Political Crossfire Forums

Richard Nixon said: (I'm paraphrasing)

As a Republican during the primaries you have to run hard the right, but during the campaign to win the WH you need to move to the middle.. And every Republican I remember did just that. Even the 'Reagan/Conservative revolution' Reagan moved to the middle..

I do NOT see Romney and Ryan moving to the middle.. They know who's buttering their bread, they are completely beholding to the TP, and the talking heads on the right..The current Republican base will in no way allow him to move to the center, not now, not even if he wins in November..

But with the far right in control of the GOP, maybe they can still win the WH without moving to the middle.. There's no doubt right now, in this election the GOP is much more galvanized and together than the Dems are.

This will shock some of you but a couple of years ago, I was fine with Romney. I thought: well, Obama sure hasn't delivered and if the alternative is a moderate former governor of Massachusetts, we'll be fine. Unfortunately, Mitt decided he needed to pander to the Palin/Bachmann/Ryan crowd, and here we are. Not only that, but he's a plutocrat.

The candidate I was REALLY excited about was Huntsman. Here's a former governor, former ambassador to China, he speaks Mandarin (!!!) and didn't tow the tea party line on every issue. He of course was the first eliminated from the race.

Somebody here put up a very prescient quote by Barry Goldwater--who was no liberal--about how the party was doomed if you let the preachers take over. And here we are.

Mind you, the only reason all these "social" issues are being pushed to the front is to distract from the fact that our gov't has become Ebay. The highest bidder wins control, which is why, for instance, Wall St. is allowed to rape the country and walk away without any consequence.

I really think the future of the party is in somebody like Ron Paul. Granted, he's got a lot of crazy ideas that I don't agree with but he has a lot of sound ones as well. It would be a good start. And you notice he doesn't bother with all the religious stuff.

In fact, for years I've said: Libertarians are Republicans without the religion.

The only "religion" these candidates should be worshipping, to steal a line from a movie, is common sense.

Another thing the party needs to get away from is the anti-intellectualism, symbolized by people like Palin, Bachmann or Joe the Plumber. Since when does being educated and/or smart mean you're an "elite"? That's insane.

Somebody at the old forum once suggested you go to Youtube and watch a debate between the first Bush and Clinton. You wouldn't recognize it. Nowadays debates are nothing more than WWE brawls where either candidate tries to land a "You're no John Kennedy!" line. Back then (or earlier), they really did debate on policy differences.

I do agree with the OP though that Bush II was the beginning of this admiring-the-guy-because-he-doesn't-know-much movement, which is disturbing.

If I wanted to talk about something else, I'd mention yo-yos.

This is a goat.

The rednecks I know don't vote and don't trust politicians. I have noticed that more middle class - working class white people do the psuedoredneck fashion thing and trashtastic pickup trucks. Maybe this is what you see?