Jeb Bush?

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

But is Jeb’s race over before it begins? He would be running, after all, to lead a party he seems to disdain, a party that has become so fragmented and pulled to the right that it would rather lose the election than be led by someone as moderate as Jeb Bush. Even W. is considered a liberal in today’s fire-breathing G.O.P.

“I do think we’ve lost our way,” Jeb said in an interview on stage with a Fox News reporter, urging Republicans to move out of Crazy Town: “We need to elect candidates that have a vision that is bigger and broader, and candidates that are organized around winning the election, not making a point.” [...]

Jeb thinks Republicans have lost their way. He may soon learn that a lot of conservatives think they have found their way — and it’s not the joyful, loving, government-can-be-a-force-for-good way. It’s the mean, cruel, gut-the-government way.

-- Maureen Dowd at The New York Times

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How are they not conservative? They ran on reifying the status quo, and delivered that in spades.

It's an ideological right wing point of view that they lacked. They were right of center, but not by much.

Bob Dole supported an individual insurance mandate and Reagan ran huge deficits. Both showed they were capable of bipartisanship. Obviously they aren't 'conservative'.

I don't think you understand what conservatism is.

Why would Republicans pick someone who won't act in their interests, nevermind that they have no intention of voting for them in the general.

Because, fortunately or unfortunately, everyone gets a say in the matter.

You seem to agree that large swaths of your political compatriots are morons who don't know what they're doing... which is strange for a free marketer.

Okay?

First, Romney faced 2 'conservative' challengers and a lunatic. You're still left needing to explain why ANY Republican would vote for Romney in the primary.

Because too many Republicans believe that they need to race to the center to win.

Wait, did you mean all of those oafish conservative voters who can be counted on to prefer the establishment candidate over and over again, but not counted on to vote in the general?

You don't understand the ideology or the electorate.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

It's an ideological right wing point of view that they lacked. They were right of center, but not by much.

And that's different from ideological inconsistencies that Reagan and Dole exhibited how?

I don't think you understand what conservatism is.


You've yet to exhibit an understanding yourself. Go ahead, give an internally consistent definition of 'conservatism' that exists in the real world. At the very least, you could explain how the ideological inconsistencies of one pair Republicans are different than the ideological inconsistencies of another, rather than resorting to ad hominems.
Because, fortunately or unfortunately, everyone gets a say in the matter.


Which should mean that conservatives, who make up the majority of the Republican party, are speaking and failing at making an argument for their case. No wonder you identify as one!

Because too many Republicans believe that they need to race to the center to win.

So they don't understand what is in their best interest despite being educated on the results of their choices for decades...
Otherwise, they would choose the conservative. They are apparent idiots.
You don't understand the ideology or the electorate.

Says the dude who has yet to ever convince anyone that his ideology has any value whatsoever.
I understand conservatism quite a bit more than you do apparently. Ad hominems don't help your case either.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And that's different from ideological inconsistencies that Reagan and Dole exhibited how?

It's about a complete look at the ideological positions.

Which should mean that conservatives, who make up the majority of the Republican party, are speaking and failing at making an argument for their case.

Or, conversely, if there are 60 conservatives, 40 moderates, and 5 candidates with 1 moderate, the moderate will probably win.

So they don't understand what is in their best interest despite being educated on the results of their choices for decades...

Correct. This has been a persistent problem.

I understand conservatism quite a bit more than you do apparently. Ad hominems don't help your case either.

There's no helping the case when you've got a point of view on conservatism that doesn't even begin to come close to what conservatives believe. I don't even know where to start.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

When it comes to arguing over what is a conservative, aren't you really a little compromised yourself, in that you are more driven by libertarian ideals than, say, the classic conservativism of an Edmund Burke? Have you not said that you are all for increasing 'freedom' at the expense of precedents of law? Today, I suppose you are a party with those we commonly call conservative today - such as Limbaugh and Fox News people - but this is really a turn away from what we have always known conservatism to be. Aren't you really more of a radical libertarian?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Sure. I'm not talking about "I am the model of a conservative," however, but rather "there are certain things that make people conservatives ideologically."

