Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I am an old Republican. I am religious, yet not a fanatic. I am a free-marketer; yet, I believe in the role of the government as a fair evenhanded referee. I am socially conservative; yet, I believe that my lesbian niece and my gay grandchild should have the full protection of the law and live as free Americans enjoying every aspect of our society with no prejudices and/or restrictions. Nowadays, my political and socio-economic profile would make me a Marxist, not a Republican.

I grew up in an era where William F. Buckley fought the John Birch society and kicked them out of the Republican Party. I grew up with -– in fact voted for the first time for –- Eisenhower. In 1956, he ran a campaign of dignity. A campaign that acknowledged that there are certain projects better suited to be handled by the government. See, business thinks in the short term, as he said. That’s the imperative of the marketplace. I invest and I expect that in a few quarters, I garner the fruits of my investment. Government, on the other hand, has the luxury to wait a few years, maybe decades, for a return on a given investment. As a former businessman, I know that first hand. Am I a Marxist for thinking that?

I witnessed the fight for equal civil rights in the 1960s. And as a proud American, I applauded the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, and we became a better country because of them. Those acts made America stronger. Those acts, at their core, represented and still represent all the values upon which the Republican Party was founded. Yet today, our GOP representatives and leaders are ashamed of them. When they talk about them, you feel their discomfort, their clumsiness, and sometimes their shame. That awkwardness is so strong that it crosses the television screen and hits you in the face in your living room. Why is that? What happened to this generation of Republicans? We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, and yet we act and behave as if we are the party of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

I did not like Medicaid and Medicare when they were passed. I was opposed to them. Maybe I was too young, too strong, and too ideologically confined. Yet, over the years, I saw how Medicare helped millions of elderly Americans. I saw how Medicare helped my mom in her final years battling emphysema caused by years of smoking. You have to be blind to oppose those programs. You have to be blind to wish for the suffering of millions of Americans just because you believe in personal responsibility.

http://www.frumforum.com/how-the-gop-purged-me" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great read

So Jon honest question. What do you do if you are a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and think the republican party is swayed too much by the religious right but you believe that the economic platform of the democrats not only is contradictory to freedom (yes economic freedom, property rights etc. but whether I am right or wrong in my opinion without economic freedom the other social freedoms become much less meaningful) but is certain, over the long term, to slow the growth and economic power of the US to a level that is much to low to tolerate. So Yes I am very liberal socially. Have been all my life and very conservative fiscally. I can always argue the constitutional side of some of the social issues are closer to the republicans, but still each time I vote I throw up a little in my mouth which seems to be better than voting democratic and throwing up a lot.

Do I vote for a third party that will only pass the torch to the democrats to do more harm to economic freedom? or do I bite my tongue and hold my nose and try to vote for a republican who is at least closer to my views of economics?

Now, I realize the easy thing here is to either bash the poster or bash the premis. But let's just assume that posters are not going to change my mind because let's face has anyone here ever changed anyone's mind ( I will be honest Tribe90 convinced me that laws against smoking in bars are appropriate ) But if someone is willing to answer the question as presented. Then I am willing to listen.

I don't agree with everything Democrats stand for... but, I've always voted for them in federal elections. I'm very socially liberal... and that's where my voting patterns come from. I'm more fiscally moderate than some (most?) Democrats... but, it doesn't really effect my voting. I feel I live a comfortable life and taxation and the national debt have a negligible effect on me. I feel social conservatism and the religious right has a more direct impact on my, and many others', lives. That's why I vote mainly on social issues. You seem to be similar... but, the opposite. I don't think there's anything wrong with voting Republican in your case. There is never going to be a party with a platform you agree with 100%... even whatever 3rd party would be your backup.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I don't agree with everything Democrats stand for... but, I've always voted for them in federal elections. I'm very socially liberal... and that's where my voting patterns come from. I'm more fiscally moderate than some (most?) Democrats... but, it doesn't really effect my voting. I feel I live a comfortable life and taxation and the national debt have a negligible effect on me. I feel social conservatism and the religious right has a more direct impact on my, and many others', lives. That's why I vote mainly on social issues. ...

Key word.

OL FU wrote:So Jon honest question. What do you do if you are a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and think the republican party is swayed too much by the religious right but you believe that the economic platform of the democrats not only is contradictory to freedom (yes economic freedom, property rights etc. but whether I am right or wrong in my opinion without economic freedom the other social freedoms become much less meaningful) but is certain, over the long term, to slow the growth and economic power of the US to a level that is much to low to tolerate. So Yes I am very liberal socially. Have been all my life and very conservative fiscally. I can always argue the constitutional side of some of the social issues are closer to the republicans, but still each time I vote I throw up a little in my mouth which seems to be better than voting democratic and throwing up a lot.

