I am a proud Republican who truly belives that we have the best ideas for our country. BUT we do a very poor job of communicating these ideas in ways most people can relate to. McCain sounded like the belt way guy he is. Obama sounded like up the street. I know, his ideas are wrong. But face the fact he resonated with people. What we have to figure out is why.

I stand ready to go door-to-door to get out our party’s message. Who will join me?

One final thought: I have heard many party pundits talk about getting back to the “basics”. I agree, but the basics I want to get back to are the fundemental ideas that founded our country. I read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence last night in their orginal forms with all of the additions and deletions. Very instructive. Also read some of the writings from the founding fathers. This passage from Thomas Jefferson, in a Note on the State of Virginia, struck me as relevant to our current siuation:

“The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.” — 1784

But probaly the best passage is this one:

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” Thomas Jefferson, 1784

For the record, I am in no way calling Obama a tyrant. He is my president. I will rise above all the left wing idiots and wish him well. I will not cheerlead for his failure. I will NEVER denigrate my country like that.

I didn’t mention religionin my comment, but I don’t think it is an unfair term that you’re using. If I were to describe the “religious” purity center of the Republican Party though, I’d use ther term more metaphorically (although there is obvious overlap between Theology and the Republican Base).

IMHO, the “religion” of the zealot base is the religion of the One True Faith, Republicanism — Christian faith is merely the trappings. The “purge” has nothing to do with where you go to church on Sunday, but where you worship when you turn on the evening news. Do you demonstrate your damnation by watching godless, (perhaps more appropriately “Reganless”) MSNBC, or Fox? As Rick mentioned in his “quit calling me a RINO” post, the inner core seem to have their political Bible, and like all ideas based on faith as opposed to reason either you accept them utterly and completely . . . or you are a heretic.

As Frank mentioned in #33, he’s not a Dem but he and his compatriots are being ostricized because their political faith is not pure enough to satisfy the fanatical.

That was the “soul” I was referring to, ideological rather than theological purity.

IMHO, it seems self-evident in (with repect) comments like #32. Conservatives theoretically subscribe to the “traditional” ideals in regards to politics. What is more Founding Fathers traditional than the concept of governing by consensus, seeking to find the common ground among disperate beliefs to (presumably) serve whole of the citizenry? #32 seems to be saying that they would rather weaken the influence of the Party by purging the political heretics (notice not “political heretics” as in Anarchists or Socialists, but heretical in the sense that their demonsterable conservative ideals “isn’t conservative enough”) rather than grow the Party by working with others who believe (just not totally) similarly. If the entire point of politics and political parties is to govern, what is the point of shrinking the Party in a system that requires (at least nominally) some form of “majority” acceptance before you get Power? From #32, it seems like it would be better for Republicans to shrink their party rather than be associated with the unwashed political heathens. Better to be pure than effective. To me, that’s religion.

The problem noted in 45 concerning 33 dreading the “prophecy” of 32 is kind of a major FAIL, in that 32 did not mention religion, the religious right, God, etc, and 33 did. So whatever purge is proposed, it is not automatic to assume that the religious folks would be doing the purging. In fact, many of them are concered about being purged, too. That stuff cuts both ways. They won’t be going to the Democrats, but the Constitution Party would welcome them–at least looking at the platform of that Party. The idea that non-Christian Republicans would go to the Democratic Party is also a problem, because most of them are small government, fiscally responsible types, and whatever one can call the Democratic Party, small government and fiscally responsible they’re not. They would be closer to the Libertarians.

Somewhere along the way, there’s a great deal of anti-Christian sentiment. Sometimes more evidenced than anti-Islam sentiment, and I have to say that I don’t understand that. It seems to be OK to hate Christians, but not Muslims. It seems to be OK to accomodate Muslim prayers in settings where Christian prayer is frowned upon. Don’t get that either.

As contradictory as it may seem, I fall in both of the two categories juxtaposed in 33. That would be a somewhat religious libertarian (note the lower case). I really don’t want some sort of purge, because I would have to saw myself in half and half of me would have to leave. Or I could stick around and continue to have one half or the other mad, sometimes BOTH.

I do think that the Republican Party Washington elite has gravitated back to the “country club” establishment role. Although it appears that many of its members do not fit in that demographic.

Frank the Tank #33 said:
” In fact, the evangelical wing of the party seems to relish in pushing my type away. That’s fine if you want a lock-step platform that is never challenged. That’s also fine if you never want to win another national election again.”

That sums it up for me — the Alpha and Omega of the argument (purity through pogroms or selling your soul for fun and profit), and they were even sequential comments.

I may not agree with most of the text on this page . . . but I love this site.

I find it amusing that the debate on the direction of the Republican party seems to on one hand complain about social conservatism ‘taking over’, while at the same time other strains…libertarianism for example…wish it excluded. Perhaps one of the reasons Republicans have difficulty maintaining power in government is that the tent is TOO big; it would be difficult to argue that Democrats are more diverse; they are more willing to march in lockstep for the purpose of winning elections.

Put simply; there are overarching issues that Republicans of most stripes agree upon, which have been listed above. Reagan knew that. Gingrich knew that. Is it impossible for the party to rally round them when Novembers roll around? It seems so, doesn’t it.