Trump should run as an Independent

[NightHawkeye]

The Republican base was undergoing considerable change in that era, with the addition of Southern Democrats. In fact, the GOP seems to have become the party of Southern Democrats.

Incorrect.

The GOP became the party of America in 1980.

 

[Speedwell]

Incorrect.

The GOP became the party of America in 1980.

LOL! Don't blame me. I voted for John Anderson that year, though I should have known better. But I think you're a bit premature. The one-party ideological state that the Right dreams of has not yet arrived. A lot depends on Trump holding office one way or another in 2020.

 

[zephcom]

LOL! Don't blame me. I voted for John Anderson that year, though I should have known better. But I think you're a bit premature. The one-party ideological state that the Right dreams of has not yet arrived. A lot depends on Trump holding office one way or another in 2020.

While also holding the Senate and regaining the House.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In the case of Bush, it has become clear that he was, as many Republicans claimed, very closely aligned with the Clintons ... so Republicans making such charges have been proven correct.

Do we really need to say any more about McCain?

As for Romney, however 'nice' the man may be personally, he wouldn't even take on Obama in one-to-one debate. It was an apparent lack of conviction to principles.

...the sentiment you're expressing shows just how the GOP is moving further right, though.

This idea that they have to fiercely hate all democrats and oppose them and resist compromise at every turn, in order to be a 'real republican', otherwise they're a "RINO" is a fairly new mentality that's developed over recent times and represents a shift away from the middle.

Rewind to the days of Lincoln, people from opposing parties would occasionally run on the same ticket as a showing of ability to compromise and work with everyone. It wasn't uncommon for members of congress (from opposing parties) to be friends outside of work...and it certainly wasn't uncommon for people to dissent among their own ranks if there was something they didn't like.

Now, McCain is a sellout because he personal friends with Joe Biden.

Bush is a sellout because he shook Bill Clinton's hand in public and hugged the Obama's at his father's funeral.

Romney is a sell out because he didn't yell and scream and smear Obama during their debates (apparently, "lock them up", "if it were up to me, they'd be in jail" is the way debates are handled now)


All of that doesn't prove that the GOP is going back to the middle...it proves that the base is shifting further toward the right-wing fringes and trying to oust the actual moderates of the party that were preexisting.


Merely having a connection with someone from an opposing ideology doesn't make one less committed to their own. I'm pro-gun...but I have friends that are anti-gun...I still talk to them and treat them with respect and hang out with them. That doesn't make me a sellout to my position (although, with the state of the rabid NRA...who knows, they might say I am)

 

[Albion]

...the sentiment you're expressing shows just how the GOP is moving further right, though.

This idea that they have to fiercely hate all democrats and oppose them and resist compromise at every turn, in order to be a 'real republican', otherwise they're a "RINO" is a fairly new mentality that's developed over recent times and represents a shift away from the middle.

That isn't a fair representation of what that term refers to, however. The GOP is the only party that is willing to compromise and work across the aisle, etc. It is only when some one of its leaders sabotages the most critically important parts of the party platform that the criticism we are speaking of here comes into play.

 

[NightHawkeye]

...the sentiment you're expressing shows just how the GOP is moving further right, though.

This idea that they have to fiercely hate all democrats and oppose them and resist compromise at every turn, in order to be a 'real republican', otherwise they're a "RINO" is a fairly new mentality that's developed over recent times and represents a shift away from the middle.

If by "middle" you mean Bush, Bush, McCain and Romney then I can understand your perspective. Just understand that these people were never aligned with Reagan. Never. The Republican base accepted them as compromise candidates and hoped for the best but it was never a happy marriage, as evidenced by Ross Perot, the TEA party and now Donald Trump.

Rewind to the days of Lincoln, people from opposing parties would occasionally run on the same ticket as a showing of ability to compromise and work with everyone. It wasn't uncommon for members of congress (from opposing parties) to be friends outside of work...and it certainly wasn't uncommon for people to dissent among their own ranks if there was something they didn't like.

That's not so long ago, Rob.

In 2008 Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman stood at the Republican convention with John McCain and Sarah Palin. How's that for a diverse group? Do you recall who savaged who? Hint - it wasn't Republicans savaging anyone. Democrats and the mainstream media savaged Sarah Palin (and to an extent John McCain) rather than attempting to work with her.

The Republican base, even in 2008, was still attempting to reach across the aisle and work amicably. Their efforts were not just rebuffed. They were personally savaged by none other than the new Democratic president. Do Democrats really think now that the bitter animosity exhibited over the past decade toward conservatives and Republicans would not have unexpected and profound consequences?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

The term 'conservative' offers another clue. By definition, it means not changing. It's a relatively stable reference frame. Add to that the Constitution, the Bible, and the Bill of Rights, all of which have been bulwarks of the 'Right" for many years and it becomes abundantly clear which side is moving to an extreme and which side is holding to time tested standards which underpin our modern civilized society.

I agree that "conservative" means not changing and that conservatives do remain stuck in their ways. I don't agree that the Bible was ever a frame of reference for the right. It's more accurate to say that cherry-picked parts of the Bible were used as a frame of reference for the right when it suited them while other parts remained ignored by the right. That has been constant for conservatives. The Bible is used by them for their policies on abortion and gays but is ignored on subjects like greed/capitalism and serving the poor. Our "modern civilized society" is in many ways not modern and not civilized - we are just good at putting a veneer over it and choosing to believe in the whited sepulchres while ignoring the dead bones inside.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

the most critically important parts of the party platform

...which parts are you referring to?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The Republican base, even in 2008, was still attempting to reach across the aisle and work amicably. Their efforts were not just rebuffed. They were personally savaged by none other than the new Democratic president. Do Democrats really think now that the bitter animosity exhibited over the past decade toward conservatives and Republicans would not have unexpected and profound consequences?

You'll need to provide some examples of what you're referring to here.

I'm not aware of Obama "savaging" any compromise efforts...In fact, I recall numerous times that he would try to compromise or do his job, and you had guys like Mitch McConnell deliberately trying to sabotage him, and didn't even hide the fact that he was doing it. Saying, before Obama even officially took office, that his #1 goal was making sure he was a one-term president, and pulling stunts like saying they were going to confirm any scotus nominations, before he had even announced his selections. (in the process failing to confirm, what would have been, one of the most qualified scotus candidate in the history of our nation)

 

[Albion]

...which parts are you referring to?

I was simply saying that the accusation is levelled at a leader who actually sabotages something that the party as a whole has banked on. Not just one of a thousand differences of opinion that arise in proposed legislation every day in Congress. Senator Rand Paul has his own ethics, but he doesn't normally get called by that term, for example.