]Do I vote for a third party that will only pass the torch to the democrats to do more harm to economic freedom? or do I bite my tongue and hold my nose and try to vote for a republican who is at least closer to my views of economics?

Now, I realize the easy thing here is to either bash the poster or bash the premis. But let's just assume that posters are not going to change my mind because let's face has anyone here ever changed anyone's mind ( I will be honest Tribe90 convinced me that laws against smoking in bars are appropriate ) But if someone is willing to answer the question as presented. Then I am willing to listen.

I think the answer lies with alternative voting. If your third party doesn't win your vote still counts.

OL FU wrote:So Jon honest question. What do you do if you are a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and think the republican party is swayed too much by the religious right but you believe that the economic platform of the democrats not only is contradictory to freedom (yes economic freedom, property rights etc. but whether I am right or wrong in my opinion without economic freedom the other social freedoms become much less meaningful) but is certain, over the long term, to slow the growth and economic power of the US to a level that is much to low to tolerate. So Yes I am very liberal socially. Have been all my life and very conservative fiscally. I can always argue the constitutional side of some of the social issues are closer to the republicans, but still each time I vote I throw up a little in my mouth which seems to be better than voting democratic and throwing up a lot.

Do I vote for a third party that will only pass the torch to the democrats to do more harm to economic freedom? or do I bite my tongue and hold my nose and try to vote for a republican who is at least closer to my views of economics?

Now, I realize the easy thing here is to either bash the poster or bash the premis. But let's just assume that posters are not going to change my mind because let's face has anyone here ever changed anyone's mind ( I will be honest Tribe90 convinced me that laws against smoking in bars are appropriate ) But if someone is willing to answer the question as presented. Then I am willing to listen.

Vote Republican and hope the social injustice is outweighed by the economics or rethink your views on economic freedom . I lean toward the latter, but will probably vote third party for the forseeable future even if that means a social conservative like Ron Paul. The corporatist nature of both parties poses just as great a threat on economic freedom for the middle class as "liberal" economics. And I believe a successful middle class benefits the greater good.

Btw dback, great find in that article. The guy is spot on in explaining many of the main reasons why the GOP lost the middle.

Fuckers can't get rid of me, I'm their only chance of regaining their sanity, and their decency.

houndawg wrote:I think the answer lies with alternative voting. If your third party doesn't win your vote still counts.

......and if you don't want your vote to count towards either major party, then what?

Gil Dobie wrote:

houndawg wrote:I think the answer lies with alternative voting. If your third party doesn't win your vote still counts.

......and if you don't want your vote to count towards either major party, then what?

Leave them off of your ballot. The way it works is that you rank your choices in order, if your first choice doesn't get enough votes, then they count your second choice, and so on.

Here we go again with that same old strawman that 'opposing healthcare'='opposition to making healthcare more affordable'.

And the comparison to the creation of medicare and medicaid? PLEASE. That was a completely different time.
1. National debt was much more manageable.
2. Worker-to-retiree ratio was higher and there was nothing but growth on the horizon at that time.
3. The economy wasn't in one of the worst downturns in the history of the US.

Why won't everyone else who was born after 1980 wake the f^&* up and see our generation sacrificed on the altars of war and "social justice"?

Pwns wrote:Here we go again with that same old strawman that 'opposing healthcare'='opposition to making healthcare more affordable'.

Why didn't Republicans do anything about it when you controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Pwns wrote:Here we go again with that same old strawman that 'opposing healthcare'='opposition to making healthcare more affordable'.

Why didn't Republicans do anything about it when you controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House?

They were too busy trying to catch Obama.....er....Osama.

Our political landscape is simply a reflection of two major but differing human traits.

Some people live and plan for the future, and others live for the now.

Thanks for the thoughtful answers. I think a lot of this boils down to where we put our priorities.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Why didn't Republicans do anything about it when you controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House?

They were too busy trying to catch Obama.....er....Osama.

AZ made a funny!

CID1990 wrote:Our political landscape is simply a reflection of two major but differing human traits.

Some people live and plan for the future, and others live for the now.

That's an interesting point. Which side of the political spectrum would you place the "planners?" The "live for the nows?"

danefan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Our political landscape is simply a reflection of two major but differing human traits.

Some people live and plan for the future, and others live for the now.

That's an interesting point. Which side of the political spectrum would you place the "planners?" The "live for the nows?"

