HG:

Conservatives are more than 20% of the population. Liberals are more like 20%.

All conservatives are around 35% (union of social, religous and fiscal conservatives). Those that meet all of these criteria simultaneously are closer to 15-20%, based on polling data.

This ideological purity movement started in 2004 after the election successes then. Given the disasters that were the 2006 and 2008 elections, I would have thought people would figure out that compromise is necessary for power sharing in a democracy when you are, what?, 20% of the population.

Guess not.

Viva la Democrats.

Newt needs to go away

I don’t think Newt gets it at all. There is a huge difference between a local, statewide, and national election and the voters know the difference. I don’t expect that the presidential candidate closest the the conservative mold will agree with my views 100% of the time. Local elections are a different story. In my district, conservatives are the majority. I fully expect that the most conservative candidate will get the nomination and am therefore less flexible as a result. Hell, I voted for McCain, but not in the primaries.

You’ve posed the key question very nicely Rob. If individual conservatives reject both parties’ adoption of bigger government then they have to look at either third candidates or seeking more influence within the Republican party. The latter looks a more promising approach based on the traditional two party structure but if conservatives believe that the American people support their philosophy or that they can persuaded to support it then conservatives should be sticking to their guns…so to speak.

I think you’re right.

Rob, the calls for ideological purity started in 2002. Remember what happened to Trent Lott? His removal from Senate Majority Leader had more to do with political enemies within the Republican Party than from pressure from the liberals. This pressure just intensified in 2004, and continue to get stronger.

But I also didn’t say this was the only factor, if you go back and read what I actually said.

It was the Democrats who were responsible for blurring the lines, not the Republicans. They started courting conservative leaning candidates, and as a result reduced the impact of Republican branding. A rather brilliant political strategy on their part, that continues to drive wedges between Republican ideological groups.

McCain was a very bad candidate, but I think the political atmosphere created by this ideological purity movement also drove out people who might have otherwise run.

Follow Glen Beck and his movement… it’s just a matter of time before you aren’t pure enough either. I have been told that by some since 2004. There are those on this blog from the right who single you out already for criticism in that regard.

I disagree. You conservatives have been attacking a lot of Republicans for not being pure enough, and many of them left office in part due to the pressure from the right. People get tired of fighting the fight.

I disasgree Carrick, I see a lot of Republicans saying that they need to get rid of Conservatives in order to get the “moderate” vote. I fail to see how alienating a large portion of your base is a winning strategy.

I have one question for those that are talking about “ideological purity”. Is the decision to run
Scozzafava working? Is she in the lead? Is she attracting voters that Hoffman would not have attracted. If the answer to these questions is no, then its a stupid tactic.

Hmm, Michigan, New Jersey and New York were in recession long before this recession. Raising taxes, spend lots of money and introducing cap and trade will not help us out of the recession. Keep trying! It may work this time.

To inform you, our Constitution, which conservatives stand for, isn’t “right wing” in any way. It is fascist Obama and the rest of you totalitarian lefties who are the radical right wing loons.
Educate yourself.

It was scandles and the GOP gone in the wrong dirrection. Now we are going to come back stronger and purge the dumbcrats, leftards and communists out of office.

I am sure conservatives appreciate all the ‘advise and encouragement’ from the likes of reality based bob and elinas. We could just get a labotamy so we would realize the heart felt concern for conservatism. That would be like me advising the Dems/Libs to start being honest. You know that would not work and it would destroy progressive movement. But thanks anyway. As far as NY23 and the purge – the people should be able to select there own candidate. 100% idealogically in sync – how about any single issue. She is not a RINO – she is a Lib in Repubican clothing. A turd by any other name, still stinks

Newt is a dying bread of old school country club republcians that have lost their conservative ways. Newt is a man that divorced his wife on her death bed to marry his aid. As a conservative that is disgusting to me. Making nice with Hillary and his global warming stance is not conservative.

Let them fall like threes.

I agree kick out the Rinos…

Bob,

When the Democrats win the only thing that prospers is the tax man and a bunch of unions. Look how well the car industry and the economy are doing. Traditional Democrat states like California, Michigan, New Jersey and New York are dens of corruption and debt. Most are barely functional. If that’s the future of Democratic America may God have mercy on our souls.

Carrick

This ideological purity movement started in 2004 after the election successes then. Given the disasters that were the 2006 and 2008 elections, I would have thought people would figure out that compromise is necessary for power sharing in a democracy when you are, what?, 20% of the population.

Yeah, the Republican’s really did themselves in by picking those right-wing ideologues like John McCain to represent them.

And they governed so conservatively when they had the power to as well.

LOL

This really could be a win/win.
A win for the Democratic Party and a win for America.
If con repubs truly stand by their so called principles and never vote for a RINO again.
But then there is no history of con repubs ever having stuck by so called principles before and there is no reason to believe they will do it now.
But please go for it cons.
Split your gop.
Speak ill of gops.
Roll Ronnie over in his grave and deliver America back to its historical liberal majority.

Finally you are going to do something good for America for a change.

Ideological purity is a pipe dream.

I understand government as intended for the benefit of society, not a burden. Good government is not evil or unnecessary IMO. Good government is a threat to only the evil and a benefit to all the rest. Our current government is only as good as its efforts in this regard. It has grossly overstepped its boundaries.

Sorry, Carrick, but I disagree. I don’t remember there being a lot of calls for ideological purity before the 2006 or 2008 elections.

More before 2008, to be sure, with dissatisfaction with McCain. But to suggest that those had more to do with Republican losses than say Abramoff? DeLay’s corruption? Mark Foley?

You think people being angry at Bush not vetoing any spending bills didn’t have anything to do with it?

That’s not what I saw.

I think the biggest problem with Republicans is that Americans don’t see a lot of difference between the two parties right now. Thus, the solution for Republicans is to draw a distinct line between the parties.

More Republicans like McCain are only going to make conservatives growing increasingly disillusioned.

I certainly don’t consider myself to be a Glenn Beck Disciple, but I’m wondering who it is exactly you’re saying has been driven from the Republican ranks?

Arlen Specter?

Personally, I think we’re better off without him.

As for Trent Lott, what about Lincoln Chaffee? The guy had Joe Lieberman’s voting record, but the RNC dumped tens of millions of dollars into trying to save his race while good conservative candidates went without.

Glenn Beck has jumped in front of the mvoement to return the part back to its conservative roots, but don’t let him define it for you.

and after you purge the republican party you will still have a minority party.

dear GOPs
pragmatism is more and more appealing the more and more you get your ass handed to you. if you think that glenn back and his 10% or gin-grinch and his 12% are either going to lead you from the wilderness… then HA HA. point and laugh. good luck with your ideological purity line. my bad, but I thought the conservatives used to be pluralists, back when vermont had its 150+ year streak of republicans.

now you guys are ideological purists?

HA HA.

so is Hitler, assclowns.

WE ARE A REPUBLIC THE LAST TIME I CHECKED

Thank you, Mike. And yes, I agree with that analysis.

I think it’s better for conservatives to try and take back the Republican party. But as a whole, rather than worrying about establishing some national third party, conservative voters should express an outspoken willingness to turn away from the party and vote for a third party candidate or an independent if they feel like the Republican doesn’t cut it.

love it. the rightwing is now experiencing the colonial psych-out. divide and conquer. heh. do you guys feel like some african population under the heel of the dutch or the french? its always a principled difference, or not. given how much wavering all you do, what with supporting bush so vehemently and all, what is the big difference between these two choices? voting against your former selves after what, a few years? why even endorse a platform is you lack a spine to that serious a friggin’ degree?