Why not big tent GOP?

[charby]

Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?

[Balog]

Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?

/sigh

Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a social conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?

See how that works?

[charby]

/sigh

Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a social conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?

See how that works?

Has a social conservative plan but has no opinion on social issues?

[roo_ster]

Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?

Mostly beause it is a suckers deal.  Exchange a sizable number of real socons who vote for near mythological fiscally conservative socially liberal voters riding unicorns.

[Balog]

Has a social conservative plan but has no opinion on social issues?

(or has a different opinion

[Perd Hapley]

Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?

The premise of your question is shot full of gaping holes. Basically, it is one giant hole.

[charby]

The premise of your question is shot full of gaping holes. Basically, it is one giant hole.

Well what is the big hole?

[charby]

So the candidate has a great plan to balance the budget quicker than 2040 in the Ryan plan but states they are fine with same sex marriage because they feel everyone should have the same rights.

[Balog]

Well what is the big hole?

There are several, but I'll list one. Why should socons compromise what they believe in for good fiscal policy, but the social liberals shouldn't compromise what they believe in for the same? Add in that in the real world of people who we actually get to vote for "social liberal fiscal conservative" is rather oxymoronic...

Depending on what type of social issues you're discussing of course. But on say, abortion, you're asking the people who believe it to be the violent slaughter of the innocent to let it happen in exchange for better tax policy but saying that the reverse is unacceptable.

There are plenty of other problems, but that's the most glaring.

[Balog]

So the candidate has a great plan to balance the budget quicker than 2040 in the Ryan plan but states they are fine with same sex marriage because they feel everyone should have the same rights.

PLans to balance the budget are a lot like plans to secure the border after the next amnesty. I hear about them but they never seem to actually happen.

Plans to force destructive social engineering down the throats of people who don't want it always seem to go into effect right away. Strange how that works.

[Fitz]

Until we have actual, real controls against rampant spending (such as an amendment that requires balanced spending or something similar), we'll never see real fiscal reform.

Remember the sequester "deals"?

I called it then. "Watch, they'll commit to cuts, won't actually make them, and we'll be right back here later"


Which is exactly what happened.

[Perd Hapley]

Well what is the big hole?

To summarize, you think that Democrat Lite somehow works, when it comes to the social issues, even though it doesn't work well elsewhere.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It's been my experience that most people on the right are more interested in criticizing and blaming each other than in working together for common goals.  Not sure why that is, but I see it over and over again.  Very frustrating.

[Balog]

Charby: would you vote for and support a candidate with a reasonable plan to balance the budget, who believed in and protected the 2A, and was Eco friendly and supported good conservation plans; but who also wanted to make all abortions and being openly homosexual illegal? Why or why not?

It's been my experience that most people on the right are more interested in criticizing and blaming each other than in working together for common goals.  Not sure why that is, but I see it over and over again.  Very frustrating.

In my experience when someone is complaining about an inability to put aside differences and work together what they really mean is "Why are you damn bitter clingers not voting for this northeast liberal progressive who has an R by his name? HE HAS AN R BY HIS NAME FOR GOD'S SAKE WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?!?!?!?!"

[Strings]

I've seen a few people trying for Repub endorsement vilified because they weren't in lock-step on all issues. Whereas the Dems seem to get behind one person, and go to the mat for them

[charby]

Charby: would you vote for and support a candidate with a reasonable plan to balance the budget, who believed in and protected the 2A, and was Eco friendly and supported good conservation plans; but who also wanted to make all abortions and being openly homosexual illegal? Why or why not?

It would depend upon whom they are running against, on the primary ballot or the general ballot. If the other person was a Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer or Charlie Rangel clone, I'd vote for the person you mentioned above. If Bill Richardson was the D on ballot, I'd probably vote D.

Why? If someone made it a issue in their campaign that being openly homosexual was illegal, I'd start to wonder what other types of people or behaviors they want to make illegal (like they want to make Roman Catholic, Muslim and Jewish religions illegal also). As for abortion, I really think that decision has been made and short of some sort mass extinction of all Americans except for the far right, abortion is going to be legal for my lifetime. Making abortion illegal would just as difficult as repealing the Civil Rights Act.