Being a "planner", I tend to be more conservative as I have the plan and don't like deviating too far from that plan...

My middle brother is a "live for today" kind of person...his description of himself that I agree with...he's has very little in savings or a pension plan...and wants to government to give him health care coverage...and is counting on social security for his retirement...and he votes liberal...

So, based on my tiny universe of me and the middle brother...

Planners = Conservative
Live For The Now = Liberal...

OL FU wrote:So Jon honest question. What do you do if you are a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and think the republican party is swayed too much by the religious right but you believe that the economic platform of the democrats not only is contradictory to freedom (yes economic freedom, property rights etc. but whether I am right or wrong in my opinion without economic freedom the other social freedoms become much less meaningful) but is certain, over the long term, to slow the growth and economic power of the US to a level that is much to low to tolerate. So Yes I am very liberal socially. Have been all my life and very conservative fiscally. I can always argue the constitutional side of some of the social issues are closer to the republicans, but still each time I vote I throw up a little in my mouth which seems to be better than voting democratic and throwing up a lot.

Do I vote for a third party that will only pass the torch to the democrats to do more harm to economic freedom? or do I bite my tongue and hold my nose and try to vote for a republican who is at least closer to my views of economics?

Now, I realize the easy thing here is to either bash the poster or bash the premis. But let's just assume that posters are not going to change my mind because let's face has anyone here ever changed anyone's mind ( I will be honest Tribe90 convinced me that laws against smoking in bars are appropriate ) But if someone is willing to answer the question as presented. Then I am willing to listen.

As you mentioned downstream, a lot of it depends on where your priorities are. Republican stances on social issues have swung so far to the extreme that I can not in good faith vote for them.

Col Hogan wrote:

danefan wrote:
That's an interesting point. Which side of the political spectrum would you place the "planners?" The "live for the nows?"

Being a "planner", I tend to be more conservative as I have the plan and don't like deviating too far from that plan...

My middle brother is a "live for today" kind of person...his description of himself that I agree with...he's has very little in savings or a pension plan...and wants to government to give him health care coverage...and is counting on social security for his retirement...and he votes liberal...

So, based on my tiny universe of me and the middle brother...

Planners = Conservative
Live For The Now = Liberal...

You also have to consider risk taking. Too much conservative planning and nothing ventured, nothing gained.

The answer, as always, is in the middle.

dbackjon wrote:

OL FU wrote:So Jon honest question. What do you do if you are a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and think the republican party is swayed too much by the religious right but you believe that the economic platform of the democrats not only is contradictory to freedom (yes economic freedom, property rights etc. but whether I am right or wrong in my opinion without economic freedom the other social freedoms become much less meaningful) but is certain, over the long term, to slow the growth and economic power of the US to a level that is much to low to tolerate. So Yes I am very liberal socially. Have been all my life and very conservative fiscally. I can always argue the constitutional side of some of the social issues are closer to the republicans, but still each time I vote I throw up a little in my mouth which seems to be better than voting democratic and throwing up a lot.

Do I vote for a third party that will only pass the torch to the democrats to do more harm to economic freedom? or do I bite my tongue and hold my nose and try to vote for a republican who is at least closer to my views of economics?

Now, I realize the easy thing here is to either bash the poster or bash the premis. But let's just assume that posters are not going to change my mind because let's face has anyone here ever changed anyone's mind ( I will be honest Tribe90 convinced me that laws against smoking in bars are appropriate ) But if someone is willing to answer the question as presented. Then I am willing to listen.

As you mentioned downstream, a lot of it depends on where your priorities are. Republican stances on social issues have swung so far to the extreme that I can not in good faith vote for them.

Failure to validate your desire for massive societal changes and your chosen life style does not constitute an extreme stance on social issues.

native wrote: Failure to validate your desire for massive societal changes and your chosen life style does not constitute an extreme stance on social issues.

Bingo.

Besides, seems to me that the Republican views on social issues haven't changed very much if at all in recent years.

Baldy wrote:

native wrote: Failure to validate your desire for massive societal changes and your chosen life style does not constitute an extreme stance on social issues.

Bingo.

Besides, seems to me that the Republican views on social issues haven't changed very much if at all in recent years.

The views may not have changed, but the focus most certainly has.

Using the Clinton impeachment as a catalyst, the GOP has put social issues on the front of its campaigns to hide the fact that its really pro-big-government.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Why didn't Republicans do anything about it when you controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House?

They were too busy trying to catch Obama.....er....Osama.

Yet one more thing they failed at & left for Obama to fix.....