of the social issues. I'm neither hard line pro-life or pro-choice. I don't like willy-nilly abortions whenever a woman wants one, but I support stem cell research. I believe that every American should have some form of health insurance. I'd prefer that the free market figure out a way for that to happen, but it hasn't and so I support some form of government-sponsored health insurance. Our education system is a disaster. We are falling farther and farther behind the developing countries every day. Our economy and our very way of life will suffer as the result. The local school districts haven't gotten it done. So I support intervention by the federal government. We need tort reform in order to eliminate the litigation costs that substantially increase the cost of virtually every product or service we buy each day. I'd like the states to do that, but they haven't. I guess that leaves the federal government to address the issue of a dangerous and costly litigious society. And yes, I believe that the federal government should be more active in regulating businesses that are fundamental to our way of life. Our banks should be safe for us to deposit our money; our food should be free from things that will make us sick; products we buy should not kill us; people should go to work with the confidence that their workplace is safe; we only have one planet to live on--our government should protect that environment, even if our fellow Americans and businesses won't.

So...which party do I support? Which candidate(s) do I vote for?

I think I truly am an independent and will vote for the candidate whose campaign promises embrace most of what I believe is right. No candidate will support everything I think is right, so I'm willing to settle for most of what seems to be needed for our country. I'd love to say that the free market would provide solutions to all of the issues I've mentioned. But it hasn't and no one has expressed any confidence that it can or will in the future.

So again, what am I? Who do I vote for?

Try to reframe my question.

All I hear in the media "representing the right" or "conservatives" or "Republicans" is the voice of folks who are NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS !

Why does the media ONLY use them to quote as representing conservatives or Republican ?

Are elected Republicans not saying anything or just not quoted ?

Originally Posted by l2ridehd

Agree Keedy. The biggest problem the republicans have is they have moved away from the core values the party use to have. The move to the center has been a disaster. Having a president with real conservative values that would be moderated by congress and senate is the best chance for the party to win. You just saw what putting up a middle of the road candidate caused. The most liberal, left wing, socialist ever elected is now president. And it was because many of the republicans with true conservative core values stayed home.

In retrospect, ( I never thought I would say this) but having a Dem in the Whitehouse (Clinton) and having the GoP controlling Congress seems like the best balance we have had in a long time.

Keedy

I suspect that most of you are seeing the Friday afternoon press reports that both Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich have called Judge Sotomayor a racist. In fact, Limbaugh went one step further and called President Obama a racist. (He then softened that criticism by calling the President a "reverse racist", whatever that is.)

Some GOP Senators and party officials were interviewed and are rejecting the Limbaugh-Gingrich allegations and trying to distance the party from their influence.

This is exactly the type of stuff that must overjoy the Democrats.

People like Limbaugh and Gingrich, who make their money thru paid TV appearances, are doing more damage to the Republican and conservative causes than any of the Democrats are doing...well, I might mention Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi as balancing out the other guys, but they're both staying off the airwaves a little more than Limbaugh and Gingrich.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I suspect that most of you are seeing the Friday afternoon press reports that both Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich have called Judge Sotomayor a racist. In fact, Limbaugh went one step further and called President Obama a racist. (He then softened that criticism by calling the President a "reverse racist", whatever that is.)

Some GOP Senators and party officials were interviewed and are rejecting the Limbaugh-Gingrich allegations and trying to distance the party from their influence.

This is exactly the type of stuff that must overjoy the Democrats.

People like Limbaugh and Gingrich, who make their money thru paid TV appearances, are doing more damage to the Republican and conservative causes than any of the Democrats are doing...well, I might mention Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi as balancing out the other guys, but they're both staying off the airwaves a little more than Limbaugh and Gingrich.

And the MSM covers almost exclusively Limbaugh and Gingrich....amazing to me that they dont even give the elected officials the time of day. This is why folks say the media is slanted.

If I read the attached link from the Boston Globe NOT ONE ELECTED OFFICIAL OR ANY OFFICIAL OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS said one negative thing.....YET...the headline is...

"Some Republicans backtrack on Sotomayor attacks"

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...epublican.html

And the Washington POST....

"GOP Moves to Tone Down Criticism of Sotomayor"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews


I have never ever heard the Democratic party or any elected official of the Democratic party, on any issue, EVER HAVE TO DEFEND THE REMARKS OF OLBERMAN OR ANY OF THAT ILK !

I just see it as a bit unfair !

Originally Posted by MMC24

Perhaps Colin Powell ???? That would be an interesting presidential race in 2012.

Colin Powell?

Which party. The one he claims to belong to or the one he votes for?

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition