Nov 04 2009

GOP Way Forward

Published by at 12:07 pm under 2010 Elections,All General Discussions

NY-23 illustrated an interesting decision path for the GOP. There are two paths available, and the decision on which path to take is up to the far right ‘true’ conservatives who spout such bonding terms as RINO.

If the far right can respectfully align with the centrists, the first path forward was illustrated in VA and NJ. A coalition of a center to far right can easily win big as centrists and ‘true’ conservatives come together to oppose the liberal democrats.

But if the far right is still stuck on purity and want to start a 3rd party then we have the second path. There are plenty of left of center democrats and independents who are fed up with the hyper partisan fringe wars. One party will disintegrate into two camps – the fringe and the centrists. Whichever party does break up will be perfectly positioned to beat both fringes.

Liberals are the smallest political group in America. If they take over the Democrat Party they will drop down to 20% of the vote in most areas. If the far right goes 3rd party they will drop down to 20% of the vote in most areas. That leaves 60% of the voters in the center for a center right GOP to sweep elections. Again, you can see this in the voting trends where centrists went to the GOP who ran as moderates and not fire breathing conservatives (and yes, I still count myself as a conservative).

It is all up to the Hannity wing of the conservative movement. They either work within a broad coalition and participate in leading this nation or they become pure and marginal. It is their call, the voters have made it clear which way they prefer to go.

Update: Michael Barone breaks down the advantage of a broad centrist to far right coalition in reviewing the numbers. McDonnell and the other candidates in VA ran as small government conservatives, shunning the social conservative image. And it worked with beyond expectations with historic landslides and a broad political realignment. I know which path I prefer, but as a centrist conservative I must admit either path is a path out of the current mess. I suspect a lot of the Tea Partiers are with me in that they want to throw the hyper partisans out.

Update: Another good analysis of why it is the centrists that control the destiny of any party and this country. Anyone still trying to purge the centrists from their party should be put on a political suicide watch.

53 responses so far

53 Responses to “GOP Way Forward”

  1. stevevvs says:

    DeDe was not only still on the ballet, she was on the ballet TWICE!

    Rush just mentioned…

  2. stevevvs says:

    You can see the Moderate Republican Results in N.C. here:

    You can here the WBT morning podcast of GOP results in N.C. here:

    Got to cook for work, see you in a while…

  3. stevevvs says:

    NewEnglandDevil: thoughts?

    not bad.

  4. stevevvs says:

    aj: To be so repulsed you vote in a Democrat?

    My friends and family voted either Mccain, Barr, or Baldwin.

  5. stevevvs says:

    aj: To be so repulsed you vote in a Democrat?

    Buckley, Brooks, Powell, et all. The “Moderate” Republicans, voted Obama.

    Imagine that, McCain was not their choice….

    What’s that moderate theory again??

    Take care folks. I enjoy talking with you. See you in the future. Think I’ll stay away for a while.

  6. Frogg1 says:

    Conservatives aren’t trying to purge moderates. They are trying to purge the progressive liberals. Hoffman won as big a percentage of the Independent vote as Christie did according to the last poll I saw.

  7. AJStrata says:


    That is too funny. have you ever heard of the term RINO? think that is a sign of affection?

  8. MarkN says:

    Everyone missed the biggest poll to be released yesterday. It was done by Rasmussen. 49% blame Bush for the economy and 45% blame Obama. Those numbers should flip when the calendar flips to 2010.

    The Obama economy has started and will be in full swing come January 2010. I hope for Obama that the 3.5% GDP growth continues. A double dip recession in the 1st half of 2010 would take any predictions of the November mid-terms off the table.

  9. MarkN says:

    I don’t like the term RINO. If a person cannot stay loyal to true conservatives on core issues (jobs, economy, free markets, less government spending, global warming, taxes, etc.), then they are not RINOs, they are DIABLOs. If they can stay loyal on big issues than they are center-right Republicans. The Republican Party is falling because it cannot define its core issues. I have a few issues that will be important next year: jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Did I mention private sector jobs?

    BTW, did u see that great throng that attended Boxer’s Cap and Tax hearing. Is that a cricket I hear?

  10. Frogg1 says:

    Bob McDonnell, Conservative Pragmatist–
    This Virginia Republican offers a conservatism that can win again.

  11. Frogg1 says:

    Got to change the topic….this is huge:

    Brave Iranians Hold MASSIVE PROTEST Against Regime – Chant “Obama, Obama Are You With Regime Or With Us?” (Video)

  12. lurker9876 says:

    I really don’t understand what far right conservatives mean and I don’t know what you mean by purity.

    I think when you mean centrists and moderates, you mean conservatives.

    The Democrats have done a good job giving a bad connotation to the word, “conservativism”.

    And I think the fact that a third party cabdidate that entered the race six weeks before and came so close in a second place. This hasn’t happened in a long time, if not first time.

  13. Terrye says:

    One thing about that election in NY23, I bet the locals are more careful about whom they nominate in the future. I also think that this was a rural district and my guess is they resented some of the national spot light. I read that Hoffman was not from the district. I liked Hoffman, he seemed like a perfectly nice man, but people in a place like may not be inclined to outsiders picking their people. If there had been a Republican primary and if Hoffman had won it, I think he would have won the general election easily.

    As a general rule I do not support third parties, I think they are self deafeating. Beck might like them, but I am not sure Beck really cares who wins or loses. His main concern is ratings.

  14. Terrye says:


    Oh yes, a lot of those conservatives are trying to purge the moderates. It is not just liberals they are after.

  15. BarbaraS says:

    I have been wondering for some time what AJ means by far right. I have always considered myself right of center.

    1. Abortion. Abortion should not be a federal issue but a state issue. The Constitution did not specifically say the feds could rule on this matter. In fact, it laid out what the feds could rule on and the states rule the rest or the people and our leaders have ignored this. I’ll go even further and say that this should be between a woman and her doctor and their consciences. The government on any level should stay out of it including and above all paying for it. Abortion should not even come into the equation. It is moot. Although wrongly ruled by the courts instead of legislature , Roe vs Wade will never be repealed.

    2. Immigration. The laws on the books should be enforced. Employers should be fined hugely for hiring illegals irregardless of lawsuits trying to stop this procedure. I feel for the people who have been here decades but where is the cut off? But enough is enough. With immigrants hanging our flag upside down at their rallies, waving Mexican flags, and demanding some our states be returned to Mexico, I really have no sympathy for them. Catch and release is a ridiculous idea. Take them back to the border and release them on the other side and let them go through the proper procedure of getting in again. We need a fence that will stop them from coming especially the ones we have priviously deported for crimes committed. Also, if immigrants cannot learn our language and assimilate with our culture, go home.

    3. Judges. I want constitutional judges who adhere to the Constitution and never mind social issues. I do not want activist judges who make law. That is not their jurisdiction.

    4. Small government. The Constitution limits the feds power but has been largely ignored. One of the ways the feds have expanded their power is through the commerce clause. This is just another way to get around the Constitution and take over states rights. It seems everything done by multi states falls under the commerce clause even the Endangered Species Act. I fail to see how this Act involves commerce.

    5. National defense. I support the military first of all. I also support our being armed to the teeth to defend ourselves. Only a fool would talk of disarming in this world of power hungry dictators. Only fools share our nuclear and other technology with anyone else. You never know who will be the enemy in the future.

    6. Religion should never be an issue in politics. However, I don’t want someone who has divided loyalties to be president. I would not want anyone to be president whose religion dictates how he/she will rule or for them to rule by the tenets of their religion. I don’t want anyone who is or has been ever a dual citizen to be president.

    7. Finally, I do not want a representative in congress who will vote to take away any freedoms I have or dictate to me how I live my life. I highly resent the toilet flushing, light bulbs and analog vs digital tv laws and I especially resent the global warming schlek. Also them overseeing garage sales. I also resent the way congress will go to extremes to correct a social problem that affects a minority, often times a minority of one.