This is opposed to the point of view from someone who still thinks the word "conserve" is relevant to conservatism in 2014.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Sure. I'm not talking about "I am the model of a conservative," however, but rather "there are certain things that make people conservatives ideologically."

No. You aren't talking about anything. You've yet to identify any one particular certain thing.

This is opposed to the point of view from someone who still thinks the word "conserve" is relevant to conservatism in 2014.

Learning basic reading comprehension and logic would help your case. Pro-tip: Me saying that the fundamental basis for conservatism is primarily aimed at the maintenance of established social orders (commonly known as the 'status quo') is not at all equivalent to saying that conservatism is premised on the 'conserving' of things.
Failing like it is your job.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

It's about a complete look at the ideological positions.

Orly?
That doesn't answer much of anything.
Or, conversely, if there are 60 conservatives, 40 moderates, and 5 candidates with 1 moderate, the moderate will probably win.


Yeah no. Not by your logic. If the primary reason were a lack of authenticity, the most authentic conservative would win. Assuming your voting bloc are capable of rational thought.

Correct. This has been a persistent problem.

A persistent problem that you have no answer for... which explains why you say what you say next.

There's no helping the case when you've got a point of view on conservatism that doesn't even begin to come close to what conservatives believe. I don't even know where to start.

Right. You apparently don't know where to start because you have no clear ideological basis for defining what is and is not conservatism. Hence why you won't answer a simple question like what 'conservatism' is.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yeah no. Not by your logic. If the primary reason were a lack of authenticity, the most authentic conservative would win. Assuming your voting bloc are capable of rational thought.

I agree, assuming there is agreement about who is "authentic." When arguments can be made for different people, and the more moderate bloc stays with the one moderate, what happens? This is basic.

A persistent problem that you have no answer for

The answer has to do with how to deal with the establishment Republicans. It's not really an issue of ideology as much as an issue with the people in power having no clue.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

I agree, assuming there is agreement about who is "authentic." When arguments can be made for different people, and the more moderate bloc stays with the one moderate, what happens? This is basic.

It is pretty basic. You often harp that the largest bloc of political affiliation in the US identifies as conservative,
If bloc a. has no clear ideological consistency, it isn't at all clear why you would call it a bloc, and b. if it does have ideological consistency, it apparently is incapable of garnering anything more than some plurality of the plurality. In EITHER case, it clearly can't come close to winning you a national election.
When you actually break down the numbers of nation wide, 47% of the population consistently leans Democratic(Romney was right in that those people will likely never vote for him, just for the completely wrong reasons), and 41% consistently lean Republican, 10% are variables that are negatively to ideology in general and particularly strong social positions.
http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608 (http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608)
And kudos for not even attempting to come up with some kind of definition of 'conservatism', despite being prompted!


The answer has to do with how to deal with the establishment Republicans. It's not really an issue of ideology as much as an issue with the people in power having no clue.

Lolz, jeff you are so preciously naive that this statement is just too much, I'm done here, but please do keep up this 'principled' bullshit.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If bloc a. has no clear ideological consistency

...which is your assertion that you're claiming with no information or apparent knowledge...

if it does have ideological consistency, it apparently is incapable of garnering anything more than some plurality of the plurality.

...which is true to a point where you're assuming people always vote intelligently, that campaign strategy and tactics are nonexistent, and that there are no other considerations.

Seriously?

When you actually break down the numbers of nation wide, 47% of the population consistently leans Democratic(Romney was right in that those people will likely never vote for him, just for the completely wrong reasons), and 41% consistently lean Republican, 10% are variables that are negatively to ideology in general and particularly strong social positions.

As a national point (which is of varying use given the lack of national elections), this is true and also a problem the Republicans are equipped to solve if they pursue it. That we can have 47% of the electorate voting one way when nearly that many consider themselves conservative is certainly evidence of a Republican problem. Sort of like the Republican problem of get out the vote efforts and nominating electable conservatives.