Not Your Father's Republican Party

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am stuck in the third circle of weather-related airline hell at O'Hare, which looks like a refugee camp this afternoon. As a result, I had to experience this morning's GOP debate vicariously through Ana's liveblog, but did come across this over at the Daily Dish. Bruce there discovers a very interesting survey (.pdf)* by GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio that puts numbers to what has been happening within the Republican Party over the past decade. Among the interesting shifts that Bruce notes:

- The party is more conservative; that is more Republicans identify themselves as conservatives. And the increase is dramatic. In 1997, 55 percent of Republicans called themselves conservative; today 71 percent describe themselves that way. Those calling themselves liberal have fallen from 11 percent to 4 percent, and self-described moderates have fallen from 31 percent to 21 percent.

- In 1997, about half of Republicans said their main concerns were social/cultural and half were mainly concerned with economics, about half being "supply siders" and half being "deficit hawks." Today, only 16 percent of Republicans are primarily concerned with economic issues. About half are still mainly concerned with social/cultural issues, but now more than a quarter of Republicans are primarily concerned with defense and foreign policy. Of this group, the bulk are strong hawks that support the war in Iraq without reservation.

What's interesting with regard to 2008 is that Fabrizio divides today's party into seven segments that he calls Bush Hawks, Dennis Miller Republicans, Government Knows Best Republicans, Moralists (at 24%, the largest group), Free Marketeers, Heartland Republicans and Fortress America. He shows Giuliani leading among all these groups, but with a far larger share among Heartland Republicans and Free Marketeers (38%) than among Dennis Miller Republicans (25%) and Moralists (21%). What's more, Giuliani's lead is far from secure. Giving us even more evidence of the fluidity of the race, Fabrizio finds that three quarters of Republicans say they haven't settled on their choice of candidate, and could still change their minds.

All of which suggests I'm not the only one dealing with bumpy weather these days.

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/08/not...ublican_pa.html

[Jasman0717 9]

[Dr_LHA 3]

Hard to believe how Guiliani can lead the "moralist" vote.

[peejay 327]

It's not your father's (depending on your age) Democratic Party either. Teddy Kennedy? Howard Dean? Harry Reid? They're not good enough or worthy enough to shine JFK, FDR, or Harry Truman's shoes. Until this is no longer the face of the Democratic Party...screw 'em!

I'm no fan of GWB either and a lot of Republicans aren't fans of GWB either. He was a mistake that never should of happened. He alone has given all Republicans a bad reputation that isn't 100% deserved. The sooner he is in the rear view mirror...the better. I always thought the Repubs could have done better in 2000 and the only reason he got a 2nd term is because the best the Dems could do was John Kerry. It was the perfect storm. 'Nuff said.

The Dems had Jimmy Carter and now the Repubs have Bush. Perfect examples to not vote for either party. Unfortunately at the present time we only have 2 viable choices to choose from. Neither are perfect. To vote or not to vote...that is the question!

[GeordieWife 1]

Vote the lesser of two evils in your opinion but vote! IMO there are more conservatives collectively in this nation because 'liberal' has become a dirty word, thanks to people like Ann Coulter, and is often synonymous with democrat (which I believe to be a poor assumption and generalization because many democrats are pretty conservative and vice versa). Let's suffice it to say that today's POLITITIAN is not your father's POLITITIAN...or at least there may have been enough time since our father's polititian's snafus that the younger generations have perspective to either forgive or just don't care about that far in the past.

IMO GWB was elected because of disenchantment with his predecessor's scandals and not his platforms or persona. America needed a face we could trust..and though lack lustre...we could somewhat trust his father. So....we could trust him right? Anyway....I hate discussing politics so I'll shut up now.

Edited August 7, 2007 by GeordieLover

[Heracles 417]

It's not your father's (depending on your age) Democratic Party either. Teddy Kennedy? Howard Dean? Harry Reid? They're not good enough or worthy enough to shine JFK, FDR, or Harry Truman's shoes. Until this is no longer the face of the Democratic Party...screw 'em!

I'm no fan of GWB either and a lot of Republicans aren't fans of GWB either. He was a mistake that never should of happened. He alone has given all Republicans a bad reputation that isn't 100% deserved. The sooner he is in the rear view mirror...the better. I always thought the Repubs could have done better in 2000 and the only reason he got a 2nd term is because the best the Dems could do was John Kerry. It was the perfect storm. 'Nuff said.

The Dems had Jimmy Carter and now the Repubs have Bush. Perfect examples to not vote for either party. Unfortunately at the present time we only have 2 viable choices to choose from. Neither are perfect. To vote or not to vote...that is the question!

Interesting point you make. The Democrat party of the JFK era, and prior, seems nothing like your modern bandwagon based marriage rights for gay poodles party.