  16. BarbaraS says:

    49% percent people can blame Bush for the bad economy all they want. How soon we forget. It just shows how out of touch they are to reality. After the recession he inherited in 2001 and 9/11 he brought us to an outstanding economy. Dow was 14,000. But then, he actually did something about the economy and not just give billions to his friends and supporters.

  17. NewEnglandDevil says:

    BarbaraS:I would not want anyone to be president whose religion dictates how he/she will rule or for them to rule by the tenets of their religion.

    Be careful what you wish for. Religion provides the ethics and moral principles that guide men along the right path.

  18. gary1son says:

    Religion sometimes does need to be an issue in politics. Obama’s religious guidance — Black Liberation Theology. (Marxism)

    Too bad the media was too squeamish to honesty explore what that portended for the country.

    Religion is fine. But contrary to popular PC myth, they’re not all deserving of equal reverence.

  19. lurker9876 says:

    I can add more to Barbara’s list, such as fiscally conservative principles and so on.

    Religion: the original intent versus the last 100 years’ intent on separation of church and state is probably one of the most misunderstaindings we have today.

    The growing secularism and its efforts should be a significant issue to all Americans, especially when Obama tells the world that our nation was not founded as a Christian nation.

    Anytime I mention the Founding Fathers with anyone that came out of our public schools, they are so indoctrinated into believing the revision history of the American Founding.

    I agree that religion is fine.

    I was asked if I would have a problem voting for a Muslim as our US President.

    Guess what my answer is:

    If the Muslim believes in our US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, is a strong US citizens with minimal foreign influence, believes that all men created equal and are granted inherent and inalienable rights, among which include life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, endowed by our Creator.

    If Keith Ellison was running for US President, Hell no!

    This guy does not believe in our US Constitution at all. He swore using Thomas Jefferson’s book of Koran.

    This country was not founded based on the book of Koran.

  20. Joe says:

    The activist courts have created the issue for both policital parties. They gave us Roe vs Wade and the Democrats went for full support of the right to kill babies and the Republican went for pro life. The courts thrust gay marriage on us and the Democrats think that is great and the Republicans want laws set up to block this. The issue has been thrust onto the American people by courts who refuse to follow the constitution and believe they can legislate from the bench and the Democrats support this and the Republican do not. How you solve that issue is why the parties are now forced into issues beyond those of bigger government, higher taxes, and the normal issues that would allow the left or the right from really uniting with the middle. You can build a big tent without the social issues. However, you cannot solve critical issues that involve social issues thrust on the people by activist courts. Many in the middle are uncomfortalbe with government legislators getting involved in social issues, but seem to not understand that the courts are the issue. Many fail to see how far out the courts have gone and how they create laws out of thin air. In all of history, I am not sure I see how the courts doing this have created a better end result. In civil rights, if you remove the civil rights act under LBJ which was supported strongly by the republican party, the rulings of the court to force integration in schools as an example was blowing the country apart. Yes it is wrong to have social ills, but the right way to fix things is with a populace that grows to understand and agree and to push legislation to resolve or to have leaders who can drive public and congressional agreement. I propose that when the court has force any issue, it is created problems because our country was formed to solve these issues only when they have strong backing or if rights clearly in the constitution are violated. We also have a constitution that severly limited the role of the federal government and this has also been butchered. This means that issues that are in many ways driven by the belief in a local area can be resolved in those states. If you are a minority, and feel you cannot agree or live there, you can move to one of the other states that agrees more with your beliefs. When the federal comes down, it forces areas of the country with many different beliefs to come under one law.

    That is what makes this arguement for the conservatives who believe we are living in a holocaust of 50 million dead infants to comprimise and support a pro baby killer. That vote can have consequences where that senator for example may vote to put a judge on that continues this holocaust. Does it matter if they agree with you on spending or size of government? Would it have mattered in germany if a person was pro killing jews but right on the issues of federal spending? When on party pushes abortion in healthcare reform, and the middle goes along with it, can one simply support those political folks who do not have an issue with baby killing? Until 1973 Roe, this would not have been an issue and they got that law from out of the air.