The end of the GOP?

[Shibuya]

What happened to "old fashioned" conservatism? Low taxes, low public spending, fiscal discipline et al

 

When exactly did "crazy" conservatism, low taxes, high public spending, religious zealotry etc become the norm?

 

I ask as a non american

 

 

[Steve]

Partially the religious right trying to codify morality/religion into law and also in a larger sense, human nature. Any party that gets power eventually abuses its power. They can't help themselves. The type of conservatism you cited went out with Goldwater.

[Flashermac]

As I recall, Vice Prez Spiro Agnew resigned because he was being charge with accepting a bribe when he was governor of Maryland years before he became the Veep.

 

 

[..]

What happened to "old fashioned" conservatism? Low taxes, low public spending, fiscal discipline et al

 

When exactly did "crazy" conservatism, low taxes, high public spending, religious zealotry etc become the norm?

 

I ask as a non american

That went out the door with Eisenhower. Conservatives (i.e., Republicans) stood for conservation, or not changing the status quo. The latest round of GOPers (those created in the 60s, with Goldwater as lead) are very radical, wanting to change everything. It started with Nixon and acceptable change, but hit full stride wacko-radicalism with Ray-gun -- the 2nd worst prez ever behind the idiot in there now.

 

Cheers,

SD

[..]

The crime wasn't getting head as president but lying in a civil case. Remember the case wasn't about Lewinsky, it was about his sexual harassing a woman while he was governor. The plaintiff's lawyer was trying to show a pattern of sexual harrassment and brought the Lewinsky episode up. The case was titled v. William Jefferson Clinton, not against President Clinton. If you may all recall, the supreme court said a sitting president could go on trial for a possibly that happened BEFORE he was President. He was a governor at the time.

 

The precedence the republicans set is alarming. It means a president can be impeached for things he does outside the scope of his office and not pertaining to his duties as president and I'm not sure you can find a constitutional lawyer that will say the intent of the impeachment is meant for anything except actions where the President used the power of the office to commit a crime and his lying in a civil case doesn't meet that test.

Steve-o, this and the post before it are the best ever political posts on this board IMHO. Great job explaining the issue!

 

Cheers,

SD

[Steve]

Thanks SD, the funny thing was I voted 3rd party in his 2nd term so I wasn't like I was a big Clinton fan. I just think it was a flimsy excuse and very dangerous precedence to change the will of the people. He got voted in fair and square. The polls showed the people didn't want him impeached. Legally it was weak. And I may be called over the top about it, but it was a political coup de etat attempt in my humble opinion without the tanks in the streets. Wow, I sound like 'foreigner' now?! Okay, now THAT was scary!

[chuckwoww]

What happened to "old fashioned" conservatism? Low taxes, low public spending, fiscal discipline et al

 

When exactly did "crazy" conservatism, low taxes, high public spending, religious zealotry etc become the norm?

 

I ask as a non american

 

 

I think it was a slow process starting with Vietnam. That war was a huge failure for conservatism. The hippies took over. You saw it in the media, education, family values. Even 'conservatives' have become 'liberal' in many ways. The rise of the religious right is mainly a backlash against things like gay marriage, abortion etc.. Now you hear conservatives complaining that the GOP isn't right wing enough on issues like immigration, taxation, spending etc. and liberals complaining about free speech going too far.

 

I don't think any of the old definitions like conservative, socialist, liberal mean much anymore. The lines are so blurred.

[Steve]

Very true. Very blurred. Both parties want the government to have a bigger say in our lives, they just differ in what that say is. Dems want the government to have a bigger part in taking care of people, controlling businesses, etc. Republicans want the government to have a say morally in our lives (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)

 

Pick your poison.

 

 

[chuckwoww]

You got pot-smoking rednecks watching porn who hate gays but think nothing of hiring Mexicans and liberal ex-hippies living in suburban homes who don't want their kids in public schools, black millionaire gang-bangers and ethnic groups who vote for the candidate who speaks to them in their own language....all very confusing.

[itsmedave]

At this point I would agree that John Edwards is the most likely to win in a general election. Not because he is necessarily the "best" (although I like him well enough) but because the other two frontrunners have just glaring (if undeserved) downsides.

 

I understand many people hate Hillary Clinton. What I don't really understand is why. Is she calculating? Sure...what politician isn't? Did she fail at reforming healthcare? I suppose...but healthcare needed reforming and her plan probably would've left us better off than we are today (with costs rising 300% in Bush's term)

 

What else??? She's a woman, I guess. But, I think she's a very smart lady who might actually see her numbers go up when people see her speak directly, instead of just hearing from all these people who hate her. (although Chris Matthews, who has long hated Ms Clinton did her a great disservice by inviting all ten of the Republican debators to take shots at her during the debate. This may have the effect of persuading many Dem's to go another way to avoid this type of political bloodshed)

 

Obama...don't know much about him. Likely his numbers go down a bit when people start to focus on him and begin their s mear campaigns (because there are no more skeletons in Clinton's closet) Also on his down side is that he has very little experience, he's black (not that this should be an issue...but it will be for many voters even when they say it isn't) And finally, my step father, a Democrat (also a bigot) frowned with disgust at the mention of his name and said "Barak Obama...the last thing we need is a President with a Muslim name!"

 

I really like Richardson from New Mexico, but was disappointed with his defense of Alberto Gonzales simply because they are both Hispanic. Still, a Clinton/Richardson team with Bill giving advice behind the scenes could be great for the country...but Edwards is still probably the most electable having already gone through one presidential election with all of its nastiness.

 

Also, Guliani will likely see his numbers drop as people learn more about him...I believe this is really a contest between McCain (who will be easily beaten in a general election because of his flip-flopping and his age. He looks much older than Reagan did...and we are still a year and a half from the election...and four more years before the end of his first term) and Fred Thompson who will enter in July as the knight in shining armor...but whom nobody reqally knows anything about yet)

 

My guess at this point is Clinton vs McCain with Clinton winning.