When it comes to the leaders of the current political parties an old saying comes to mind 'Same ###### different smell'. On one hand you have bridges falling down. Yet on the other you have someone saying "how can this happen in America". I'll tell you exactly how this happened. 40 years of neglect focusing on BS issues rather than this nation.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Vote the lesser of two evils in your opinion but vote! IMO there are more conservatives collectively in this nation because 'liberal' has become a dirty word, thanks to people like Ann Coulter, and is often synonymous with democrat (which I believe to be a poor assumption and generalization because many democrats are pretty conservative and vice versa). Let's suffice it to say that today's POLITITIAN is not your father's POLITITIAN...or at least there may have been enough time since our father's polititian's snafus that the younger generations have perspective to either forgive or just don't care about that far in the past.

IMO GWB was elected because of disenchantment with his predecessor's scandals and not his platforms or persona. America needed a face we could trust..and though lack lustre...we could somewhat trust his father. So....we could trust him right? Anyway....I hate discussing politics so I'll shut up now.

Well said. The pendulum swings both ways.

[Jenn! 918]

The Democrat party of the JFK era, and prior, seems nothing like your modern bandwagon based marriage rights for gay poodles party.

Wow, you really hate poodles, huh?

[Dan J 277]

Vote the lesser of two evils in your opinion but vote! IMO there are more conservatives collectively in this nation because 'liberal' has become a dirty word, thanks to people like Ann Coulter, and is often synonymous with democrat (which I believe to be a poor assumption and generalization because many democrats are pretty conservative and vice versa). Let's suffice it to say that today's POLITITIAN is not your father's POLITITIAN...or at least there may have been enough time since our father's polititian's snafus that the younger generations have perspective to either forgive or just don't care about that far in the past.

IMO GWB was elected because of disenchantment with his predecessor's scandals and not his platforms or persona. America needed a face we could trust..and though lack lustre...we could somewhat trust his father. So....we could trust him right? Anyway....I hate discussing politics so I'll shut up now.

Well said. The pendulum swings both ways.

liberal by definition is someone who favors change. By that definition, even many conservatives are liberal. Just their ideas of change are not particularly progressive.

[Heracles 417]

The Democrat party of the JFK era, and prior, seems nothing like your modern bandwagon based marriage rights for gay poodles party.

Wow, you really hate poodles, huh?

Another great post from the fantastic 4. Alex has been missing for a while..

liberal by definition is someone who favors change. By that definition, even many conservatives are liberal. Just their ideas of change are not particularly progressive.

When I think of an American liberal I think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Vote the lesser of two evils in your opinion but vote! IMO there are more conservatives collectively in this nation because 'liberal' has become a dirty word, thanks to people like Ann Coulter, and is often synonymous with democrat (which I believe to be a poor assumption and generalization because many democrats are pretty conservative and vice versa). Let's suffice it to say that today's POLITITIAN is not your father's POLITITIAN...or at least there may have been enough time since our father's polititian's snafus that the younger generations have perspective to either forgive or just don't care about that far in the past.

IMO GWB was elected because of disenchantment with his predecessor's scandals and not his platforms or persona. America needed a face we could trust..and though lack lustre...we could somewhat trust his father. So....we could trust him right? Anyway....I hate discussing politics so I'll shut up now.

Well said. The pendulum swings both ways.

liberal by definition is someone who favors change. By that definition, even many conservatives are liberal. Just their ideas of change are not particularly progressive.

Shhh, Dan! You're going to make Boo-yah's head explode.

[Jenn! 918]

The Democrat party of the JFK era, and prior, seems nothing like your modern bandwagon based marriage rights for gay poodles party.

Wow, you really hate poodles, huh?

Another great post from the fantastic 4. Alex has been missing for a while..

[GeordieWife 1]

off topic here a bit, but MisterFancypants said he was at the refugee camp O'Hare, an article in yahoo just now...O'Hare the WORST airport for ontime flights

[one...two...tree 2,762]

off topic here a bit, but MisterFancypants said he was at the refugee camp O'Hare, an article in yahoo just now...O'Hare the WORST airport for ontime flights

Sorry for the misrepresentation...that was a copy and paste from a blog site. I'm safe and sound in LA/OC area of Southern Cali.

...and you can call me Steven. We're past formalities.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GeordieWife 1]

off topic here a bit, but MisterFancypants said he was at the refugee camp O'Hare, an article in yahoo just now...O'Hare the WORST airport for ontime flights

Sorry for the misrepresentation...that was a copy and paste from a blog site. I'm safe and sound in LA/OC area of Southern Cali.

...and you can call me Steven. We're past formalities.

perhaps i misread, Steven...being mesmorized by your avatar and all....O'Hare..still the worst and I"m not talking politics still! lol