Based on the audio podcast and Hot Air post entitled Did the “religious right’s” mistakes make McCain inevitable?, conservatives who don’t like McCain are thinking about divorcing themselves from the Republican party in the near future. Tammy bruce concludes the 10 minute podcast saying:
"Obviously, the Republican party has become the new Liberal Party, the Democrats have become the Socialist Workers Party."
While this is a little bit of extremist rhetoric, even conservatives like me have to admit that McCain is not conservative enough, and that the Dems have been taken over by far left radicals that embarass classical American liberalism. However, any conservative party that takes the hardline anti-immigrant stand is one I won’t join. Bit ICONS is a cool name for a new conservative party. Really.
"Obviously, the Republican party has become the new Liberal Party, the Democrats have become the Socialist Workers Party." ——-
AAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEENNNNNN !!!(excuse me, i just had a conservagasm). above is an example of the mythical, non-existent, extremist only, thought of the slippery slope. although her comment above is not 100% accurate at this point in time, it conveys our(conservative)thinking on how a little giving here, a little there, a little reaching out over here(and getting nothing in return to press forward the con agenda)gets a con nothing, except a loss of representation of core principles in the political landscape and then ultimately our culture.
"While this is a little bit of extremist rhetoric, even conservatives like me have to admit that McCain is not conservative enough, and that the Dems have been taken over by far left radicals that embarass classical American liberalism. However, any conservative party that takes the hardline anti-immigrant stand is one I won't join. Bit ICONS is a cool name for a new conservative party. Really."
——-
far left radicals = neo-fascists, and they ain't shy in demonstrating Brown Shirt tactics(not to mention flying some interesting flags lately). they do far more than embarass … they are dangerous.
you mis-state something here seeker(at least i think you differentiate), cons are not anti-immigrant. they are anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant(caps for emphasis only). one hell of a big difference. BTW: what is a "hardline" approach?
Excellent! Fracture the Republican party, thus ensuring a Dem win. Marginalize yourselves on the extreme right so normal people don't have to worry about you imposing your nutty ideas on the rest of us. ICONS of lunacy, unite! You have nothing to lose but your power!
You mean fracture them like Nader did on the left? It could happen. Neocons are faithful to their ideas, not just to the party. If the party goes left, they will certainly die. Maybe it's time for a three party system – the Anti-religion socialist workers party (dems), the moderate republicans, and the ICONS. Sounds cool to me.
As usual, you simply matters to a ridiculous degree. I agree that there is a part of the left which is anti-religion, but that doesn't mean that all leftists, or even liberals, are anti-religion. One can be anti-fundamentalist religion without being totally against religion; one can be against certain types of religious expression and for others, and be liberal, as well. Why do you insist on condemning all expression of liberal thought to the point of caricaturing it? This, it seems to me, is one of the most infuriating practices of the right-wing: everything slightly left of their stance is evil. You keep yammering about "mature" religion. Why don't you try to grow up a little and include a little fairness in your analysis?
btw: I like the new format.
. I agree that there is a part of the left which is anti-religion, but that doesn't mean that all leftists, or even liberals, are anti-religion. One can be anti-fundamentalist religion without being totally against religion; one can be against certain types of religious expression and for others, and be liberal, as well. Why do you insist on condemning all expression of liberal thought to the point of caricaturing it?
I agree with you, that is probably not a good tactic, and I agree with you about the left not being anti-religious entirely. It's just easier (read 'lazier') to bunch all of the things you don't like about your opponents into one label, rather than having to use a long hyphenated descriptor for the various combinations – that is, unless some of those 'subgroups' have labels.