Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Is that the new conservative talking point? That McCain lost the election was he wasn't backed by social conservatives?> I think Sen McCain lost because he wasn't backed by a lot of conservatives, not just social ones.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Just toning down the rhetoric and recognizing the need for compromise would be a great help.<< I agree. But Rush and Hannity won't stand for that. They're in the rhetoric business. And since they and the regulars at Fox news are the defacto face of the GOP at the moment, I don't see the rhetoric being toned down a bit. Someone posted here that just yesterday, Limbaugh was blaming the loss of the election on "people like you" in reference to a moderate Republican caller.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, no. Self-described conservatives backed McCain overwhelmingly. Self-described moderates and independents did not, and that's where the election was lost. Besides, that explanation doesn't jibe with your earlier comment "Also, I believe Mr Frum endorsed Sen McCain, whose chief failing was his tendency to use intemperate language against potential allies. You can't win an election by pissing off people who agree with you 75% of the time by deriding their views when they disagree with you." When did McCain use "intemperate language" against fiscal conservatives? When did he deride any conservatives other than (some) social conservatives? Examples, please?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Someone posted here that just yesterday, Limbaugh was blaming the loss of the election on "people like you" in reference to a moderate Republican caller.> Actually, it was "people like youuuuuuuuu." (That's how the poster posted it). And I heard the clip, and that's how he said it. His voice was dripping with disdain for this moderate. Further alienating moderates.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I think Sen McCain lost because he wasn't backed by a lot of conservatives, not just social ones. >> So, the conservatives backed Obama instead?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Rush and Hannity won't stand for that.> I think they will, if the moderates would stop attacking the right. Then they can spend all their time complaining about the left. I don't think they'll run out of material.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Self-described conservatives backed McCain overwhelmingly.> Those that voted, sure. <When did McCain use "intemperate language" against fiscal conservatives?> When he blamed the credit crisis on "greedy bankers" instead of noting that part of the problem was caused by the government, and also by people taking out loans they couldn't afford, for example.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Self-described conservatives backed McCain overwhelmingly.>> <Those that voted, sure.> Their numbers were not down appreciably from 2004. The big difference between 2004 and 2008 was the moderate/independent vote. <<When did McCain use "intemperate language" against fiscal conservatives?>> <When he blamed the credit crisis on "greedy bankers" instead of noting that part of the problem was caused by the government, and also by people taking out loans they couldn't afford, for example.> But "greedy bankers" WERE part of the problem (and you're not claiming "greedy bankers" as opposed to just "bankers" as part of the fiscal conservative coalition, are you?) Also, how many votes do "greedy bankers" constitute, even if he'd alienated them? Hard to see how this could have alienated actual fiscal conservatives, who understand that leveraging yourself at 100 to 1 is NOT fiscally conservative or prudent. Alienated some people who were fine and dandy with allowing banks to leverage that high, maybe. But that's not that many voters.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think they will, if the moderates would stop attacking the right.<< But in the Limbaugh/Hannity/hardliner view of the world, moderates are RINOs at best. They expect total obedience. Anything less and they'll be called socialists, liberals, etc. If you think Limbaugh and Hannity are going to be the ones to moderate their language and tone down the rhetoric, I believe you are mistaken. They whip it all up because that's what draws a crowd of true believers.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<Rush and Hannity won't stand for that.> I think they will, if the moderates would stop attacking the right. Then they can spend all their time complaining about the left. I don't think they'll run out of material.< the issue is true moderates are tired of both....not going to be liberals by any stretch but have equally little in common with what some are calling true conseratives - alias the whack job right. the problem is today we have no voice in either party as there is virtually no middle ground....you're with us or against us....
Originally Posted By DAR <<If you think Limbaugh and Hannity are going to be the ones to moderate their language and tone down the rhetoric, I believe you are mistaken. They whip it all up because that's what draws a crowd of true believers.>> Exactly that's like going from Coke Classic to New Coke.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They expect total obedience.> I don't think so. But they will speak out when someone votes in a way contrary to what they think is right, and they will label someone a RINO who consistantly votes for more government spending. Yes, sometimes their rhetoric goes a little over the top, but to claim they're to blame with what's wrong with the GOP just doesn't hold water. If you want a center-right government, vote GOP. If you want a center-left, vote Democrat. But don't pretend that you're being "driven" from the party - you're the one making a choice.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***When he blamed the credit crisis on "greedy bankers"*** Why not? They were the main culprits. ***instead of noting that part of the problem was caused by the government*** Of course, this was true too. But since it was the fault of HIS side of the goverment (and we'll have to keep lookin for all those examples of McCain speaking out against deregulation and get em to ya), there wasn't much he could say about it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***what's wrong with the GOP just doesn't hold water*** What's wrong with the GOP, Douglas?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < Yes, sometimes their rhetoric goes a little over the top, but to claim they're to blame with what's wrong with the GOP just doesn't hold water.> They're not the ONLY thing wrong with the GOP; even on this matter, it's a two-way street. The likes of Rush can demand obedience from the likes of Michael Steele, but Steele didn't have to cave like he did. So both sides of that equation are turning moderates off. But we have at least 5 or 6 moderates and former Republicans (maybe even current Republicans, assuming DVC/Chris and wahoo are) who are saying that Rush and co. are a big turn-off, and it's hard or harder to be a Republican when he's effectively its spokesman, and elected officials are toadying up to him and buttering him up with sobriquets like "an important voice in our party" and the like. You seem to like Rush, Hannity, et al, but you have to admit that in our little microcosm, they're alienating moderates big time. I think that's true in the country at large as well.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I've maintained for a long time this board is a microcosm of the rest of the world. Years ago many of us were defending Bush, now we think he was the worst thing to hit this country in generations. When I first got here, conservatives out-numbered so called liberals. However, people have been so turned off by the GOP there's been a 180 degree switch.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Yes, sometimes their rhetoric goes a little over the top, but to claim they're to blame with what's wrong with the GOP just doesn't hold water.<< A little over the top? That's an understatement. They are exactly what's wrong with the GOP, they are indicative of the leftover "you're either with us or against us" mindset that lead to such ruinous policies. That mindset is what got a major backlash in the last election and why really the GOP has basically regions of the south as its only stronghold. But if the GOP leadership doesn't want to believe that, keep on keeping on. Just prepare to see those red parts of the map continue to erode.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They were the main culprits.> I'm not convinced of that. If you set up a system where there is too much reward and too little risk, you're going to have problems with greed. <But since it was the fault of HIS side of the government> If by his side, you mean the GOP, then I strongly disagree, and would direct you to the numerous time Sen McCain and Pres Bush spoke in favor of revised regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And he could have articulated the argument that wrong kind of regulation distorts market forces and causes problems.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << would direct you to the numerous time Sen McCain and Pres Bush spoke in favor of revised regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. >> I would direct you to the lobbyists that were promoting the efforts of Sen. McCain and Pres. Bush because the corporate banks wanted a bigger piece of the mortgage pie and needed Freddie and Fannie out of the way to achieve that goal. Thanks goodness we didn't give more of the mortgage business to the private sector -- since they were the predominate backers of the subprime lending business. Without the toxic loans from the private banks, you wouldn't have seen the run-up in housing prices, the subsequent severe decline in housing prices with the foreclosure problem, and the loans backed by Freddie and Fannie would have been just fine.