[charby]

It's been my experience that most people on the right are more interested in criticizing and blaming each other than in working together for common goals.  Not sure why that is, but I see it over and over again.  Very frustrating.

Pretty much why I didn't seek another term on the local county GOP central committee. I've been a central committee person for 10 years and the treasurer for 5 years of it. Even when a person stepped up to get on the ballot as an R because no one else was running as an R, if they were not 100% in lock step with every item on the platform they got criticized for not being good enough instead of being supported because they had the courage to run for office.

[MillCreek]

The desire for political power to achieve social engineering goals is not limited to the Left.  Nor is the desire to impose one's religious, social or moral beliefs upon others who do not share them.

[Perd Hapley]

Even when a person stepped up to get on the ballot as an R because no one else was running as an R, if they were not 100% in lock step with every item on the platform they got criticized for not being good enough instead of being supported because they had the courage to run for office.

I wasn't there, and I haven't seen what you've seen. However, having seen what I've seen, I suspect what really happened was that the candidates in question were not committed to the same principles as those they wished to represent, so other party members were not as supportive as they might have been. Which is as is it should be.

[Perd Hapley]

Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?

Why can't people who want fiscal conservatism accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan, but is equally sensible (i.e., conservative) on social matters? Let's not fool ourselves about who is distracting folk from fiscal issues.

Why can't those same people try to find a way to respectfully, tactfully seek middle ground with the so-cons, instead of lecturing us from their high horses about how we are all screwed up, and everything's our fault?

I'm sorry if I've brought that up too often here, but I call them the antisocial conservatives for a reason. They are biting the only hand that is likely to help them (i.e., the so-cons).

And to be fair, I think a lot of people on my side are just too suspicious of the other side, and should be more willing to learn. Case in point: I know a lot of people of my persuasion will never be brought around to drug legalizing, because it's just too hippy, and they can't see how it affects them. That's especially true when drug legalizationist sentiment is so often accompanied by fedora atheism, and slur terms like "homophobe."

[charby]

I wasn't there, and I haven't seen what you've seen. However, having seen what I've seen, I suspect what really happened was that the candidates in question were not committed to the same principles as those they wished to represent, so other party members were not as supportive as they might have been. Which is as is it should be.

When is the last time a strong fundamentalist Republican candidate made on a ballot and also won the election on a state exec race (Gov, Sec of State, Treasurer or Attorney General), US Senate, US Congress or President?

Seems like in Iowa, open fundamentalist candidates can make it to a few a state house or state senate seat (and lower offices) and win because of the constituency of the district (strong Dutch Reform areas) but they lose on higher races at the primary.

[charby]

Why can't people who want fiscal conservatism accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan, but is equally sensible (i.e., conservative) on social matters? Let's not fool ourselves about who is distracting folk from fiscal issues.

Why can't those same people try to find a way to respectfully, tactfully seek middle ground with the so-cons, instead of lecturing us from their high horses about how we are all screwed up, and everything's our fault?

I'm sorry if I've brought that up too often here, but I call them the antisocial conservatives for a reason. They are biting the only hand that is likely to help them (i.e., the so-cons).

And to be fair, I think a lot of people on my side are just too suspicious of the other side, and should be more willing to learn. Case in point: I know a lot of people of my persuasion will never be brought around to drug legalizing, because it's just too hippy, and they can't see how it affects them. That's especially true when drug legalizationist sentiment is so often accompanied by fedora atheism, and slur terms like "homophobe."

If a so-con running said, "I do believe that marriage should be one man and one woman, and I personally feel that abortion should be illegal, but we know that times have changed and making gay marriage and abortion illegal is battle that probably will not be won." I could support that person 100% if I was in agreement with their other campaign issues.

[RoadKingLarry]

Perfect is the mortal enemy of pretty damn good.

[charby]

Perfect is the mortal enemy of pretty damn good.

"If you're not first, you're last!" -Ricky Bobby 

Had to be non sequitur for a bit. 

[roo_ster]

If a so-con running said, "I do believe that marriage should be one man and one woman, and I personally feel that abortion should be illegal, but we know that times have changed and making gay marriage and abortion illegal is battle that probably will not be won." I could support that person 100% if I was in agreement with their other campaign issues.

So, you don't mind that they hold those views, but you do mind if they act on them.